[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 25 KB, 480x220, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325047 No.1325047 [Reply] [Original]

Boycott Amazon

>> No.1325059

Why?

>> No.1325065

Fuck Amazon. Is there a petition I could sign or a Facebook group I can join?

>> No.1325066

>>1325059
they took a pedophile guide book off and all these pedos are bitching about it
cant wait for that asshat assange to go to jail for rape

>> No.1325067

wikileaks is australian...they dont have a first amendment

>> No.1325075

>>1325066
That seems reasonable. I wouldn't want a book assisting pedophiles to be on my website, if I had one. They're allowed to do whatever the fuck they want to on their own website.

>> No.1325077

You know, there's this local bitch that's all upset because the local library doesn't want any copies of her self-published books. I looked them up on amazon, and I can see why. The book descriptions, presumably written by the author, are riddled with spelling errors and grammatical errors. Not the typos kind or the sloppy kind, the only semi-literate kind. The plots are borderline insulting (Buffy the Teenage Witch vs. The Irish Potato Famine). The only reviews are from her family members. And it appears the cover art might just be plagiarism. It appears she's taken pictures from her favorite fashion magazines, and very poorly shopped them onto her hideous paintings. Beyond amateurish. I'm thankful the library rejected them.

Having standards =/= against the first amendment.

>> No.1325079

>>1325075
exactly
those douchebags included names of iraqi informants in their leaks and now al-qaeda killed them or is going to kill them

>> No.1325080

Yeah because the First Amendment definitely requires stores to sell every book ever and anything else is censorship!

More fun from Twitter:
>WikiLeaks is the first global Samizdat movement. The truth will surface even in the face of total annihilation.
>Look at me everybody I'm the saviour of humanity!!

I'm generally in favour of what WikiLeaks does, but Assange strikes me as a complete asshole.

>> No.1325086
File: 50 KB, 328x480, nope.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325086

>>1325047

>> No.1325089

>>1325077
Link me up.

>> No.1325091

>>1325080

>Assange strikes me as a complete asshole.

Whistleblowing by its very nature is an unlawful and immoral betray of trust.

The caveat of whistle-blowing is that it exposes an even greater crime that's occurring, thereby justifying it. It's wrong to reveal corporate secrets if you've signed a contract not to. That is unless the corporation's product is killing people, and they're not doing anything about it because they're making too much money, for example.

The problem is Assuange is that he's not revealing anything important, unknown, valuable, or criminal. He's doing it, and he's having admitted to doing it, simply to expose the secrets themselves. No matter how justified the reason that they were secret in the first place.

He's giving real whistleblowers a bad name.

>> No.1325093

>>1325089

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=l.s.+fayne&x=0&
amp;y=0

>> No.1325098

GOD, you guys really need to read everything, it's not about that pedo book. It's about this:

>WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free--fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe.

fags.

>> No.1325101

>>1325093
>click link
>look through book
>orgasmicbirth.com
>buy 10 copies

>> No.1325106

>>1325098
at least im not a homophobe

>> No.1325109

>>1325091

Yeah, I'm pretty much in agreement with this. So far the only thing I've seen from the leaks that seemed worth revealing was the stuff about American diplomats being ordered to spy on UN officials; he could easily have released that (and anything else truly incriminating) without all the "Prince Andrew said some mean things about the French" bullshit.

>> No.1325110

Anybody who purchases from Amazon is giving money to those who would help criminals hide their crimes. They've censored their search results before to hide gay and lesbian books because they're "inappropriate." They're a terrible and immoral business.

>> No.1325113
File: 73 KB, 1024x768, Frank13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325113

Proud to buy Kindle this Christmas.

Secrets must be kept secret.

>> No.1325115

This is pretty much what I expected from the board that jacks itself off endlessly in amazon wishlist threads.

>> No.1325117

>>1325110
>immoral business

I think you mean "amoral". You know, like every other corporation in the world. They don't do stuff like this because of some moral judgment; they do it because they think it's a good business move.

>> No.1325120

>if Amazon are
>Amazon are
cool

>> No.1325125

>>1325115

This is pretty much what you should have expected from a board frequented by literate people. Instead of the conspiracy theory laden man-children of /new/ and /x/.

>> No.1325126

>>1325117
Yes, I suppose you're right. Still, a business is a group of human beings that collectively engage in immoral acts. The people that constitute the business should still be held accountable.

>> No.1325128

>>1325117
A business doesn't have to be amoral to be profitable. That's just propaganda the corporate sociopaths use as an excuse.

>> No.1325132
File: 19 KB, 297x369, what_a_twist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325132

>>1325093
Read a customer review:

>I liked the time period, the thoughts preparing for the potato famine, and the donkey's. I liked the blind lady that wasn't really blind.

