The problem is even using that link in the first place to justify your argument. Try harder (or on second thoughts, maybe don't).
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Judge jails former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning for refusing to testify to a grand jury probing Wikileaks.
- Thread starter Smokeymicpot
- Start date
The problem is even using that link in the first place to justify your argument. Try harder (or on second thoughts, maybe don't).
There's more to Wikileaks than this single case. You can read up about several other controversies.
There's also probably a reason why most of the founding members left the platform due to internal conflicts with Assange and especially due to the lack of transparency of which and why some Intel gets published and other doesn't.
I'd prefer NO link, because I think it's an entirely bogus story. I was trying (harder than the person making the claim) to put the best-possible face on it.
What's all this you guys shit? It's like 2-3 people saying what you're talking about and a thread full of people telling them otherwise. If you don't like era, don't visit, but these backhanded gotcha moments are dumb as fuck and need to be called out.
First of all, there's no "you guys" or "ERA." Every single one of us most likely has differing opinions on a variety of topics, so kindly spare us your pathetic attempt to bring up Chris Pratt's ass out of the blue and stop trying to bring up old drama from threads we've all moved on from in an attempt to call out a bunch of nameless posters.
What does her being trans have to do with the topic at hand???
It's also just funny because Wikileaks by helping elect Trump set back trans rights years.
It's a prop used to shield criticism.
#notyourshield.
The alt right really took the whole book of GeriatricGerbils.
And Chelsea supporting Wikileaks is no different than Caitlyn Jenner supporting Trump.
Are you accusing me of being a Russian shill or alt-right plant? Provide some support for this or retract it. I've been consistent and vocal on this issue since the old site.
The criticism of the American intelligence community isn't just an alt-right talking point. That you think it is means that you just aren't paying attention. On the left we have had concerns about them that go back decades. They've deposed sovereign governments, tortured, sabotauged POC leadership here in the US, provided weapons and training to terrorists who use those same tools on American citizens, and, since 2002, have been engaging in a bulk warrant-less surveillance of American citizens as well as allies. Among other atrocities too numerous to name here spanning many, many years.
So yes, I am going to be continue to be critical of the deep state and authoritarianism in general.
You're right in that I don't have any direct proof, because any communications Assange had with Russia is not public knowledge at this point. It is a black box. But when the output of that black box favors Russia, and preferred Russian tools like Trump and the GOP, it points to a collaboration. I believe that, years later, we will have hard evidence of that collaboration.
There are a lot of Russian fingerprints all over both the Trump White House and Assange/Wikileaks. You call it a conspiracy theory, I say that there is too much to be coincidence.
I've been consistent on this for years, just being realistic about Assange, who did some useful things but is not a hero in my eyes.
User Warned: Inaproppriate Language
If that's what you got from my post then cool. Not sure how you got so triggered unless you're now seeing your own hypocrisy in these matters.
Dumb. If she had really wanted to, she could've gone and "not remembered" any of it if protecting Wikileaks was so damn important. But I honestly think she knows this and just likes being a martyr for a dumb cause.
But hey this is the same person who dumped tons of confidential information which she had no idea of the contents to a hostile foreign agency that dumps all documents online with absolutely minimal vetting or retractions. She's damn lucky no one got hurt or killed over that stunt, and it shows her lack of thinking anything through.
That said, last time the conditions of her imprisonment were disgusting, and I hope the US does not repeat any of it this time. But they probably will because our penal system is a fucking joke.
But hey this is the same person who dumped tons of confidential information which she had no idea of the contents to a hostile foreign agency that dumps all documents online with absolutely minimal vetting or retractions. She's damn lucky no one got hurt or killed over that stunt, and it shows her lack of thinking anything through.
That said, last time the conditions of her imprisonment were disgusting, and I hope the US does not repeat any of it this time. But they probably will because our penal system is a fucking joke.
Feels like he's banned every other week.
Surprised he's still here.
With the kind of arguments he pulls, I can totally see him just trolling to then complain on the rapist's site, t_d or even 4chan if not twitter.
I missed your reply but you made some valuable points. And yes, I agree (and said in a prior post) that Wikileaks only exposes a select few governments. They've got Russian (and maybe other bad actors) fingerprints all over them. Assange is also a piece of shit as a person. However, the initial leaks during the Obama administration were a service to our nation, and to the world. Truly a mixed bag.
Chelsea Manning is brave. You can be brave and stupid. If I were her, I wouldn't go to a party held by the alt-right and attended by neo-Nazis. It seems like she is trying to protect Assange out of loyalty. Brave but stupid. I've long said, Manning is no Edward Snowden. She's far more problematic. Her choices of friends shows further evidence of bad judgment.
She has immunity, the wiser thing to do would have been to testify. Standing on her principles here was misguided.
Imagine throwing out the word triggered after you came in whining and generalizing about how people judged poor Chris Pratt in some other thread from who knows when. Crazy stuff.
Yep. That train is never late.
it was pretty clear to a lot of people that this is what wikileaks was prior to actually finding out about it. It was pretty obvious. i question anyone that caped for them at any point in time.
Also, she's refusing to testify likely because there's something she doesn't want to be asked about. If I had to put money on it, i'd say its her association with anyone connected to wikileaks after we all found out that they were Russian intelligence.
