Why does Wikileaks keep saying

[pnwmom]

not a single life has been lost due to Assange's leaks?

Do they think that, if a life HAD been lost -- in Iraq or North Korea, for example -- we would announce the death and confirm the person's link to us and risk endangering everyone else in his or her network?

It's impossible to prove a negative, and it's impossible to prove that NO lives have been lost due to Wikileaks. Wikileaks wants you to believe a lie . . . oh wait -- how could that be? Wikileaks? Lying?

:sarcasm:

[PBS Poll-435]

1. They don't know. nt

[FreakinDJ]

2. I read that post over at Freeperville too

thanks for cross posting

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. You might have read the only true thing ever posted at freeperville then.

Like that place do ya?

[pnwmom]

7. I never go there, so I wouldn't know. n/t

[EFerrari]

4. The Pentagon has already confirmed this. Is the Pentaon lying, too?

Damn that Gates!

[PBS Poll-435]

6. I guess place your trust where you want to. nt

[pnwmom]

41. I'd trust Obama over Assange any day. n/t

[WillyT]

47. Yes... One Can FEEL The Worship

Obama works for us, literally. We hire him, we pay him, and we can fire him.

Assange works for us, figuratively. We get to find out what is being done in our name, without our knowledge, let alone permission, and we really don't have much a of say in the matter... legally.

:shrug:

[frylock]

51. !

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

49. Not me. We have Obama's wars, hist tax cuts for rich, his Guantonimo, his bank bailouts

health insurance plan, instead of single payer like other developed countries.

Obama now owns Bush's policies.

Yes, we now have a repeal of DADT, but that didn't cost the big banks or corporations
or war profiteers a dime.

I am sickened by how O has followed so closely in Bush's footsteps.

[pnwmom]

10. I have no problem with them lying in order to protect lives

of Americans or our allies in countries like North Korea or Iraq.

In fact, I'd be angry with them if they put lives at risk in order to prove Wikileaks was lying. It's not worth it.

[EFerrari]

13. LOL. Yeah, I guess the Pentagon lied about WMD and about torture

and about Iraqi casualties to SAVE LIVES. :rofl:

Of the two, it's the Pentagon that has a history of lying its ass off, not Wikileaks.

[WillyT]

14. Do You Have A Problem With Them Lying To Protect Their Own Ass's From Embarrassment, Or...

charges of corruption, or the slaughter of innocents?

Just wondering.

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

Yes. Because I'm not a black and white thinker.

I think some lies may be well justified, but most are not.

[mike_c]

27. and with that comment...

...I must, regretfully, welcome you to my Ignore list. Honesty is the first basis for trust-- without it, there is no way for people to know whether their leaders are lying to them to protect them or whether they're lying to consolidate power-- or simply to rob them blind. When people willing accept lies from their leaders, they abrogate all right to expect-- or demand-- the truth.

The idea you're defending here-- that leadership should be free to deceive it's own people-- is most often used to protect the powerful from close examination, so that they can preserve their power without having to face questions about its use. The preservation of power for power's sake-- that's a conservative hallmark. It is another way of saying that the ends justify the means. I don't come to DU to discuss politics with conservatives, or to hear conservative philosophy espoused, thanx.

'Bye! :hi:

[Pavulon]

36. So obama should resign like assange god says? is that progressive?

no dont think so.

[pnwmom]

42. Sigh. What a loss. n/t

[WillyT]

5. Maybe Because If The Government Could Prove It, They Would, In A Hot Flash

But since they cannot...

That's why they had to smear Assange with the rape charge.

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

15. No, they wouldn't. Confirming such a death could put a whole

network of connections at risk. It would be stupid and pointless to do such a thing.

[WillyT]

25. Oh Puh-Lease...

All they would have to do, is say, "We know for a fact that several assets have been harmed or killed because of these leaks. But we cannot say anything more than that."

In fact, I'm amazed they haven't... except for the fact that their credibility is already shot.

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

30. And what would be the point? To draw more attention

to networks they have good reason to conceal?

[WillyT]

45. Can YOU Identify Which Network Is Identified In This Sentence ???

"We know for a fact that several assets have been harmed or killed because of these leaks. But we cannot say anything more than that."

