Wise input...thank you.
Posted on 12/05/2010 9:23:33 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has circulated across the internet an encrypted “poison pill” cache of uncensored documents suspected to include files on BP and Guantanamo Bay.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Not if part of that file is Obama’s b certificate or some info on Soros, etc....then, he’s probably got 24 hr paid armed protection!
I hope a credible investigation occurs at some point, somewhere. It’s hard to believe that one unstable private could come up with this idea on his own. However, said private does seem to have been a gay activist, and some of these gay organizations specialize in digging up dirt on their opponents and spreading it lavishly, so possibly he was sort of a natural for doing something like this.
He got away with it simply by being beneath notice; I remember the time a shoe-shine guy in New York was sued for insider trading because he had made himself a millionaire listening to the conversations of the Wall Street brokers whose shoes he shined. The brokers considered him beneath notice and said all sorts of things in front of him, which he was clever enough to use. (He was found not guilty.)
I am a little puzzled by Obama’s silence on this whole thing, however. He doesn’t have to make any comments on the case, which could possibly prejudice it, but he has been conspicuously removed from it, as if it were happening to another country that was not his own and that he didn’t really care about. Well, come to think of it...
Because you haven't had anyone in the administration come out and say that it's fake. In fact, you've actually had official memos (see post just above yours) disseminated to all government employees warning them not to read the still classified cables on the Wikileaks site. It's an explicit administration acknowledgment that they are indeed real. Plus, you have foreign diplomats resigning because what they're quoted as having said in some of those cables.
This is no guarantee that what is yet to be released, will be genuine. But, it's pretty clear that what has been released thus far, is authentic.
Wikileaks bugs me, but something just occurred to me:
1. Wikileaks, as a de facto anarchist group, reveals material it isn’t supposed to have because it’s (albeit misguided) owner feels that this information should be in the public domain. Basically he, like me, believes that Governments are corrupt.
but then we have:
2. Every major national newspaper (NY Times, for instance) colluding with Wikileaks to make sure that they are ahead of the release while getting the data so that they can also publish it to make money and sell advertising and maybe win an award or something.
Personally, I don’t see any difference between the criminality of #1 or #2 - but somehow #2 pisses me off more than #1.
I don't understand:
I don't see how "certain" and "may have been" fit into the same sentence. Seems to me either that (1) you must be certain he was a hacker, or (2) you guess he probably was a hacker.
But the two alternatives seem mutually exclusive. So which conclusion should we accept?
I think everyone knows the score on Lockerbie.
I am certain he is a hacker, there is no doubt, he even wrote a book about it in the 90s. I am also certain he was a foreign operative, if anything, an undeclared tool. “may have been” is where the guess is, is he still an operative for a foreign government, is he an operative of non-governmental powers (Soros or others) or is he a rogue doing this on his own? Considering his influence, history, and what he is able to achieve, we can almost certainly eliminate him being a rogue.
That's why I posted that I was looking forward to the comments here....I too am try to sort this all out.
I thought we didn’t negotiate with Terrorists.
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, WikiLeaks did not “leak” anything. I don’t know who leaked it, but since there’s no mention of Obama and his administration, the regime, in any of these tens of thousands of documents, I’d have to say somebody in the regime leaked ‘em. But WikiLeaks did not leak ‘em. They just published ‘em. WikiLeaks is just a sponge, a useful idiot sitting there over in the UK and some disgruntled military guy in Afghanistan somehow has access to all of this and hands it over. ...
“.....Isn’t it amazing that 91,000 secret documents have been published and not one of them mentions the Obama regime? Not one! ......”
RUSH: “....Obama clearly is not acting upset about it because the perception is it hurts America, and you got enough diplomats saying, “This is very devastating to American foreign policy,” which is the Obama idea. So in that sense he even likes it. There’s Eric Holder out there, this incompetent guy threatening to bring him up on charges. Big deal. We know that will never happen. Holder is still trying to secure a trial for the grand sheik mastermind of 9/11.”
MORE: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/tools/search.member.html
Wise input...thank you.
Manning was arrested in May of 2010 (no specific day given), the Deep Water Horizon explosion happened on April 20, 2010.
Thanks. That makes things much more interesting. From what I understand, some period of weeks passed from the time Manning (over a period of some time) downloaded the classified materials, to the time that he was arrested.
If Assange has information about the BP disaster, there almost certainly has to be another leak other than Manning given the timing of events. I'm not sure anyone has said this, at least not publicly.
Rush made those comments after the initial document dump, that only included documents on Afghanistan, and mostly from the time period before Obama assumed officec.
This latest dump, is virtually all contemporary cables from Clinton's State Department.
Here is a treasure trove of links of BO to WikiLeaks and other crimes.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2637720/posts
The AES private key to decrypt the file.
It's only 32 bytes, or 64 characters.
There are any number of ways to release it automatically, if there's no intervention every week (or day).
Don't you mean:
Don't drama this out, just leak 'em, Drag Queen?
I think the “backstory” is that the government is allowing him to continue to prove the necessity of tightly regulating the internet.
That’s one possibility :) But I can think of a few more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.