Nothing of great consequence has been leaked? Is this a joke? Russia and Saudi Arabia are the financiers of Al Queda and we support Saudi Arabia's government. The proof is in the pudding. We are still at war against one man who we 'can't' find. Nonsense. This war, like all wars in this world, was created by powerful men behind the scenes. If you still believe 911 was done without our government's knowledge, then you are deceived.

Personally I have very little trust in our own government and do not believe a word they say when it comes to our protection. Our officials always say they are looking out for the American people but historically and morally speaking, they are not. If you are a Christian then you need to check your emotional attachment to this country and realize that what was said in Revelations 'the whole world would be deceived', and consider that you are part of that world who is deceived. I can't believe free thinking men would criticize an organization for leaking TRUTH over taking the spoon fed lies from television and government. It is sad when you can't look past your own egos and find truth.

Shame on me, I've been slacking.

I've updated the list to add more players.

Well sir your sarcasm is duly noted, and frankly not unlike those who feel the way you feel. We can certainly discuss my 'pest' theory as it relates to the middle east anytime, and anywhere. I'd welcome that discussion.

The NYT refused to publish damning papers related to climategate citing the fact that they were stolen. Really? Yes, really. What then is the term for the recent documents they HAVE published and those they have published in the past? On loan from the library of congress? They just make up the rules as they go along, and you'd like to trust them with our national security? But I digress...

You can defend the NYTimes all you day and it won't change the double-standard that it and other extreme liberal publications operate by. Using "Facts" only when and if they serve the desired outcome is exactly what the times is all about. Your bias in this discussion is quite clear.

I can assure you "one" certainly does recognize and completely understands the 'political bent' and the 'manipulation process'. One wonders if the other does too. One also wonders why it is that the NYTimes is known, as suggested by you, as a news outlet that fires and retracts. Shouldn't they report the truth? Shouldn't they investigate their propaganda before they publish it therefore reducing or altogether eliminating the need to fire and retract? Are these the people you'd like to see put in charge of deciding what aspects of our national security does and does not get splattered across the globe? Really?

I thank God in heaven people that think as you do were not around during WWII. We would never have been able to complete the Manhattan project. D-Day may never have happened, and you might be speaking German, Italian or Japanese if you were alive today at all.

See, that PVT doesn't get to make that call. I think you and I would (certainly should) both agree that he is probably not the best qualified. He's not really exposing lies after all, right? I mean, he's just exposing military documents. Maybe we should let any nut job with an agenda get a free pass too? Do you want our enemies to know all their is to know about the locations of our defense systems or our electrical grids? With your stance, that stuff should just be part of the public domain, or at the very least the NYTimes, according to you, is well within it's rights to splatter that information across its front page. Where does it stop?

You are correct though. It will be extremely difficult to do what should be done to the PVT due to the rampant political correctness we are sadly forced to stomach. It's amazingly frustrating and detrimental to our country. This ain't mamby pamby land Xan. This is the real world. The liberal utopia (see California) is a horrible failure.

You can go to sleep tonight knowing the NYTimes is interested in profit, not justice. If that's who you want in charge of our national security then I can only thank God that at least for know there are more people who fell the way I do than the other way around. God help us all should that ever change.

I totally agree that the Pentagon Papers (published during the Nixon years of escalation of the Viet Nam War) were the equivalent of US Magazine in comparison to the information in WikiLeaks. Exposing the duplicitous and counterproductive policies of the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan's leaders in prosecuting an unjustified and unwinnable war is probably as unpatriotic as one can get. Throwing hundreds of billions in treasure and killing millions in an attempt to extract some measure of revenge against a few hundred disparate and diffuse "enemies" that pose little threat is certainly a decent trade off for rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It is far better to send our bravest to die futilely than to expose the corrupt and power hungry. No great empire could last without that core tenet of governing.

There is a small, but meaningful difference between Fox "News" and the New York Times. The NYT is a fact checking and reporting organization that uses facts in editorials that support constitutional rights (liberalism). Fox is an editorial organization that concerns itself with promoting outcomes to power, using facts only when and if they serve the desired outcome (anarchism).

The NYTimes fires and retracts and holds itself accountable for its content. Fox celebrates its victories of power over truth. One doesn't have to like either's political bent, but one has to understand the manipulation process. There are other liberal organizations that are more like Fox in their pathology, like PETA, but most liberal organizations with broad policy missions are fundamentally opposed to concentrations of power, and thus they cannot match Fox in its continuity of momentum.

