0
0

WikiLeaks


 invite response                
2010 Nov 29, 8:34am   8,706 views  32 comments

by Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

What's folks thoughts on WikiLeaks? I get the feeling like Patrick is sort of like a WikiLeaks of the real estate industry. During the run up to the housing bubble, Patrick and blog readers were one of the few sites dedicated to spreading the truth about real estate industry practices.

I suppose this thread will evolve as more information is released. Supposedly, some real bombshells will be released about cover-ups, etc.

Is WikiLeaks this generation's Pentagon Papers? Or will Americans yawn and move on to "Skating with the Stars"?

#housing

Comments 1 - 32 of 32        Search these comments

1   Â¥   2010 Nov 29, 8:53am  

The comparison between Private Manning and Dr Ellsberg is . . . curious.

Private Manning surreptitiously burned onto CDRs the worm's eye view of the war, what 3 million insiders with Secret/NFN (no foreign nationals) clearances had access to. Pretty boring stuff, really.

Ellsberg was brought in LBJ's Pentagon in 1964 as a GS-18, the civilian equivalent to Major General, as a special assistant to John McNaughton, McNamara's aide, and thus three ranks below the President.

Ellsberg had spent most of the 1960s closely involved in the Vietnam question, from the Gulf of Tonkin incident (his first day working in the Pentagon), to serving within a CIA intelligence team headed by Lansdale in the mid-60s, where he became a disciple of John Paul Vann, one the foremost on-the-ground experts of what the Vietnam war was about.

What Ellsberg photocopied and leaked in 1971 was so compartmentalized that the USG didn't even know it existed, only a handful of TOP defense establishment insiders knew who had copies and almost nobody but Ellsberg had even read the damn thing prior to its release to the media.

The Pentagon Papers were a relatively well-written and researched series of studies of the dynamics of the decision-making that lead to continued escalation of the war, 1945-1967 or thereabouts. It was equivalent to several dozen doctoral theses by people who could write their PhDs in their sleep.

And after Ellsberg gave access to the papers to the NYT in 1971, the NYT spent WEEKS secretly sifting through it to bring the best stories to light for their bombshell running of the story.

But even so by 1971 Vietnam had become ancient history to most people, the shocks of 1966-1970 period had created a war fatigue. (Funny thing is that I was alive in 1971 but still pooping my pants so this is just my impression).

This Manning stuff is the exact opposite of the Pentagon Papers, so far at least.

Even the timing is odd, the Pentagon Papers were released in 1971 yet covered nothing past 1968, while the current telegram leaks haven't included anything *before* 2007. Now, the old stuff 2001-2003 would be VERY interesting to go through.

2   Â¥   2010 Nov 29, 9:06am  

shrekgrinch says

they should be going after the morons that allowed this sensitive data to be compromised in the first place

yeah, including CDR drives in classified equipment that was supposed to be copy-proof was dumb.

Camera phones are banned from such environments, due to the obvious spy-camera abilities to capture information.

I have a somewhat close friend who served in pretty much Manning's exact capacity with a different unit in a different location. I'm sure this topic will come up next time we get together.

3   marcus   2010 Nov 29, 9:58am  

I've heard that the reporters are bothered by the fact that they are out of process now. This is more direct, and bypassing some reporters these days is a good thing, right ?

My hope is that there will be a positive effect of causing military folks to watch themselves more carefully, sort of like the advent of cell phone cameras and video is bound to cause a decrease in police brutality or other injustices on the part of law enforcement, who never know if someone is recording them.

4   nope   2010 Nov 29, 6:20pm  

It's hard to separate the signal from the noise in these things.

I thought WikiLeaks was more valuable when it was exposing corporate wrongdoings, honestly. That Saudi Arabia wanted the US to bomb Iran is interesting, but is it really something that people "need to know"? So far none of the recent revelations seem to be revealing anything particularly newsworthy.

People calling Julian Assange a traitor who is committing treason are bizarre to me. The guy isn't an American.

Lastly, anyone dumb enough to think that you can stop this stuff from spreading in the age of the internet is clueless. Even the most totalitarian regimes can't keep informed citizens from finding out what's going on, and we expect it to work in a democracy?