>blind lady that wasn't really blind
>mfw

>> No.1325136

>>1325132

Now imagine a whole series of books with writing like that.

>> No.1325137

How is booting wikileaks off the servers a business decision? Other than the usual corporate aversion to controversy.

>> No.1325141

>>1325137

How is aversion to controversy not a business decision?

>> No.1325143

>>1325128
The League of most Villainous Villains would most definitely go bankrupt. I don't see how their milk-bar side operation would be able to sustain so many employees; maybe expansion? But what about the logistics man, think of the logistics.

>> No.1325145

>>1325141
I guess it's calculated that they'll lose less business from people upset over them not allowing wikileaks, then from people who would be upset if they continued to host it.

Unless they're shown otherwise, like with an effective boycott. Which will never happen.

>> No.1325148
File: 1.11 MB, 1680x1260, wall6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325148

From Wikileaks

Wat.

>> No.1325152

This stupid fuck is starting to annoy me.

>> No.1325155

>>1325128
Maybe for small businesses, but amorality is pretty much guaranteed for any large company. If they were making moral decisions instead of profitable ones, some other company without their scruples would come along and take their place. It's just survival of the fittest.

>>1325137
I expect it's both aversion to controversy and fear of government reprisals.

>> No.1325162

Amazon is not saying they want to jail the guy who wrote it (unless of course he actually molested him some babies). What they are saying is, "We don't want to encourage or contribute to the sale of this book." That is not censorship. That is the right of any business owner.

>> No.1325180

I think if enough people complained about this it would at least make them less likely to do something similar in the future, if there was a real backlash. At least they'd have to give more weight to the negative consequences of the decision.

>> No.1325182

>>1325162
This ends the discussion.

>> No.1325190
File: 16 KB, 300x300, 41V11GT7PHL._SL500_AA300_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325190

>mfw Amazon still sells this

>> No.1325195

>>1325182
It would if this was about the pedo guidebook, but it's not.

>> No.1325197

>>1325162
Boycotting Amazon doesn't have anything to do with whether a private organization can or can't do something. It's just expressing disapproval with their actions and indicating you don't want to give money to a business that would do something like this.

>> No.1325200

I'm about to buy something off Amazon right now.
They always have what I'm looking for at a good price.
...except for that time I tried to buy Quietude and Diffidence.

>> No.1325206

>Boycott Amazon
>But I like cheap stuff!

America is doomed.

>> No.1325208

>>1325190
they still sell it because about 99% of the things in there don't work or are outdated.

>> No.1325212

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE FUCKING PEDO BOOK YOU FUCKING MORONS

Amazon runs a cloud computing service. Wikileaks moved their site onto it because it was getting DDoSed by bored teens.

Amazon was like "Yeah, no. We're not hosting your shit when you're a fugitive."

Wikileaks got butthurt and decided to snipe at America in general.

>> No.1325217

>>1325093
I'm having a very hard time believing the author isn't retarded to some extent.

>> No.1325219

If you're ok with this move by Amazon, then you should have no problem with companies working with the Chinese government to suppress dissent either.

>> No.1325225

If you just never really use a company's service anyway, can you claim to be boycotting them? Cause if so, I'm totally boycotting Amazon.

By default.

>> No.1325229

>>1325219
That's a bullshit comparison. Amazon is looking to avoid negative press, which hurts business.

It's a fucking BUSINESS you morons. They have a right to refuse certain clients. Welcome to living in the free world-- it doesn't always work the way YOU want it to.

Go baawwwwww somewhere else.

>> No.1325233

>>1325229
>>1325229
>>1325229
This.
Can't wait to do holiday shopping on Amazon.

>> No.1325242

>>1325229
It's business decision in china too. Cooperate with the chinese authoritarian regime, or don't do business at all.

>> No.1325243

Amazon isn't violating his first amendment rights, only the government can violate constitutional rights. When any other person or company does it, it's just being rude. And, quite frankly, an Australian living in Europe doesn't have a lot of room to claim protection under American laws.

>> No.1325253

I'll boycott them in a few minutes after i've ordered the last of my christmas shopping.

>> No.1325264

>>1325242
So, Amazon is authoritarian because they refuse to serve a fugitive?

Is america authoritarian because no banks will give me a loan if I'm screaming for one after I attacked someone in the lobby?

>> No.1325266

The business can sell whatever the fuck it wants. Fucking retarded liberals and fucking retarded. I'm going to sue a christian bookstore more not selling a pop up book with pictures of my penis.

>> No.1325267

>>1325079
>those douchebags included names of iraqi informants in their leaks and now al-qaeda killed them or is going to kill them
I like how specific you're being. No doubt you can cite those informant names?
Because I sort of doubt that considering Wikileaks policy of harm reduction, one part of which consists of scrubbing names and information that could put informants at risk.