The real test will come for that private is when the Supreme Court has to decide whether exposing fact is subordinate to national security. Where do the rights to privacy end and the national interest begin. My bet is that no Supreme Court will want to make a blanket call on that. Nuance demands that each episode be judged on content and context. It is likely that this private will suffer the maximum penalty, not for his outcome or intentions, but for his breach of protocol.

Well Xan, you are right about one thing. There is very little difference between Wikileaks and the NY Times - both are liberal in their conception to the very extreme, and both are irresponsible to a fault. You have taken pot shots at FOX news in the past. Are you prepared to recognize the NY Times equally guilty only with an opposite agenda? One cannot help but wonder if your son or daughter were currently in the field in the desert if you'd be so eager to have sensitive information as it relates to his or her whereabouts and intentions leaked to the enemy. Perhaps it just doesn't hit close enough to home for you.

If you don't like the war, that's fine. Call your senators and congressmen. March on the White House Lawn. George Bush did NOT circumvent the process as you and others subtly suggest. Your agenda is clear, and I respect the spirit, but you are misguided. I am not alone in my distaste for what wikileaks is doing. Even the most liberal in Washington have spoken out against it.

As for the 'precedent' you speak of and the Pentagon papers, hog wash. HOG WASH INDEED! The Pentagon papers fiasco was a political tool and was, in essence, an accumulation of top secret documents exposed by the righteous in an effort to circumvent the system - to get their way at all costs and without concern for collateral damage. Certainly the 'thinkers', aka academics, were very eager to expose Johnson at any cost, and they comprised half the team that worked on the project, but the Untied States - Vietnam Relations documents CONTAINED precisely ZERO sensitive military information as it pertained troops on the ground in 1971 and was NEVER deemed a threat to national security primarily for that reason. The study concluded in 1967. Hell, military officials on the ground at the time WERE NEVER CONSULTED.

I'm fairly well up to speed on what happened in Vietnam all the way back to it's French occupation. The Pentagon papers and all that resulted are in NO WAY related to a PVT stealing sensitive military information and providing it to some half-wit self-righteous Aussie for publish on the WORLD WIDE WEB for ALL OUR ENEMIES TO SEE. The two are so far unrelated it is unreal to think that you would ever attempt to make the pairing.

In essence, Johnson was embarrassed. That was the political motivation and it succeeded. YIPPIE FOR THE HIPPIES! Again, there was NO RISK to troops on the ground at the time of the publication, but that kind of information was not contained in those documents. The only real risk at the time was the governments refusal to actually WIN the war, but that's another story all together.

If our military were not handcuffed by the politically correct crowd we'd long ago have left the middle east, glorious in victory and on to whatever event the world called us to. That, too is another story...

Lies and statistics my friend. You send me your bank statements and I'll come up with something you've done wrong, even if I have to invent it, and when I am done I'll publish every bit of it right here on BlackandGold for the world to see. All those times you lied to chicks in college and misrepresented yourself in any way. It'll all be right here. Maybe there was some time in your past where you did a bad thing but were well intentioned. No matter - every misstep and untruth you ever stepped or spoke. We will publish your skeletons right here and leave it to the mob to judge you. That was the spirit of the Pentagon Papers and the precedent you speak of.

The press still does not have unlimited freedom to publish whatever the hell it wants whenever the hell it wants. The first amendment is not a blank check. You may feel as though that is unfortunate, but even the big thinkers - the liberal 'academics', and the Supreme Court disagree.

We have precedent on divulging information about a war in progress. The Pentagon Papers helped expose the duplicitous actions and outright lies by our government in prosecuting the Viet Nam war. Both Daniel Ellsworth and the New York Times were accused and tried for treason. It wasn't even close. They were acquitted with extreme prejudice. The government even used that lame argument that the publication of the documentation of the lies jeopardized the troops. All analysis shows that fewer lives were lost as a result of publication because support for an unjust war disappeared, hastening the end of US involvement. Seems we haven't really learned much, either from history or about how we shouldn't believe everything we are told.