Sites like wikileaks are just the beginning. A decade from now the only things that will be recorded in any form will be presumed to be leaked to the public, and as such nothing truly interesting will be recorded at all.

5   Vicente   2010 Nov 30, 1:39am  

Kevin says

Lastly, anyone dumb enough to think that you can stop this stuff from spreading in the age of the internet is clueless. Even the most totalitarian regimes can’t keep informed citizens from finding out what’s going on, and we expect it to work in a democracy?

I disagree about the effectiveness of a determined totalitarian regime. This was disproven when modern Chinese college students were shown pictures of the famous "tank man" at Tiananmen. Every last one of them had no idea what the picture was about, that bit of history is thoroughly suppressed.

6   kentm   2010 Nov 30, 2:58am  

I have to say I'm with with shrekgrinch on this one... though I also have to say I'm hesitant to side with anyone who uses "dumbtarded enough" in any way. Just sayin'.

This leak is the most amazing opportunity to try to understand how politics actually works rather than how we think it ought to. I think its incredible. America used to have a notion of 'freedom of press' and respect for those who worked to reveal the truth of issues, now apparently we call for the deaths of those in the press who say things some of us don't want to hear. Thats pretty tragic.

7   kentm   2010 Nov 30, 3:01am  

Kevin says

Lastly, anyone dumb enough to think that you can stop this stuff from spreading in the age of the internet is clueless. Even the most totalitarian regimes can’t keep informed citizens from finding out what’s going on, and we expect it to work in a democracy?

I disagree and draw your attention to exhibit A:
http://patrick.net/?p=579700

http://www.alternet.org/story/148826/16_of_the_dumbest_things_americans_believe_%E2%80%93_and_the_right-wing_lies_behind_them/

The info is usually always out there, but is anyone listening?

and has everyone watched the 'The Power of Nightmares' video and the one about Bernays?...

8   pkennedy   2010 Nov 30, 3:30am  

It's interesting to see how things work. However, it's information that shouldn't be out there. We know Saudi Arabia is friendly, we know parts of it are more friendly than others. They reside in an area that is heavily divided by religions, races, history, culture, politics and many more divisions. They need masses of diplomacy between all of these groups to keep them together and to keep things from tearing themselves apart. These conversations aren't meant to be released, they part of a very big picture and we're only seeing one line from years upon years of conversations and diplomacy between two countries.

You don't go into an art store and say I have $5000 in my bank, I really want this piece of art and won't leave until I have it. How about you knock off $2 off this $24 piece of art. You release information but don't give away all information to the other side, it's diplomacy and you don't expect the other side to be privy to all of your life's history.

The person who leaked the information is probably considered a traitor here. Wikileaks is a terrorist for taking that information that is obviously not meant to go out, including private conversations and dispersing it.

We all want to know everything going on, but really there are private conversations that we shouldn't know about. I don't want to know what you and your spouse talk about in bed late at night. If it's released, I don't want to read it, and at best it's just going to create tension between you and others, and possibly between friends of friends.

9   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2010 Nov 30, 5:07am  

I heard a new spin today. Private Manning is rumored to be gay. His boss was, shall we say, more of the neanderthal viewpoint when it comes to homosexuality. Some speculate Manning's treatment by his boss influenced his descision to release these documents.

Imagine this twist: Don't Ask Don't Tell may be the cause of the single worst diplomatic failures in US history.

10   pkennedy   2010 Nov 30, 6:12am  

The person who leaked the information is Manning, the person who is using the information would be wikileaks the "terrorist" in this case. I probably wasn't clear enough.

11   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2010 Nov 30, 7:41am  

One could argue that Manning has done nothing more than put actions to the words of the people like Oath Keepers. Is he not defending the Constitution? He has exposed documentation showing that high level government officials have broken international law. Is whistleblowing on corrupt public officials treason? When the Chinese citizens do it, we call them heroes for freedom and democracy. When a US soldier keeps his Oath to the Constitution, we hang him for treason?

The rush to hang Private Manning could make him a martyr as more things emerge. And seriously, how sad for the elites of the world when everything you know can be turned upside-down by a smarter-than-average 22 year old.