>> No.1325281

>>1325267
They've specifically said that there's no evidence anyone has been killed as a result of any of these leaks. Wikileaks also gave the state department access to the current round of leaks before they were released and asked for their help in redacting info that would do that. So, the screaming from the right that this has cost lives is a lie, as usual.

>> No.1325286

God bless the right. Huckabee wants Assange executed for treason.

>> No.1325290

>>1325286
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/11/lets-detain-assange/

>> No.1325292

>>1325286
But not Cheney for the Valerie Plame deal i'm guessing?
Anyway i'd laugh all the way to the bank if they assassinated Assange.
He's just the PR guy anyway, it wouldn't slow Wikileaks down a bit, and there's an insurance file (presumably on the Afghan War) out there with 1,4GB of material that will be released if anyone does.

>> No.1325293

Take that money you were going to spend on Amazon, and donate it to Wikileaks instead, so they can afford their own servers.

>> No.1325310

>>1325292
I hadn't heard this, do you have a source on this?

>> No.1325316

shouldnt it be, "If Amazon is so..." not "are"?

>> No.1325324

>>1325310
That he's the PR guy?
That's common knowledge.
If you mean the file that's also common knowledge.
They put it up on their servers under the Afghan War Diary page (wether it's related or not is anyone's guess) which has been spread around at tons of places now.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wikileaks+insurance+file

It's encrypted so all they have to do is release the key and the shitstorm will ensue.

>> No.1325350

>>1325324

In other words...Wikileaks is opposed to government secrets except when keeping them is good for donations.

>> No.1325354

>>1325350
>except when keeping them is good for their health
Anyway they haven't actually said anything about the file or what's on it, it's pure speculation.
They put up an encrypted 1.4gb file called 'insurance' and that's about it.

>> No.1325360

>>1325350
lol if you think that has anything to do with 'donations' rather than with the very real threat of US military / intelligence operatives killing, imprisoning, or otherwise fucking with wikileaks

>> No.1325362

>>1325350

I think the stuff in the Insurance file is over the line of what they think is good to put out and that it's a data equivalent of having nuclear weapons, where you don't want to use them, but it keeps people from fucking with you.

>> No.1325363

>>1325316

"Amazon" implying the people who control Amazon, not the website itself.

>> No.1325365

>>1325354

Either they're going to release the contents because they are opposed to government secret-keeping or they're going to withold it because they're hypocrites who just want more donations to "keep us strong".

>> No.1325372

>>1325365
Or they'll keep it secret because they have nothing.
Really. Speculation.

>> No.1325375

>>1325362
>>1325360

> very real threat

That's what Julian tells you, but there is no evidence for it whatsoever. Think about it for one goddamn minute. The file could contain absolutely nothing and you would have no idea.

>> No.1325378

>>1325375
Yeah because it's real hard to come to the conclusion that the Wikileaks guys are in any danger.
Don't be retarded.

>> No.1325387

>Release documents on Kenyan political assassinations
>Release documents on offshore banking
>Release documents on the Icelandic bankers
>Release documents shaming the American diplomats and military
>documents on Chinese censorship, Thai censorship, somali assassination, gitmo procedures, Saudi Arabs and Egyptians antipathy against Iran etc etc etc.
Sure. Nothing to be scared off at all.

>> No.1325391

>>1325372

That's what I actually think is the case. They know that their core support group of psuedo-conspiracy theorists who believe absence of evidence is evidence and that they can play them for tons of jewgold by implying there are huge looming secret threats that only money can solve.

Oh fuck this is /lit/, sage.

>> No.1325394

Hey this raghead commie news is all good and well but why no intel on Area 51?

>> No.1325401

>>1325394
two possible reasons, either wikileaks can't break the secret backwards engineered alien cryptography.

Or, wikileaks is relatively incompetent, and only has sources to release things that US would like to keep secret, such as what their diplomats say about heads of state, but not anything that the US feels is actually worth the time and effort to protect.

Personally I suspect the former.

>> No.1325402

>>1325394
They're too busy sorting through that new My Lai thing and apparently they've got something heavy on one of the Largest Banks of America coming up.

>> No.1325403

>>1325378

You're still sucking Julian's cock here.

Ok, they're in some kind of vague "danger".
How is "insurance" protecting them from that?

(Answers that involve baseless speculation about the contents will be ignored.)

>> No.1325412

>>1325403
They know aforementioned governments would like nothing more than to shut them down. Hell normal people and politicians are already calling for Assange to be executed.
Having a vague threat of something worse coming out if they pick him off helps in deterring that.

This isn't rocket science.

