When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
are you saying wikileaks stole the information from the person who stole (downloaded) it in the first place.
or are you talking rubbish
Some bloke in a privileged position down loaded all that information from the US Government computers and passed it on to Wiki. They knew it had been stolen of course.
Some bloke in a privileged position down loaded all that information from the US Government computers and passed it on to Wiki. They knew it had been stolen of course.
Les
I stand corrected, but yes the information is of dubious moral origin if not legality.
okay -- explain under what circumstances an organisation (govt etc) would turn away "leaked" information on moral grounds?
Good question. Revkin of The New York Times turned away the "Climate Gate" emails as they had allegedly been stolen. The police investigation continues more than a year later. Strangely though he had no such qualms about Wikileaks information.
As far as I'm aware handling stolen property is still a crime isn't it? For those who think anarchy is just fine (f1), how do you feel about Gitmo?
Wikileaks and all of its posts are controlled by the US government anyway, stuff they cant admit publicly that will come out anyway, stuff they are dying to tell the world, stuff they want to plant and misinformation, I think its fairly obvious, even the seemingly cack handed "attempts" to railroad the process, the rape charges etc, if the guy was really releasing stuff they didn't want in the public domain do you really think he would still be around given the CIA exist ? good god it is so obvious.
11 December 2010, 10:22 AM