Manning deserves a trial by jury of his peers.

12   nope   2010 Nov 30, 12:07pm  

Vicente says

Kevin says

Lastly, anyone dumb enough to think that you can stop this stuff from spreading in the age of the internet is clueless. Even the most totalitarian regimes can’t keep informed citizens from finding out what’s going on, and we expect it to work in a democracy?

I disagree about the effectiveness of a determined totalitarian regime. This was disproven when modern Chinese college students were shown pictures of the famous “tank man” at Tiananmen. Every last one of them had no idea what the picture was about, that bit of history is thoroughly suppressed.

Every single Chinese national that I know (and I know a lot) is quite familiar with tank man. The Chinese people are not as ignorant as you think. Whether they're going to publicly admit to this while in China or to a State-sponsored news organization is another issue.

shrekgrinch says

Sorry, but yes. That is newsworthy. For once we are getting the truth about how things are done, how the sausage is really made.

But there really isn't anything new here. Yeah, Saudi Arabia doesn't like Iran and sponsors terrorism. That's fairly common knowledge amongst anyone who really follows middle eastern politics.

kentm says

Kevin says

Lastly, anyone dumb enough to think that you can stop this stuff from spreading in the age of the internet is clueless. Even the most totalitarian regimes can’t keep informed citizens from finding out what’s going on, and we expect it to work in a democracy?

I disagree and draw your attention to exhibit A:

http://patrick.net/?p=579700
http://www.alternet.org/story/148826/16_of_the_dumbest_things_americans_believe_%E2%80%93_and_the_right-wing_lies_behind_them/
The info is usually always out there, but is anyone listening?
and has everyone watched the ‘The Power of Nightmares’ video and the one about Bernays?…

*informed* citizens.

Yes, the average person will remain ignorant, and blissfully so.

(side question: Why is it that the people who are the most anti-big government are also the ones who have the biggest problem with wikileaks?)

13   nope   2010 Nov 30, 12:10pm  

Also: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/gates-on-leaks-wiki-and-otherwise/

I'm not the only one who doesn't think any of these revelations is that big of a deal.

It ain't the fuckin' pentagon papers.

14   kentm   2010 Nov 30, 5:43pm  

Kevin says

(side question: Why is it that the people who are the most anti-big government are also the ones who have the biggest problem with wikileaks?)

I've noticed that too, its pretty interesting isn't it? There are a few people with a lot of really internally conflicting viewpoints on this forum.

The thing I'm trying to figure out now is whether these people honestly believe the various positions they seem to hold (stupid), if they just don't understand the various conflicts in the relationships of their viewpoints (naive), or if they're simply as disingenuous as they are conflicted (bullshit).

I'm inclined to go with number three and that the primary feature of many of these personalities is simple selfishness combined with a strong authoritarian streak... that they'll form a belief on a given topic/situation based on whatever seems to support what they think is the best for them alone regardless of how it relates to whatever else is in there, and that they worship power/"winners"... and I think a lot of the tendency toward anger & arrogant dismissiveness is kind of an unconscious recognition of and uncomfortableness with their internal conflicts.

Regardless, its pretty interesting to see it play out in these various topics. Its been an education.

Kevin says

I’m not the only one who doesn’t think any of these revelations is that big of a deal.
It ain’t the fuckin’ pentagon papers.

pkennedy says

It’s interesting to see how things work. However, it’s information that shouldn’t be out there.

Here's why Wikileaks is important, a clip from the Julian Assange interview on Forbes:
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/

Question: What do you think WikiLeaks mean for business? How do businesses need to adjust to a world where WikiLeaks exists?

Answer: WikiLeaks means it’s easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this. I think about the case in China where milk powder companies started cutting the protein in milk powder with plastics. That happened at a number of separate manufacturers.

Let’s say you want to run a good company. It’s nice to have an ethical workplace. Your employees are much less likely to screw you over if they’re not screwing other people over.

Then one company starts cutting their milk powder with melamine, and becomes more profitable. You can follow suit, or slowly go bankrupt and the one that’s cutting its milk powder will take you over. That’s the worst of all possible outcomes.