>> No.1325414

>>1325402
A new My Lai thing?... How could My Lai possibly have been more evil? Or is it a recent event similar to My Lai?

>> No.1325428

>>1325414
Well they haven't really called it that or anything.
They've just said that they're working on a video that shows US soldiers killing two hundred (iirc) or so civilians. (pretty sure they also said close to half where children)
Mind you this is going off my memory from around the leak of the Collateral murder video so it might be slightly off. They're releasing a video off civilians being killed anyway.

>> No.1325437
File: 29 KB, 640x480, DOHOHOHO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325437

>mfw Americans are pissed because Wikileaks exposes the stupid shit your government and allies do.

So you're all saying you'd rather not know everything in the leaks?

>> No.1325443

If I believed in God I'd consider Assange the anti-christ, since I don't I just consider him myopic, pretensions, immoral, asshat.

>> No.1325445

>>1325403

> Having a vague threat of something worse coming out if they pick him off helps in deterring that.

Again, you have no evidence for that. Or rather, you have exactly as much evidence for the deterrence as you do for the supposed threat. None.

Stop just believing anything that Assange tells you and think for yourself.

>> No.1325450

>>1325363

still doesnt sound very gramatically correct, if I had written that on a paper im sure my english prof would scold me...

>> No.1325457

>>1325047
>Publish numerous classified U.S. documents
>Move to a U.S. server

Are these people retarded or what?

>> No.1325458

>>1325445
>Stop just believing anything that Assange tells you and think for yourself.
I find it funny you say this while pretty much spouting Republican talking points. Assange hasn't actually said shit about the insurance file and the most he's said about being under threat is that a supporter was picked up in an airport for a few hours and that some guy was hassled in Luxembourg and Iceland.

That there's a threat to people who leak government documents that make it into the mainstream media is something anyone with two brain cells could figure out.

>> No.1325460

>>1325428

By "working on" you mean "editing to make more dramatic and politically biased".

>> No.1325461

>>1325457
Moved one of their hosts there only.
Due to the DDoS effort currently going at them which Amazon would hardly notice.

>> No.1325464

>>1325460
Sure, you can believe that if it makes you sleep better at night.

>> No.1325467
File: 26 KB, 335x420, Your_Argument_is_invalid_dog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325467

>>1325458

> Republican

full-retard.aes256

Think for yourself, man. That's all I'm saying. I don't care if Julian's semen tastes like rainbows, there's no sense in swallowing. Fuck this thread, and fuck you. Goodnight.

>> No.1325471

>>1325467
Don't worry. There's always more of that Authoritarian drivel during those times when the cognitive dissonance gets the better of you.

>> No.1325472
File: 110 KB, 258x254, 1287896511810.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325472

>>1325458

Evidence by you: none.
Fucks given by me: none.

>> No.1325473

I laughed when the latest release proved the US is sponsoring the Kurdish separatists.

>> No.1325475
File: 2 KB, 75x78, 1287362972400.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325475

>>1325471

> "think for yourself"
> Authoritarian drivel

>> No.1325477

>>1325475
>"think for yourself!"
>implying that's not what you do to get to the conclusions drawn in earlier posts

>> No.1325478

>>1325473
Any reason why they shouldn't?

>> No.1325481
File: 83 KB, 628x418, 1288645026152.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325481

>>1325477

>> No.1325485

>>1325478
Well for one thing it means we're sponsoring terrorists in several countries. Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria to be precise.

>> No.1325486

>>1325113
>>1325113

>Secrets must be kept secret.

even when the "secrets" is your government engaging in illegal things?

>> No.1325489

>>1325478

As a general rule, it's impolite to fund people who want to separate from one of your allies. In this case, Turkey.

>> No.1325493

Shit I can't wait until they assassinate Assange.
Hilarious insurance will be hilarious.

>> No.1325495

>>1325485

Link to any cable which substantiates that claim.

(hint: you can't.)

>>1325486

Name one illegal thing done by the US shown in the cable release.

(hint: you can't)

>> No.1325504

>>1325485
If the US supports them they're not terrorists. The whole designation terrorist is so arbitrary that its basically, you're a terrorist if you're not a state and not liked by the US. So I don't really care for the word terrorist in general, its not very useful.

>> No.1325507

>>1325412
>>1325412

>hurrrrr durrrrrr

Something like Area 51 would be classified as top-secret. Wikileaks hasn't released (and its not claiming to have) any top secret documents. Only secret and confidential.

also

ITT:

>herp derp he is a commie faggot. Doesn't matter if his organization is releasing documents that show outright illegal activities in the govt, and he is about to release documents from the banks that drove us into this clusterfuck, BURN HIM!. Oh by the way guise, my TOTALLY favourite book is 1984

>> No.1325515

>>1325486
>Name one illegal thing done by the US shown in the cable release.
Illegal Spying on EU Citizens comes to mind.