There doesn't seem to be much difference between Wikileaks and the NYTimes. It is considered to be patriotic to hold our leaders accountable. It is considered patriotic and ethical to protect those who are willing to give that last measure of devotion to our country from wasting that devotion because of the lies and greed of despicable, amoral leaders. You cannot convince me that preventing this information from reaching the public is morally or legally justified.

Oh, and this isn't about squashing a dissenting voice. In this country, as you know, you can dissent 'til the dry cows come home. Publishing military information WHILE OUR TROOPS ARE IN THE FIELD or even when they aren't is FAR more evil than the burning of any book.

Perhaps those who thing what this little ****er is doing is okay would have enjoyed knowing he gave Hitler advanced warning about all the who's, what's, when's, where's, why's, and how's about the D Day Invasion? Perhaps there were too few lives lost that day for their righteousness?

I'm sorry Xan, but this guy and what he's doing in no way equates to the points you are trying to make. We all have our own agenda, and it's clear that yours and mine separate pretty widely, but be real. There is principle and there is practice - meaning there's what we'd like to have in our own perceived Utopia and then there's what the real world provides.

Let's not raise this punk to such a level where we credit him for being a 'dissenting voice'. Martin Luther King was a dissenting voice. Surely you can see the difference.

Disagree entirely. The PVT that obtained sensitive military docs should be tried for and convicted of treason. In a perfect world you'd be right, but there ain't nothing perfect about this world. The strategies of the good are placed at risk. The LIVES of our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters are placed at greater risk.

I get your angle, but it was not one man it was a group sign off on Iraq and Afghanistan. As to the overall health of the economy based on tax cuts (or not), economists do not agree. It isn't that simple. If it were there would be no debate about the sustainability of socialism, communism, or capitalism.

That's the problem. This isn't about some great conspiracy to cover up OUR MILITARY SECRETS for the love of all that is holy. EVERYBODY has skeletons. Do you wan't YOURS broadcast for the world to see? I'd bet not.

In grade school, where things are simple and the rules are clear, you taddle on somebody you get the **** kicked out of you. Simple justice. Such a shame we are unable to implement such justice once we're grown.

It is gotten very silly now. I hope this means a massive clampdown on the manipulators of digital technology and maybe a clean up of phishing and spam

Frikin cyberwar?...man i just dont know..

I am going to argue that squashing dissenting voices is as detrimental to a healthy society as burning books and corporate sponsored advertising that poses as "news." It matters not one whit whether you like or dislike what wikileaks publishes. All that matters is that if there are facts that should be known that influence policy decisions that are being denied to the people who would be affected by those policies, this site should be protected, just like any 4th estate entity. Otherwise, we would do stupid things like invade a country based on a lie, promote tax cuts as healthy when they would be seriously detrimental to economic health, or misrepresent major cultural reforms because they would adversely affect a tiny minority who would gain economically from halting the reform.

Or do we like the lies, exploitation and unfairness of asymmetrical information?

Blogs are the only part of this website where we allow political discussions.

We feel the blogs are physically separate from the forums and usually harder conversations do not carry back to the forum discussions.

We ask all our members to read the Blogs selectively.

Good stuff iceshack149.

And even if any of the information is true, we don't have a divine right to the information. It surprises me just how much it seems the world's governments are incapable of managing / restraining the internet. Oh I am not necessarily calling for restraint but some of the stuff is just downright dangerous (e.g. wikileaks), at best unhelpful, and corrupting.Hi CS. Who Dat!
Sure the Saints are the one common denominator of BnG' members. But the website has all stuff Saints and more - Checkout the blog categorization..... that includes "News" and Politics. I don't go in that door if the thread title is unpalatable.

Good luck pherein.

And yes I think you are right. With knowledge, research, measured investment/gamble and patience you may make a tidy sum.

I simply do not understand why political stuff is being posted here. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I come to this site to ESCAPE politics! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Um, isn't this supposed to be a website about THE SAINTS???

Couldn't agree more. I continue to be amazed at what people can manage to convince themselves of. How is this perceived by ANY one as a positive is quite frankly beyond me. This tool should swing from the highest tree.

WikiLeaks is a quagmire and is almost as bad as terrorist, or eventually maybe worse. It's a huge security risk and can get our soldiers, agents and officials killed.

It needs to be stopped because the next move is to lock down the internet, which is the first step toward hardcore censorship.

Yeah. Dumb joke here, about an e-mail sent at 4:26 in the morning... I didn't realize until later that I had posted it at 4:50.