The other possibility is that the first one to cut its milk powder is exposed. Then you don’t have to cut your milk powder. There’s a threat of regulation that produces self-regulation.

It just means that it’s easier for honest CEOs to run an honest business, if the dishonest businesses are more effected negatively by leaks than honest businesses. That’s the whole idea. In the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and closed companies, we’re creating a tremendous reputational tax on the unethical companies.

No one wants to have their own things leaked. It pains us when we have internal leaks. But across any given industry, it is both good for the whole industry to have those leaks and it’s especially good for the good players.

But aside from the market as a whole, how should companies change their behavior understanding that leaks will increase?

Do things to encourage leaks from dishonest competitors. Be as open and honest as possible. Treat your employees well.

I think it’s extremely positive. You end up with a situation where honest companies producing quality products are more competitive than dishonest companies producing bad products. And companies that treat their employees well do better than those that treat them badly.

Would you call yourself a free market proponent?

Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don’t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.

How do your leaks fit into that?

To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.

- - - - - -

Most certainly its information that should be out there. I may be overly exuberant about it, but I think the wikileak efforts is one of the best things to happen to our culture in a loooong time.

15   kentm   2010 Nov 30, 6:33pm  

shrekgrinch says

Shooting the messenger is not the way to go. It is dumbtarded. Yet, that is what everyone is doing.

What is this 'dumbtarded' thing? Is it newspeak? Or is it more related to the speech patterns in 'Idiocracy', as in "Not now, 'batin'."? I think its the 'verbing' of it thats throwing me.

Combining it with the lack of contractions is a nice flair though.

16   marcus   2010 Nov 30, 11:01pm  

kentm says

the primary feature of many of these personalities is simple selfishness combined with a strong authoritarian streak… that they’ll form a belief on a given topic/situation based on whatever seems to support what they think is the best for them alone regardless of how it relates to whatever else is in there, and that they worship power/”winners”… and I think a lot of the tendency toward anger & arrogant dismissiveness is kind of an unconscious recognition of and uncomfortableness with their internal conflicts.

I agree. The authoritarian part is what I think explains it. But somewhere along the line, they got to where republican government is the authority that they submit whole heartedly to. I guess also their (often fundamentalist ) belief in God. It's that authoritarian tendency, that makes the inclusion of fundamentalist Christians in the republican tent SO ingenious. I have to say, it is totally brilliant. "Family values" too. You have to respect their political success, aside from the evil that it is leading to now.

How's this for brilliant too ? When it get's to where we are complaining about fascism, it will sound to them like we are just trying to use the same bs propaganda that their guys (Beck and Limbaugh) were using years earlier. It will be, " I know you are but what am I."

17   Done!   2010 Nov 30, 11:16pm  

I like how Interpol found a Whore to claim he rapped her. Pahleeze! That guy is not a Rapist he's a receiver. I don't think sex is in that guys top 5 things of fun shit to do.

I hope he brings down the the past two presidencies and the current one as well. But that would be wishful thinking. Even if enough crap was published the put Bill, George, Hillary, and Barrack in jail for a long time. It would just be fodder for more bipartisan noise.

We've turned into a Nation that loves bitching about our problems and ailments more than we do anything about them. Even if the solution is there, we still opt to just vetch and gripe about the way things are.

18   Vicente   2010 Dec 1, 1:10am  

Yeah I have to wonder about those sex charges. Setup or simple golddigging?

19   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2010 Dec 1, 1:32am  

I find it interesting that the conservative "intellectuals" have not rushed to condemn Assange and Manning as some Republican politicians have. In fact, the whole idea of unconstrained information feeds the libertarian ideology that puts the onus of responsibility on the individual.

The National Review is even running an article about the spin-off WikiLeaks websites that are coming to compete with WikiLeaks in leaking information. Anyone who thinks WikiLeaks can be shut down has never heard of a little application built in the late 1990s called Napster. (Napster was shut down but spawned a Hydra head of applications which share copyrighted material at a far greater rate).

Further, I agree that the psychological bent of many condemning Assange as a terrorist prefer the authoritarian hand of government. This viewpoint holds that people are too ignorant, too innocent, too much sinner, too naive, or too foolish to handle the Truth.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! All nations break international law, so we must also! Knowledge of our mistakes gives aid and comfort to the enemy!