>> No.1325518

>>1325485

No, we're funding ethnic Kurds, who were shit-tier under Saddam. The problem is that they really are shit-tier and are funneling that aid to the PKK, who we've been fighting.

You don't hear about us fighting PKK because the press loves hearing about "groups like al-Queda" instead, and because when you say "Kurds" in "Iraq" everybody thinks "Oh those poor Kurds who got gassed by Saddam!" and not "Oh those Communist terrorists!"

>> No.1325519

Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity called for Assange's assassination on national TV. Talk about case and point.
it's like they issued a fatwa against Assange.

>> No.1325522

>>1325515
What law? The only law that could forbid the US from doing that would be international law, and as far as I know there's nothing to say we can't do it.

>> No.1325525

>>1325495


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/30/wikileaks.clinton/

-In the July 2009 document, Clinton directs her envoys at the United Nations and embassies around the world to collect information ranging from basic biographical data on foreign diplomats to their frequent flyer and credit card numbers and even "biometric information on ranking North Korean diplomats." Typical biometric information can include fingerprints, signatures and iris recognition data.

and they've only released something like 1% of the papers.

>> No.1325527

>>1325515

> I'll just make some shit up and see if he buys it.

Nope. Wikileaks is up right now, why don't you find me a cable showing what you claim?

(hint: ah, fuck it, you're not even going to try anyway)

>> No.1325532

>>1325525

forgot to mention, how the US kidnapped a german citizen that had the same name as a wanted terrorist, and after sending him to Afghanistan (where he was allegedly tortured for months) they realized their mistake and OOPS MY BAD WE COOL?

>> No.1325533

>>1325522
The law of nearly every respective country they've done it in?
That's partly why there was such a haste to go around apologizing so our diplomats wouldn't get kicked out. Guess we should be glad not everyone has such authoritarian leaders now that the Italians are calling for their execution.

>> No.1325535

>>1325525
Really, you think collecting information on the North Korean government employees is somehow evil? they're a rogue nation-state we're currently at war with them!

>> No.1325540

>>1325535
>we're currently at war with them!
I think you clicked the wrong board by mistake bro.
This is /lit/. You want >>>/new/

>> No.1325541

>>1325532
Hey the German government signed off on it.

>> No.1325547

>>1325533
Bah those dagos are just pissed about the comments regarding their pretty boy Silvio

>> No.1325548

>>1325525

more detailed

http://bigthink.com/ideas/25172

>> No.1325551

>>1325540
Currently as in the Korean war, which we were a party to was never formally ended, and we have never had normal diplomatic relations with them. Not currently as in recent events.

>> No.1325558

>>1325535

read

>>1325548

It wasn't just North Korea

"Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered U.S. diplomats, the CIA, and the FBI to spy on highest echelons of UN officialdom, including Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and World Health Organization, the Guardian reports. The U.S. event wanted biometric information of UN officials including DNA and iris scans"

hint: it is illegal to spy on UN officials

>> No.1325562

>>1325533
Italy, really, the italians are angry is your big point? so what the italians are always mad. Find me an angry swede and we'll have something to talk about.

>> No.1325566

>>1325558
It is illegal to spy in general. I still want my government to do it.

>> No.1325568

>>1325562
Pretty sure the Scandis are a bit pissed as well seeing as how us spying on them was in the news a day or two prior to the latest leak.

>> No.1325572

>>1325568
They might be unhappy, passive-agressive and frustrated, but angry? no, no such thing as an angry swede.

>> No.1325575

>>1325525

I said "illegal". What you posted is "Assange says this shows that something illegal might have happened."

>> No.1325582

>>1325575
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

>> No.1325585
File: 50 KB, 268x265, 1287704103325.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325585

>>1325558

> writing about something is the same as doing it

Stay classy, /lit/.

>> No.1325588

>>1325585
>Refuting everything when sources are cited
Cool story cognitive dissonance bro.

>> No.1325601

>>1325588
All that you have is a source that the US has claimed was a routine statement from the intelligence services specifying what information they'd like, but which had no force over the diplomatic corps. So you're still just working with Assange's interpretation. There is no evidence that there was anything illegal actually happening.

>> No.1325616

>>1325582

You've just replaced "Assange says" with "The Guardian says Assange says".

You still are incapable of producing a cable that shows anything illegal actually happened. Just issuing a directive saying "We want this informaiton" does not mean that anybody went out and illegally obtained any such information or obtained it at all. If they did, why don't you produce some evidence of that? Oh wait, you can't. And neither can Wikileaks.

