Only WikiLeaks Can Save US Policy

[layoutshooter]

Where in the Constitution is there any mention of "the U.S. press" ?

Since when did the U.S Constitution give protection to publications OUTSIDE of the United States? The Constitution does NOT cover Pravda, the BBC, or ANY press OUTSIDE of our borders. We sort of have a free press. Most every where else has "official" State run press to one degree or another.

 

[RLENT]

I used to help classify documents on a regular basis. That makes ME a criminal?

I never said that (a fact that seems to have escaped you entirely ... )

I suggest the following ... blah .... blah ... blah ...

Doesn't merit a response ..... it's pretty much irrelevant to the matter at hand.

I committed NO crimes, nor did anyone I ever served with. PERIOD.

While I will take you at your word on the matter of your own personal conduct, the latter half of your statement (as highlighted above) is entirely unreasonable - simply because no one is in a position to say such a thing - you weren't with "everyone you served with" for every moment of the their entire lives ...

The best that can be said is " .... as far as I know ..."

 

[RLENT]

Since when did the U.S Constitution give protection to publications OUTSIDE of the United States? The Constitution does NOT cover Pravda, the BBC, or ANY press OUTSIDE of our borders. We sort of have a free press. Most every where else has "official" State run press to one degree or another.

Well ...... since I'm sitting here in the US, reading Wikileaks .... does that mean that they are inside our borders ?

At one point, their data was hosted on Amazon's servers (perhaps inside the US ?) .... does that mean that they are inside our borders ?

Explain to me how it all works ....

 

[layoutshooter]

"While I will take you at your word on the matter of your own personal conduct, the latter half of your statement (as highlighted above) is entirely unreasonable - simply because no one is in a position to say such a thing - you weren't with "everyone you served with" for every moment of the their entire lives ...

The best that can be said is " .... as far as I know ..." "




Nope, I said while in the performance of our duty. (none were ever arrested or charged with anything outside of work either) I KNOW that NO ONE I ever worked with committed a crime like that. EVERYONE I worked with was as dependable and honest as I. NONE were every fired, investigated etc. EVER. None are in jail now, at least the ones that are still alive, don't know about the ones who died, which is most of those I worked closely with.

MOST documents are classified for GOOD REASON. Documents are normally classified to the LOWEST level needed to protect the information. Most are declassified as soon as possible. That is the reality. IF you want to find documents classified to "protect" from prosecution, see what our elected officials classify. That is where you will find MOST, not all, of that sort of thing.


Do you think that there is any valid reason to classify anything? Just wondering.


You don't have to take me on my word about my not participating in illegal activities, just check my record. It speaks for itself.

By the way, those three Purple Heart owners wounds were aided, to a LARGE degree, by OUR PRESS LEAKING information on certain weaknesses in equipment. When stories like that are printed our enemy changes how they target bodies, plant and build IED's etc. They do it based on those reports to kill and maim our soldiers with greater effectiveness. Can you guess what those guys think about "freedom of the press with NO responsibility"? Was it worth arms and legs? NOT in MY book. Theirs either. I wonder how you would react to that if it were YOUR leg? Your friends head? ( both in the same IED blast) THAT is what REALLY happens when the press just prints.

 

[greg334]

I The illegal part would be classifying it to prevent the evidence from coming out.

I believe this type of thing may be known as: obstruction of justice ......

This raises two important questions;

1 - by who's laws would the "crime" defined by?

and the related question

2 - Obstruction of justice in who's jurisdiction?

Surely you wouldn't think for a New York Minute that the UN or World Court which is equally corrupt as every government in the world would be the jurisdiction?

... other Supreme Court cases is not limited to traditional forms of media like newspapers and radio broadcasters."

Because there is a fight between the traditional (mainstream) media against the onslaught by the citezin media, there is important distinctions that are made, some of which are protections of sources which are not afforded to the average citizen. BUT the average citizen is the press, they are one in the same, right?

So this means I know of a criminal who committed mass murder, because I published details of my interview of the guy on my blog, I am afforded the same protections as a "journalist" who has done the same thing about a senator who has a kid outside his marriage, right?

Does this mean that I can break into your house, go through your stuff and publish your personal information on the Internet to tell the world your private affairs, right?

How about stalking a celebrity to get info on them, which includes illegal activities like breaking into their homes and seeking out information about them?

Let's equate that to what some "journalist" do to obtain 'information' for the public good, ever seen the movie "Without Malice"?

It seems to be true, it does happen, just watch those special investigative reports.

 

[RLENT]

This raises two important questions;

1 - by who's laws would the "crime" defined by?

and the related question

2 - Obstruction of justice in who's jurisdiction?

Dude,

I'm really having a hard time following you here .... you do realize that the portion of text you quoted and appear to be responding to above, had to do with a US government official classifying material in an attempt to hide criminal activity.

Given that, I would think the answer to your questions above should fairly obvious, certainly:

1. The United States of America

or, depending on the nature of the crime being concealed, perhaps:

2. The World Court

 

[layoutshooter]

Who gives a flip about the world court? What a joke that bunch is. I answer ONLY to U.S. Law, period. Why even bring them up? Do you REALLY believe that they are HONEST and NOT biased?

 

[greg334]

Dude,

I'm really having a hard time following you here .... you do realize that the portion of text you quoted and appear to be responding to above, had to do with a US government official classifying material in an attempt to hide criminal activity.

Given that, I would think the answer to your questions above should fairly obvious, certainly:

1. The United States of America

or, depending on the nature of the crime being concealed, perhaps:

2. The World Court

Yes I understand that but it was to show some of the obsurity that is created by the need to blame someone for crimes that no one can actually bring to justice. It is like what happened at the UN with John Bolton, he tried to force reforms and clean up the mess but by the standards of the UN, everything was great. The nepotism and the croynism that people claimed to be rampant in the US government is actually throughout the UN with no accountability what so ever.

The same thing applies to the World Court and most other governments, this is all done under the banner Business as Usual.

The hiding of crimes happens everywhere, the vehicle to be used in the government may be stamping it as a secret but there are a lot of other ways. The problem is that this is an internal issue, not one for any world court or the world stage. The people have to change in order to bring some things in line with their feelings. BUT as long as Assange and others, with the UN, and terrorism exists - we can't change things.

 

[Turtle]

Ron Paul, incidentally, through the amendment process, got legislation passed that bars any international court, including the World Court, from having jurisdiction over US military personnel. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[RLENT]

Who gives a flip about the world court?

Why, we do of course .....

...... but only when it serves our interests ....

 

[layoutshooter]

Ron Paul, incidentally, through the amendment process, got legislation passed that bars any international court, including the World Court, from having jurisdiction over US military personnel. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Good for him!! That is at least ONE thing I like that he has done!! Thanks for passing that on!!