Yep, I've never trusted Wikileaks. Never bought into their altruistic, "just journalists" bullshit, which clearly fell apart years later with the influx of Russian and hate propaganda all over their twitter. Seems some people were already fully primed and fooled though, still believing that Assange and WL have good motives. Yeesh.
I get that she feels some kind of way about Wikileaks and what she did believing she was doing something several years ago, but you gotta have some perspective about what Wikileaks is now (and has been for who knows how long). You are defending some pretty scummy people who are doing more harm than good.
Same, I thought their stated rationale was absurd naive BS in the Bush era that made absolutely no sense because everyone is going to have secrets and classified info as a matter of necessity, which is why the revelations of the past few years about them line up with that. Suddenly the nonsensical stated ideology made complete sense because it was never the actual operating ideology at all, it was merely a front.
There was a really good twitter thread going into the early history of wikileaks (short version: started off with good intentions, but the original high-minded founders except assange quickly left and once he was the one in full control it descended quickly to being just an arm of the GRU) but I didn't think to save it unfortunately.
While I think the treatment she received while imprisoned the first time was terrible and am glad Obama let her out, she can fuck right off with pretty much all her actions since then. I feel like people haven't actually kept up with her. I'm not sure if the trauma of prision has caused her to need far more psych help than she is getting or she was just always really dumb but she doesn't need defending from her actions
I'm accusing you of being impossible to take seriously because you're using the term "deep state" without irony.
Are you trying to do a bit, here? Am I getting trolled? If you're trying to make a salient point, wipe those words from your mouth and come up with a way to phrase what you're trying to say that doesn't immediately associate you with literally the dumbest people on the planet. The words "deep state" don't have any business in an adult conversation except when quoted as "hilarious dumb shit Alex Jones has said".
The NSA is the signals intelligence arm of the US government
Wikileaks is a scorched-earth agent of chaos financed by the Russian mafia (which is also the Russian government) masquerading as a beacon of transparency and journalism.
You can counteract them just by having more open and transparent government entities and actions. Literally all it would take.
I don't like seeing her go to jail but this isn't a very compelling explanation.
It seems that In her world, because she doesnt want to do something means she shouldnt have to nor face the consequences to her decisions.
It's pretty hard to argue against her being held for contempt of court when her explanation is that she has contempt for the court.
Yeah this kind of feels to me like when someone gets pulled over by the cops and try to claim they are "sovereign citizens" and the police cannot do anything to them because they claim that US laws do not apply. Refusing a court order to testify to a grand jury because you don't believe in grand juries in general just....doesn't really fly?
I wonder if she has a lawyer, and if so, why they are letting her go through with this. It's pretty awful that someone who has been harshly imprisoned and has had her mental health noticeably threatened will needlessly go through all that all over again.
Some level of secrecy will always be necessary. Wikileaks is transparant in how they wont redact non-Russia aligned actors but will redact Russia-aligned ones in that they're explicitly interested in only one-sided transparency. These people are not your friends. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/
I'm just fascinated by the fact you treat russia as if you're living under the cold war. For what? Ok wikileaks is a laundering program for the FSB. What prevents the US, an endlessly more resourceful nation, from having a similar operation?
Yeah, this all seems very avoidable, and I fear that she is getting advice or encouragement from the wrong people.
This is the ultimate level of whataboutism -- "what about this program that I can't think of an example of but that you presumably could have if you wanted to?"
Even if we grant your premises here, which, again, actually requires quite a bit of work since you're referencing a hypothetical operation that may or may not exist but that you can conceive of, it does not seem particularly surprising that, as Americans, we might oppose a foreign nation attacking our sovereignty but not oppose an American operation not attacking our sovereignty. (Personally I don't really think we should be messing with other people's sovereignty either. But even if you assume we're totally self-interested, it's not like the argument makes no sense.)
Do you genuinely expect us to say "well, Russia hacked our election, but that's actually fine with us since we also have spies?" Does your country have spies? Does that justify American meddling in your elections?
I treat them as though they're cold war Russia because Putin is a product of cold war Russia and is following the playbook (foundations of geopolitics) of cold war Russia.
We have boring US-friendly news channels and stuff (one of them had a scandal where something super anti-semitic got on the air within the past few years) but they're not out there pushing anti-vaxx bullshit. Russia is an authoritarian mafia state dictatorship run by a guy who's interested in destabilizing western and non-western countries so he can expand his mafia state. This is why the Maginstky act pissed him off so much- it hit right at what he cares about: Money (and thus power.)
Honestly this statement feels pretty reasonable to me. People are not obligated to testify as witnesses if they don't want to.
If Chelsea has actually violated some sort of immunity agreement, the prosecutor should bring charges.
Although the judge has the legal authority to hold her in contempt for as long as he wants, that doesn't justify her imprisonment, it just demonstrates the staggering reach of criminal contempt. Its power requires a similar level of responsibility. It is not clear to me that the judge is exercising that level of responsibility here.
Anyone refusing to answer questions like that would be jailed until they comply.
I agree you should have sovereignty. The question then remains did the russians commit unforgivable crimes in regards to your elections? Should they be nuked for helping the opposition or should you move away further from democracy? Or is the whole thing just a big sham and an excuse for the dogshit democratic party?