>> No.1325624

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi5YhJbku2E
Feels good man

>> No.1325626

>>1325190

whatever dumbshit gets ahold of this isn't going to blow up more than his face. whoever gets their hands on some classified docs could piss some country off to the point of nooks everwhar. I don't give a fuck about the first amendment, if its classified, its classified for a REASON.

>> No.1325628

Wikileaks has never released anything about the US government that reflects policy I don't agree with. Frankly I take bigger issue with some of the publicly disclosed policies than I do with the secrets revealed by wikileaks. Thus the damage done by releasing it is not justified, and wikileaks are worthless criminals.

>> No.1325630

>>1325626
>it's classified for a reason
Not really. The bureacrats will classify anything for little to no reason.

>> No.1325634

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzvEXja35Co
Better one for some highlights.

>> No.1325640

>>1325558
>Spying is bad and illegal.
>Wikileaks spying is good and moral.
>WTF?

>> No.1325644

>>1325640
Wikileaks doesn't actually do any of the spying.
They get information sent to them from the actual leakers and they put it out into the media.

>> No.1325651

ITT: Ignorant fucktards act like the U.S. government documents are the only thing Wikileaks has ever released, or ever will.

Just shows how much partisan nationalism there is. Support them until they gore your sacred cow.

>> No.1325658

>>1325588

> sources are cited

None of which show anything illegal occurred.

Which is exactly the point. For all of the supposed illegal and nefarious things being exposed, you still can't cite a single example of something illegal occurring. The closest you can come is speculation about what might have happened given a single cable taken completely out of context.

>> No.1325668

>>1325651
I've seen their other documents, nothing looked interesting

>> No.1325672

>>1325658

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=4380&mn=30066&pt=msg&mid=9814847

original cable:
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/02/07BERLIN242.html

>At issue was the 2003 kidnapping in Macedonia of a German citizen of Lebanese descent, Khaled el-Masri. El-Masri was taken to a secret prison in Afghanistan, where he says he was questioned and tortured before being released several months later in a remote area of Albania. U.S. officials later conceded that el-Masri was mistakenly taken because his name was very similar to that of another man who was suspected of terrorist ties.

and like another anon said here, wikileaks has released about 1% of the cables.

>> No.1325675

>>1325668
Well not if you don't care about non-US matters I suppose.
The Kenyan and Somali political assassinations and corruption was pretty cool stuff.
The Icelandic bankers one was also pretty enlightening.
The Bauer Bank was just hilarious with the threats and such.

>> No.1325686

Here. A link with most of the interesting stuff so war complete with links to the actual cables. (yes, this includes the illegal spying directive cable)
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/29/wikileaks_roundup/index.html

>> No.1325689

>>1325658
>None of which show anything illegal occured
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/07/09STATE80163.html

>> No.1325692

>>1325672
And if you expect the other 99% to have anything earth shattering and not just a fund raising ploy to hold out the mysteriousness of it, the I pity your naivety.


Also
>he says he was questioned and tortured
>he says

I'll believe he was taken and questioned, but a few stress positions, loss of dignity, waterboarding, sensory deprivation. That's just a fun weekend in my book.

>> No.1325695

>>1325692
>but a few stress positions, loss of dignity, waterboarding, sensory deprivation. That's just a fun weekend in my book.
Nothing could more clearly show you for the retard you are than this statement.

>> No.1325702
File: 14 KB, 480x360, 0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325702

>>1325628

>Wikileaks has never released anything about the US government that reflects policy I don't agree with

ah ok. carry on. your govt will keep you safe

>> No.1325704

>>1325692
>stress positions, loss of dignity, water torture, sensory deprivation.
Fixed that for you.

>> No.1325709

>>1325651
>Implying many Wikileaks staffers haven't already quit the project because of Assange's overt vendetta against America.

>> No.1325717

>>1325702
Seen the video, unfortunate, not unreasonable.

>> No.1325718

>>1325692

>I'll believe he was taken and questioned, but a few stress positions, loss of dignity, waterboarding, sensory deprivation

Ah ok. I will take your guess instead of the guy's personal account. my bad

I just hope you don't get mad the day the govt tortures you for months after they confused you for another skinny ass white boy turned jihadist, and then drop you in the middle of somalia.

>> No.1325720

>>1325672

And what is the illegal deed revealed by the cable? Nothing.

> wikileaks has released about 1% of the cables

Which is absolutely meaningless, because they could just as easily contain nothing of interest as whatever nefarious deeds you think they do.

>> No.1325735

>>1325709
>implying there isn't precisely one staffer that was kicked off for being untrustworthy

>> No.1325738

>>1325709
[citation needed]

I feel like I'm on /new/.

>> No.1325740

>>1325718

> the guy's personal account

You mean the personal account which was not in the documents released by Wikileaks at all and is therefore irrelevant to the question of what illegal things Wikileaks has revealed the US to have been doing?