I couldn't.

:shrug:

[Pavulon]

8. Because they are children. Assange has his million.5 for dumping the info

and beyond that they dont give a shit. Their work is done. Until another manning comes along to give up his life assange is out of work.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Never dumped it. Of course, you've been told this time and time and time and time again.

But, I am a parent. I know how long it sometimes takes simple facts to sink in.

[Pavulon]

16. No he is stringing it out for click through revenue

and a book deal. How simple is that? 250,000 cables / 1,500,000 dollars. That simple enough?

[Luminous Animal]

26. Again. No proof, merely baseless accusations.

I once ran home to my mother screaming that my brother had bit my ear off. Before she found out that he had merely hit me with his baseball glove, the look of fierce anger she directed towards him before she noticed no blood, was very satisfying.

[Pavulon]

29. Sorry no one stole the assange business plan and leaked it yet

seriously a million 5 fucking thousand dollar skim to assange for book and no one gets it yet..

[pnwmom]

17. Right, he's only THREATENED to dump all 250,000 documents.

Regardless of content or who gets hurt. And that's okay.

:sarcasm:

[Luminous Animal]

19. You have no idea what is in the insurance file. It could be an already vetted can of worms.

[Pavulon]

24. No he said he would dump unredacted docs..

not the insurance joke, names manning stole.

[Luminous Animal]

34. Come with me and you'll be In a world of pure imagination

Take a look
And you'll see
Into your imagination

We'll begin
With a spin
Traveling in
The world of my creation
What we'll see
Will defy
Explanation

[Pavulon]

35. cold motherfuckin facts

http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-is-going-to-drop-a-poison-wiki-bomb-if-hes-killed-or-arrested-2010-12

threatened to dump, just like I posted. How that immigration of yours?

[Luminous Animal]

38. "thought to include details on BP and Guantanamo Bay.

The article says nothing about the 250,000 cables.

[Pavulon]

40. Please, assange god was clear. here is the video from raw story (not "MSM")

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-threatens-release-poison-pill-arrested-killed/

His threat is clear.

[pnwmom]

28. What, you don't believe Assange? He said the "insurance file"

was all 250,000 cables, unredacted.

[Luminous Animal]

37. Some make that claim but I've never seen it confirmed.

[pnwmom]

39. Assange himself said it. Here you go.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1207/Will-WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-now-arrested-take-the-nuclear-option

Assange appeared to refer to the file on Dec. 3 during a Q&A with the public on the Guardian’s website, but characterized it only as including the State Department cables.

“The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form," he said in the online forum. "If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable Gate archives is in the hands of multiple news organizations.”

"Cable Gate" is the title of WikiLeaks' largest leak yet, though fewer than 1,000 of the more than 251,000 cables have been released to the public since the leak began on Nov. 28.

[Luminous Animal]

46. And no where does it say that 250,000 unredacted cables will be dumped.

"the key parts will be released automatically."

And the Monitor article clearly reverses itself. First saying this: "but characterized it only as including the State Department cables.

Then this: "The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries."

Really, you can't have it both ways.

[Luminous Animal]

9. Hey, if people want to claim that Wikileaks have blood on their hands, the accusers are

going to have to prove it.

I can claim that you shave cats but without proof, that statement is meaningless.

[JVS]

11. They say it to piss off the people who claim otherwise but offer no proof of their claims.

How are they doing?

[pnwmom]

18. If you could prove that a life was lost, would you doing it, knowing that

you were putting other lives needlessly at risk?

[EFerrari]

20. When has the Pentagon ever been nice about saving innocent lives?

You must be joking.

[pnwmom]

23. The Pentagon would obviously be motivated to save the lives

of people who are our allies behind the lines. Self-interest, if nothing else.

[EFerrari]

31. Why do you think so, against all the evidence we've gotten recently?

"People can't surrender to helicopters" -- remember that one?

[pnwmom]

43. Did you read beyond the subject line? I don't think so.

Either that, or your reading comprehension isn't as good as I thought it was.

[EFerrari]

50. So, people who behind the lines signalled they were harmless

and who got blown out of this world don't count?

My reading comprehension is fine.