So the truth that anti-WikiLeaks people believe needs to be suppressed (to the point of DEATH to whistleblowers) is that 1) Our government regularly breaks the law, and 2) Our government failures should not be corrected lest we risk supporting our enemies.

Citizens of such a nation should therefor embrace these fundamental beliefs. Citizens should 1) Routinely break the law, and 2) Avoid correcting personal mistakes lest we risk supporting our enemies.

I posit the additional theory: Those who are anti-WikiLeaks and support authoritarian government, are also those most likely to 1) Break the law, and 2) Refuse to admit to mistakes.

20   kentm   2010 Dec 1, 2:06am  

marcus says

...When it get’s to where we are complaining about fascism, it will sound to them like we are just trying to use the same bs propaganda that their guys (Beck and Limbaugh) were using years earlier. It will be, ” I know you are but what am I.”

...as they stomp our balls and then call us pansies. Or step on our heads and complain about back pains...

Also, I notice it was the same anti-wikileaks people who were also advocating crushing the dissenters of full body scans.

SoCal Renter says

Those who are anti-WikiLeaks and support authoritarian government, are also those most likely to 1) Break the law, and 2) Refuse to admit to mistakes.

It would be interesting to see the studies on this one.

21   kentm   2010 Dec 1, 2:21am  

shrekgrinch says

Again, read what I wrote about portmanteus. But for now, I enjoy using it because it irks you. Way to go!

Now how did I just know you were going to say that... Anyway, thats sure an excellent reason to keep doing something, so keep at it boyo. "shrëkgrïnch: One Man Army. Fighting for... whatever irks you! Booyah!"

And it doesn't really bother me, I don't really care what words you use. Its just... a stupid thing to say and I actually feel a bit bad for any adult that uses a word like that in any context. So: Idiocracy or Newspeak? Though I'm inclined toward Idiocracy because I think the reference probably fits better I think its closer to Newspeak... or maybe you're 15?

Here's an interesting bit from the interview on the definition game:
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/6/

Question: You were a traditional computer hacker...

Answer: It’s a bit annoying, actually. Because I cowrote a book about [being a hacker], there are documentaries about that, people talk about that a lot. They can cut and paste. But that was 20 years ago. It’s very annoying to see modern day articles calling me a computer hacker.

I’m not ashamed of it, I’m quite proud of it. But I understand the reason they suggest I’m a computer hacker now. There’s a very specific reason.

I started one of the first ISPs in Australia, known as Suburbia, in 1993. Since that time, I’ve been a publisher, and at various moments a journalist. There’s a deliberate attempt to redefine what we’re doing not as publishing, which is protected in many countries, or the journalist activities, which is protected in other ways, as something which doesn’t have a protection, like computer hacking, and to therefore split us off from the rest of the press and from these legal protections. It’s done quite deliberately by some of our opponents. It’s also done because of fear, from publishers like The New York Times that they’ll be regulated and investigated if they include our activities in publishing and journalism.

22   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2010 Dec 1, 3:01am  

shrekgrinch says

I am a conservative of strong libertarian — even anarcho-capitalist — persuasion and I blame Manning and think he should fry.

Manning is guilty of copy violations. Despite the claims of media blowhards, he didn't actually "steal" anything. He copied confidential government material onto a flash drive. The original data remains on the government's servers. He is alleged to have given that material to WikiLeaks - a distribution of protected material.

A whistleblower does the exact same thing. Whistleblowers violate copy protections and distribute the copied material to expose wrong-doing.

Copy violations pale in comparison to the Constitutional consequences of evidence that high level government officials of the United States broke treaties and engaged in illegal behavior.

Frying Manning could harm the United States far more than letting a peon private in the military go free. Whistleblowers would be fearful of coming forward potentially allowing high level government crimes to continue unchecked.

Rome didn't fall because some pissant Centurion broke a copy rule. Rome fell because of the corruption of its leaders.