>> No.1325752

>>1325720
>what is this illegal deed?
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/07/09STATE80163.html

>> No.1325758

im glad arab +zionist schemes to have the us bomb iran under the pretense of nuclear weapons have been exposed

>> No.1325760

>>1325738

Relevant:

http://cryptome.org/0002/wikileaks-unlike.htm

> I participated in the mail list discussionI did not leave willingly. I was unsubscribed after I criticized a grandiose funding raising target of $5million is one year. Thus I was never inside Wikileaks but I believe there is nobody inside Wikileaks, that is a mistaken assumption about its existence. Various people participate in common activities but there is no formal organization, no officers, no employees, no legal existence. The WL "advisory board" is an informal arrangement with no legal existence, no responsibility, no legal liability.

>> No.1325768

>>1325740
>You mean the personal account which was not in the documents released by Wikileaks at all and is therefore irrelevant to the question of what illegal things Wikileaks has revealed the US to have been doing?

sigh.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476_pf.html

>> No.1325781

>>1325752

You're dodging the question. What is the illegal deed? You can't answer that because there is none.

>> No.1325783

If the pedophile guide book thing is true, then it's not necessarily protected under the first amendment. Depending on the exact nature/contents of the book, it may fall under the same category as the "How to make an Atomic Bomb" manual (Clear and Present Danger).

>> No.1325801

>>1325781
A clear mandate to spy and steal from High Ranking UN officials?
Well I suppose technically the National Humint Collection Directive really just breaks some of the conventions we've signed with them if you want to be picky.

>> No.1325805

>>1325783
It's not. Wikileaks just sent over their servers to a host they had with Amazon due to a DDoS attack and got kicked out due to Amazon not wanting to be affiliated with the organization for business reasons.

>> No.1325812

>>1325801
A directive? or a request?

The government say it was merely a wishlist of the information that the intelligence services would like. I choose to believe them, because the story makes sense and I don't look good wearing tin-foil.

>> No.1325819

>>1325805
hell amazon might have even been legally exposed for hosting classified documents, sure service providers get some protection, but this is national security shit.

>> No.1325824
File: 97 KB, 430x354, 1288030400549.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1325824

>>1325768

> "Wikileaks shows the US doing all kinds of illegal shit! Look at this thing totally unrelated to Wikileaks!"

>> No.1325830

>>1325801

> A clear mandate to spy and steal from High Ranking UN officials?

You didn't actually read it, did you?

>> No.1325841

>National HUMINT Collection Directive
>Directive

>> No.1325849

>>1325830
>Noun
>directive (plural directives)
>...
>An authoritative decision from an official body, which may or may not have binding force.
>may or may NOT have binding force
>MAY NOT HAVE BINDING FORCE

>> No.1325859 [DELETED] 

>>1325849
Feel free to cite the encyclopedia used. Pretty much everything I can find simply portrays it as an Order.

>> No.1325860

>>1325801

Nowhere does it say anything like that. Read it yourself. The supposed "smoking gun" reads:

> Reporting officers should include as much of the following information as possible when they have information relating to persons linked to:
office and organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cell phones, pagers and faxes; compendia of contact information, such as telephone directories (in compact disc or electronic format if available) and e-mail listings; internet and intranet "handles", internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent flyer account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information.

I draw your attention to "should" and "when they have". What it is saying is "If you have this information, send it in." There is no "clear mandate" to "steal" and "spy". Likewise, when the term "biographic and biometric information" is used in the document, there is no indication that "biometric" means anything more insidious than a photograph or that the means of obtaining such are at all intended to be illegal.

>> No.1325870

>>1325066
>doesn't understand he never raped anyone and he is framed
>actually thinks the governments of the world are not corrupt
>doesn't realize he himself is also corrupt

I think you suck dick and should go to jail for being retarded.

>> No.1325874

itt; massively successful troll steers debate completely away from Amazon banning wikileaks from it's servers.

>> No.1325881

>>1325874
this + trolling or making uninformed comments on wikileaks

>> No.1325882

>>1325860

> business cards

OMG WAR CRIMES!

>> No.1325886

>>1325874

Nah, it's more like the perpetual shitstorm from /new/ spilled over and nobody noticed because nobody reads /lit/.

>> No.1325894

The only reason wikileaks is taking heat from all sides is because they've pissed off everyone, left and right. Nobody really wants freedom of speech, freedom of information,.. everyone wants to be in the right, so when wikileaks pisses off conservative americans they're butthurt, when wikileaks pisses off the liberals, they're equally butthurt.

>> No.1325907

>>1325812
>The government say it was merely a wishlist of the information that the intelligence services would like. I choose to believe them, because the story makes sense and I don't look good wearing tin-foil.

I believe my government because they have never and would never lie to me. (except ofcourse on keeping such detailed stats of iraqi civilian casualties, turning a blind eye to iraqi soldiers torturing, sheltering nazi officials, cia overthrowing democratically elected governments, agent orange, saddam's wmd, ....)

>> No.1325919

>>1325907

You don't have to trust the government. You can read the cable yourself. Except then you might find that you're wrong.

>> No.1325942

>>1325907
>I believe my government because they have never and would never lie to me.

I said their story makes sense, not that they're saints.

>(except ofcourse on keeping such detailed stats of iraqi civilian casualties,
So?

>turning a blind eye to iraqi soldiers torturing,
Yep, was there a better option?

>sheltering nazi officials
only the useful ones

>cia overthrowing democratically elected governments,
Hey it was in our national interest, we don't have a responsibility to respect democracy just because.


>agent orange,
Yeah, don't care.

saddam's wmd, ....)
They got it wrong, even W. was unhappy about this, its not a lie if the president actually believed it. He may have been stupid to believe it, in fact I'm fairly sure he was, but he didn't intentionally lie to us.

I pretty much condone all of those decisions.

>> No.1325954

>>1325860
>>1325860
>>1325860
>>1325860
>>1325860
>>1325860
>>1325860
>>1325860
>>1325860

>> No.1325977

>>1325942
>So?
You were consistently lied to by the people you elected.

>Yep, was there a better option?
lead by example and al that shit

>only the useful ones
"Hey, nazi's shouldn't be prosecuted for their war crims if they'll build is a rocket" cool justice bro

>Hey it was in our national interest, we don't have a responsibility to respect democracy just because.

Except for the fact that the population was again being lied to about it, and that you do have a responsibility to respect democracy if you're a democratic nation, unless you're willing to admit the USA isn't a democratic nation

>Yeah, don't care.

The victims, the people who thought they were serving their country for theirs, their family's, and your saftey, do care.

>They got it wrong, even W. was unhappy about this, its not a lie if the president actually believed it. He may have been stupid to believe it, in fact I'm fairly sure he was, but he didn't intentionally lie to us.

Oops, mistake, no big deal, we went to war on false grounds, we shouldn't be held responsible for it, no big deal, everyone makes mistakes.

>I pretty much condone all of those decisions.

I feel sorry for you. Your government commits crimes all over the world, lies to you, lies to everyone in the world, and you don't hold them responsible for it, you shrug and continue doing what they say. That's all ok to me if that's how you want to live, you have that freedom of choice, but don't be shocked when someone crashes a plane in your buildings and accept that those are the consequences.

>> No.1326130

>>1325942

wow dude you so edgy

like, the US went to war in Vietnam over a false "act of aggression" and thousands of young and old Americans died in vain, but you totally don't care. You are so rad.

>> No.1326155

>>1325977
>, but don't be shocked when someone crashes a plane in your buildings and accept that those are the consequences.

I wasn't and I do.

>> No.1326159

>>1326130
Vietnam was a product of the cold war, it was an expected part of the world view at the time. I didn't ask them to lie about why they did it, but I understand the purpose.

As long as I can understand the reason and rationale of my government I support it. When it acts outside of reason, and I cannot find the rationale then I will condemn it.

>> No.1326203

wait wait, so they release all info instead of some info as a inane attempt to ward off an assassination on assange?

that's fucking silly

>> No.1326280

>Browsing Kindle store
>Find book I've been wanting to read
>This title is not available for customers from: United States
Oh what the fuck

>> No.1326285

>host wikileaks
>boycotted by conservatives
>boot wikileaks
>boycotted by liberals

It's a bad day to be Amazon.

>> No.1326296

>>1326203

Killing Assange won't change anything. He has said he is only a spokesperson. There are many that would fill his shoes if he was killed.

>>>1326159

>PATRUTISM HERP DERP

>> No.1326697

Assange is such a brave guy.

it isn't just paranoia thinking that you could be assassinated at any time for the information you so much as threaten to release, not to mention what you already have.

>> No.1326722

>>1326697
If by brave guy, you mean money-grubbing whore, then yes, he is brave.

One of the original founders of Wikileaks had an earlier similar leak site that operated off of 100 dollars a month.

When the wikileaks group got together, everyone but him immediately started saying shit like "We gotta raise 5 million dollars for our enterprise!"

He said "Uh, no we don't. And it's not an enterprise. It's reporting the truth."

And then they disagreed, so he left.

And then he leaked their emails about the whole business bullshit, and Wikileaks got pissed at the guy.

Seriously. Asange and Wikileaks are just money-grubbing scammers who just embarrass people for money.