[WillyT]

33. Is That The Same Pentagon That Lied Their Asses Off About Pat Tillman ???

Whose life (ass) were they saving then?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

44. No, it's not. We have a new Commander in Chief now. n/t

[WillyT]

48. Hahahahahahahahaha

Man... you really had me going there... I thought you were SERIOUS!

:rofl:

Good one!

:hi:

[BlackHoleSon]

52. Wow! That statement

made my eyes bleed. The willing, obstinate obliviousness hurts, it really hurts.

[JVS]

21. If someone said, "Proving A will cause people to die, so just take my word for it and believe A" ...

would you believe A?

[Union Scribe]

32. Yes, they would.

They've already stated they are fine with the DoD saying just about anything, lies included, so long as it's, ya know, for a good reason. Not that they have to prove it's for a good reason, we take that on faith, because explaining why they do what they do will cost even more lives than the many perhaps lost already or perhaps in the future. Or something.

[RandomThoughts]

22. Function not data comment

you would have to be 'certain' to not suspect someone could be lying.

That is the whole thing, you don't know. you can't know, to claim you know for sure is the problem.

However from that many things are possible. And if possible, better to try, but not while doing things wrong. So you pick what you think is of the first defense, and use your second and third defense from keeping it from doing things you might think is not what you want to be or do.

Because there are many possibilities, you do not throw out any first defense item, but you also use second and third defense to not follow a fake first defense item.

Function not data, is transparency better, what is done with secrecy. I have seen post I have made here end up leading to post removed from search engines and tv. They might say it is because I posted it, so it is not because they want to censor, that is not the only reason, but also to try and get me to think that posting things is the cause of the censorship that they do.

Same thing as Sophies choice, to get you to think what you do is wrong by someone else creating a bad effect from what you do, then saying it was you that caused it.


So someone sings a song, I post on that, someone removes the post and the song, showing they censor. You can't say what is correct the song, the song and the post, or their thoughts on the song and the post. But you can say they are trying to say it should not be seen. And you can say they are trying to hide things. Is that for protection, who does it hurt? How does it hurt? How would you know, what is the argument, the only argument that it hurts is if you think existence is evil, hence why they want you to think existence is evil so you think things have to be hidden. Why the Go'uld are said stronger, why Luke was part of a rebel base, because they believe there side is weaker and must hide, but if of light, why would they want to hide it. And if of light, it can't be hidden so them hiding it will just get it to move somewhere else anyways, so why worry about posting it.

LOL my tv is all over the place, just jumped into middle of elf movie LOL.


And the reason they censor, is they think something is a fake first item, and use from their view, there second and third defense to not show it on what they think is theirs. The items like TV and internet. They believe the ability for people to see things is their choice. And they think that if they show it, they would be doing wrong, because they think people communicating with each other is what they own.

They believe they own the speech, and ability for people to speak, and think they have to use what they think of as ownership to do what they think is best. That is why people are often shown with gags over their mouths in many metaphors, since a few people want to own your speech.

They think they own your ability to even communicate with people. It is the claim of ownership of information systems, not free speech that leads to them claiming to be able to censor.

They think they own you. And want to own your ability to even speak.

And why I have been arguing for lack of consolidations, because if a few people are wrong, they can control, by there thought of ownership, and that is far more then they should claim, making limited small power have more influence then it should.

And the bad side is weaker, and has to work through a few people. Hence why transparency diversity and free speech is from one side, and concepts of censorship and control of information by claims of ownership of people and thoughts is from the other side.(mini battle typing this)

Set a table before my enemy. That is not censorship.

Unless you think dark is stronger then light, you don't have to censor.

Side note had some censors and filters to break through while typing, hence the editing.

[Better Believe It]

53. How many GI's lives have been lost by waging wars that are based on a mountain of lies?

Exposing government lies, distortions, incompetence and misleading propaganda can only make it more difficult for governments to wage unjust and unnessary wars and thereby save many lives.

Don't you agree?

In any case, can you prove a positive, that the New York Times and other publishers have caused the needless deaths of people because of the released cables?

[DirkGently]

54. Burden's on the person screaming "murderer!" And yes, we'd hear about it. Endlessly.