Edit: And to pre-empt another false flag, Manning/WikiLeaks/New York Times are not posting a list of US spies with home addresses and saying "Here you go Taliban!" Releases so far have been of wrong-doing by US officials and embarrassing stuff.

23   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2010 Dec 1, 5:56am  

shrekgrinch says

And you or I or Manning or the Easter Bunny have no right legal or moral to judge what is classified or not. You might not like that, but that is how the world works.
Of course most national security classification laws are meant to protect those in power. Duh.

I don't disagree with the legality, that is for the courts/lawyers/judges to decide. You and I agree that Manning apparently violated Classification Laws. (I'm not claiming this was merely a copyright issue).

But claiming there is no moral right to judge what should remain secret is absolutely no different from the defense made during the Nuremburg Trials. We now exist in an environment that considers copyright violations a national security issue (see the DHS's extrajudicial seizure of websites peddling mp3s. Lady Gaga music is now a national security issue!)

What is it with America's subservience to power and authority? We need to obey classification laws regardless of the actions of those in power?

Hypothetical Question: What if one of the classified documents leaked details Obama's military preparations to round up all Jews into concentration camps beginning January 1st, 2011? Is Manning a traitor? And don't bother arguing the feasibily issue, this is a logic test to see if there exists any type of documentation that would exonerate Manning. Is Manning a traitor if he exposes plans to round up Jews into concentration camps?

24   FortWayne   2010 Dec 1, 6:20am  

Actually the news have been very interesting from WikiLeaks in my opinion.

For example a middle eastern leader asking US to blow up Iran, talk about playing politics. Than we get the information that that same leader is also selling weapons to terrorists to fight against us. Thats huge.

Looking forward to BofA news as well.

25   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2010 Dec 1, 7:14am  

Look at all the corruption leaking forth about those in power!

Turkey PM with secret Swiss bank accounts.

Russia's Putin impotent and beholden to corrupt Russian institutions.

The more pressure put on entities like Amazon by the US government, the more credibility they give these leaks without stopping anything. Good job Lieber-doosh-man. Assange looks better each day, and the world's elite look more foolish and corrupt.

26   Vicente   2010 Dec 1, 7:32am  

cvoronin91335 says

Looking forward to BofA news as well.

Everyone seems to assume it's Bank of America.

I'm betting on Citibank.

I'm PRAYING it would be Goldman Sachs.

27   justme   2010 Dec 18, 3:40am  

BofA joins those who will not process payments to wikileaks.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/12/17/2528138/bank-of-america-says-it-wont-process.html

I wonder, is having a bank account that can accept incoming funds not a basic human right in these modern times. How can anyone live without it?

28   Vicente   2010 Dec 18, 3:50am  

I await eagerly his next leak.

Please Santa, all I want for Christmas is some banksters roasting on an open fire.....

29   justme   2010 Dec 18, 3:59am  

Yeah, let us have the big leak of BofA internal documents, pretty please.

And let's have some internal leaks from the National Association of Realtors, too.

Especially some emails with David Lereah, Leslie Appleton-Young and Lawrence Yun.

30   FortWayne   2010 Dec 20, 12:55am  

Most Americans (and people around the world in general) are afraid of the establishment, they will read... but won't do a thing.

31   FortWayne   2010 Dec 21, 12:29am  

thunderlips11 says

I think Manning should get the same sentence that Sandy Berger got for walking away with classified info. )

I think it's more in line with Daniel Ellsberg. After all he leaked information designed to reveal the lies our government has been feeding to us in order to support this unjust war in the middle east.

32   MattBayArea   2010 Dec 21, 5:45am  

I'm torn about the recent wikileak leaks. On the one hand, I don't think it's appropriate for someone in the military who, like me, suspects that there is widespread corruption and rampant cover-ups and lies, to simply release huge quantities of classified materials ... simply because they are classified... in the hopes that someone reviewing the data at wikileaks will find something worthwhile. On the other hand, anyone who turns up proof that our government is lying to us for anything other than a bullet-proof reason (they do exist, I would argue) should feel obligated to act.

In the case of the documents leaked by Manning, am I mistaken in thinking that he just grabbed as much as he could - reviewing only a little of it? So much of the leaked info is just plain boring ...

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions