Manning WAS a whistleblower, and all Wikileaks does is let journalist rifle through the material and then releasing the documents AFTER the newspapers have published it. So yeah, perfectly valid whistleblower/journalist card.
This is the US crossing boundaries and borders and actually looking into creating an international incident, only because it was caught with its pants down. Good old fashioned spite.
Let's look at the reason why the app was banned from the itunes store...
From the Apple press release:
"We removed the WikiLeaks app from the App Store because it violated our developer guidelines. Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or targeted group in harm's way."
Point 1: it violated Apple's developer guidelines. Could very well be a valid reason, I don't know their guidelines, but it was approved initially, so it appears a bit doubtful.
Point 2: Apps must comply with all local laws. No proof has been brought forward that the app and WikiLeaks in question are actually against the law in the USA. In fact many people have pointed out that the site is in fact well within the boundaries of the law. So that one's debunked.
Point 3: [apps] may not put an individual or targeted group in harm's way. Sure we hear politicians tout this reason for opposing WikiLeaks. But WikiLeaks doesn't publish cables until after they have been scanned, parsed and redacted by news outlets such as The Guardian and El Pais. As of today no-one has offered us proof of the lives that are in danger because of WikiLeaks. So that too is a BS reason.
"Apple didn't convict anyone of anything, they choose not to do business with a group / organization that they feel is breaking the law or may cause them legal trouble."
That makes Apple seem rather spineless. And I doubt that the US government would stoop to such a low standard as to blame Apple for any alleged wrongdoing on the part of WikiLeaks.
That they FEEL is breaking the law?
Sir, I feel that you are breaking laws, by opposing me, can I have you arrested now? No, of course not, that's why we have due course.
Sure, Apple is well within its rights to ban an app from their store, as Mike has said in the article, but please be honest and come forth with statements such as "We don't like what WikiLeaks is doing and we want no part in it whatsoever." instead of using weasel words such as "we feel that they are breaking laws" when in fact no proof has been offered that they are in fact breaking laws.
He did not storm off, he walked away. If you have all those news hounds trying to get a rise out of you with those kinds of questions, (because for all the footage available to us, there is undoubtedly loads that we don't see) I can understand him walking away instead of keep standing there.
Many think that he stayed mostly classy there, and the journo did indeed seem tabloid schmuck. He had a valid question and if he didn't go too graphic he would have had an answer, or at least he wouldn't have had Assange walk away.
The journo just had to dig too deep.
And I think the headline on this article is okay... it's stating the current rumours. Might be a bit click-bait-ish, but nothing out of line with that. There are worse headlines on the web to be found.
They also show a clear ignorance to the rule of the Streisand effect. By acting this way, there are more and more headlines that BoA may become the next target of Wikileaks. Which is precisely what they don't want.
Just look at this site, if BoA had not decided to block the direct transfers to Wikileaks (and I too don't see how they can do that), there wouldn't be the headline "Bank Of America -- Thought to be Wikileaks' Next Target..."
If these financial institutions were smarter (hah!), they'd have continued financial transactions with Wikileaks. And the story of the upcoming banking leaks wouldn't have had this much pre-release press.
The pentagon papers: massive document theft and dump, and being heralded as whistleblowing.
Deep Throat and the Watergate scandal: someone speaking to the press rather than his superiors about a criminal act done by their own country leaders.
If you don't trust your superiors to act responsibly on you blowing the whistle, who do you leak the information to? To your superiors? I didn't think so.
So if I were to quote 12% from your comment, it wouldn't be fair use, but if you were to quote 20% from my comment, it would be...
Wow, double standards much?
Where did you go to school again? Remind me to never send my kids there.
If the US were to disappear Assange, they'd be making a huge mistake, as that would martyr Assange in one fell swoop, and that's probably the moment the big insurance file gets decrypted.
Re: From the how Mike misleads about wikileaks Dept.
Wikileaks did NOT leak the cables... one of the 3million people who had access to them did, to Wikileaks (who knows to whom else those cables have been leaked).
You scream bloody murder over these cables.
All wikileaks does is publish. The ones who wrote them should be punished, the one who leaked them should probably be punished (though I'd say that Bradley Manning is a fucking HERO), but please for the love of mercy, not a publishing agent like Wikileaks.
Lest all other whistleblowers will be condemned. And there will be no hope left of EVER getting truth about bad stuff come out.
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Subpoena Twitter For Info On Wikileaks-Supporting Icelandic Politician
Another person
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/105321/justitie-vordert-twitter-account-rop-gonggrijp---updat e-2.html
(sorry dutch article)
This is the US crossing boundaries and borders and actually looking into creating an international incident, only because it was caught with its pants down. Good old fashioned spite.
On the post: France Wants To Extend Private Copying Levy To Tablets... But Not If They Run Microsoft Windows
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Apple The Latest To Convict Wikileaks Despite No Charges Or Trial; Kills Wikileaks App For Violating Unnamed Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Apple The Latest To Convict Wikileaks Despite No Charges Or Trial; Kills Wikileaks App For Violating Unnamed Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the Apple press release:
"We removed the WikiLeaks app from the App Store because it violated our developer guidelines. Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or targeted group in harm's way."
Point 1: it violated Apple's developer guidelines. Could very well be a valid reason, I don't know their guidelines, but it was approved initially, so it appears a bit doubtful.
Point 2: Apps must comply with all local laws. No proof has been brought forward that the app and WikiLeaks in question are actually against the law in the USA. In fact many people have pointed out that the site is in fact well within the boundaries of the law. So that one's debunked.
Point 3: [apps] may not put an individual or targeted group in harm's way. Sure we hear politicians tout this reason for opposing WikiLeaks. But WikiLeaks doesn't publish cables until after they have been scanned, parsed and redacted by news outlets such as The Guardian and El Pais. As of today no-one has offered us proof of the lives that are in danger because of WikiLeaks. So that too is a BS reason.
"Apple didn't convict anyone of anything, they choose not to do business with a group / organization that they feel is breaking the law or may cause them legal trouble."
That makes Apple seem rather spineless. And I doubt that the US government would stoop to such a low standard as to blame Apple for any alleged wrongdoing on the part of WikiLeaks.
That they FEEL is breaking the law?
Sir, I feel that you are breaking laws, by opposing me, can I have you arrested now? No, of course not, that's why we have due course.
Sure, Apple is well within its rights to ban an app from their store, as Mike has said in the article, but please be honest and come forth with statements such as "We don't like what WikiLeaks is doing and we want no part in it whatsoever." instead of using weasel words such as "we feel that they are breaking laws" when in fact no proof has been offered that they are in fact breaking laws.
On the post: Apple The Latest To Convict Wikileaks Despite No Charges Or Trial; Kills Wikileaks App For Violating Unnamed Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not even sure how you can say they are the same.
On the post: Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks
Re: How do morons like you get media time
On the post: Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Many think that he stayed mostly classy there, and the journo did indeed seem tabloid schmuck. He had a valid question and if he didn't go too graphic he would have had an answer, or at least he wouldn't have had Assange walk away.
The journo just had to dig too deep.
And I think the headline on this article is okay... it's stating the current rumours. Might be a bit click-bait-ish, but nothing out of line with that. There are worse headlines on the web to be found.
On the post: Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the interviewer asked him such a loaded question, any answer would have been wrong.
it was close to asking: "when did you stop beating your wife?"
besides, the case is still under investigation, would be suicide to comment on it in the press.
On the post: Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks
They are pulling a Streisand!
Just look at this site, if BoA had not decided to block the direct transfers to Wikileaks (and I too don't see how they can do that), there wouldn't be the headline "Bank Of America -- Thought to be Wikileaks' Next Target..."
If these financial institutions were smarter (hah!), they'd have continued financial transactions with Wikileaks. And the story of the upcoming banking leaks wouldn't have had this much pre-release press.
On the post: Will The Journalists Who Outed CIA's Pakistan Chief Be Treated Like Julian Assange?
Re: Re: Because...
Dark Helmet
1 Deathstarlane
902105 Thatsnomoon
On the post: Denver Post Column That Righthaven Is Suing Over May Have Given Implied Permission To Copy
Re: Re: Re:
For instance, how can reposting an article be parody in and of itself? I was taking the mickey.
On the post: Denver Post Column That Righthaven Is Suing Over May Have Given Implied Permission To Copy
Re:
On the post: The US's Reaction To Wikileaks Is Doing A Lot More Harm Than The Leaks Themselves
Re: Wiikileaks has babies, one birth on Thur, second on Mon
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re:
Deep Throat and the Watergate scandal: someone speaking to the press rather than his superiors about a criminal act done by their own country leaders.
If you don't trust your superiors to act responsibly on you blowing the whistle, who do you leak the information to? To your superiors? I didn't think so.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re:
Wow, double standards much?
Where did you go to school again? Remind me to never send my kids there.
On the post: The US's Reaction To Wikileaks Is Doing A Lot More Harm Than The Leaks Themselves
Re:
The "Land of the Free" is starting to sound very hollow to the rest of the world. I know it does to me.
On the post: The US's Reaction To Wikileaks Is Doing A Lot More Harm Than The Leaks Themselves
Re:
On the post: New Research Shows How Easy It Is To Get Weapons Or Explosives Past Backscatter X-Rays
Re: O boy.....
or 'better' yet, fly naked.
On the post: How The Press Misleads About Wikileaks
Re: From the how Mike misleads about wikileaks Dept.
You scream bloody murder over these cables.
All wikileaks does is publish. The ones who wrote them should be punished, the one who leaked them should probably be punished (though I'd say that Bradley Manning is a fucking HERO), but please for the love of mercy, not a publishing agent like Wikileaks.
Lest all other whistleblowers will be condemned. And there will be no hope left of EVER getting truth about bad stuff come out.
Next >>