US secrets that tarnish its image before the world - Polidicks

[quote]The United States had secrets revealed that tarnish its image before the world, which should speak to it to kneel and make their 'mea culpa' The most sacred social mission is the act of keeping people informed about what is happening around them in the public and secret acts of the system in power, what, on their behalf, is being done by those who govern. Even more than having the right to inform, the journalist has a civic, social and inalienable duty to tell people what their government does, openly or secretly, on their behalf. An act performed in the function of the representative of a people and kept secret, at worst, I suspect, may be criminal if it is insisted that it be kept secret. The brave and bold Australian journalist, Julian Assange, and his virtual site WikiLeaks, shattered the false moralistic structure of world diplomacy, notably that of the moralizing, preaching United States of America, washed the souls of all peoples around the world, left the self-proclaimed owners of the truth with their pants down, and showed that embassies and diplomatic missions are actually dens of international espionage. Instead of trying to apologize before world public opinion for the practice of diplomatic espionage, kneeling down and doing their 'mea culpa,' the United States, as if wanting to own the absolute truth, tries, at all costs, spending its energies with accusations, prosecutors and with getting the governments of countries around the world to cooperate in their campaign of vengence. The Department of Justice of the United States is exploring the 'legal' roads to prosecute Julian Assange, said Vice President Joe Biden, who considers the founder of WikiLeaks a "high-tech terrorist." "We are studying it. The Justice Department is working on the question. If he conspired with a soldier of the United States military to get these secret documents, this is fundamentally different than if someone leaves documents for you, let's say you're a journalist, here is confidential material,'" Biden said to a NBC TV. The Espionage Act of 1917 does not contemplate this type of case, since you need to demonstrate that the site WikiLeaks, which released thousands of secret diplomatic telegrams from the United States, is not a traditional means of communication. U.S. prosecutors hope to gather evidence that the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, encouraged or helped the soldier, Bradley Manning, who was suspected of having passed documents to the site. To accuse Julian Assange of conspiring to undermine national security would allow the U.S. government to get the Australian in prison without affecting freedom of expression of the media guaranteed by the Constitution. "This man did things that harmed us, put in danger the life and career of certain people in the world. It complicated relations with our allies and friends," explained the vice president of the United States, Joe Biden. Will an arrogant nation, claiming to be the absolute master of truth as the United States does, could they be capable of a gesture of humility and admit that they use worldwide diplomacy to spy on countries, institutions, governments and people around the world? Of course not![/quote] Source: [url]http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/21-12-2010/116300-us_secrets_tarnish_its_image-0/[/url] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Not news" - TH89))[/highlight]

That article's English is horrible.

[QUOTE=Prismatex;26879620]That article's English is horrible.[/QUOTE] It's from a Russian site

Totally not biased source...and what exactly about this is news?

[QUOTE=Cuntsman;26879632]It's from a Russian site[/QUOTE] Oh, I see, Pravda. The Russian equivalent of the Sun. Still, they could have hired someone with a higher than 5th-grade understanding of English. [editline]22nd December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=kaven;26879655]Totally not biased source...and what exactly about this is news?[/QUOTE] Yeah, shitty source and it's just an opinion piece with the same info that's been going around for the past week and a half.

[QUOTE=kaven;26879655]Totally not biased source...and what exactly about this is news?[/QUOTE] How is the source biased?

[QUOTE=Cuntsman;26879682]How is the source biased?[/QUOTE] It's a super-patriotic "Russia can do no wrong" kind of site. They talk about the US and possible attempts to prosecute Assange, but say nothing about the fact that in Russia, journalists critical of the government find themselves shot up in their elevators.

[QUOTE=Prismatex;26879751]It's a super-patriotic "Russia can do no wrong" kind of site. They talk about the US and possible attempts to prosecute Assange, but say nothing about the fact that in Russia, journalists critical of the government find themselves shot up in their elevators.[/QUOTE] Oh, I didn't know. I'm not familiar with this site. A friend sent me the article and I wanted to share.

[QUOTE=Cuntsman;26879777]Oh, I didn't know. I'm not familiar with this site. A friend sent me the article and I wanted to share.[/QUOTE] pravda was set up by the soviet government ages ago to sneakily issue propaganda in russian, pravda means truth. :v:

[QUOTE=Prismatex;26879751] but say nothing about the fact that in Russia, journalists critical of the government find themselves shot up in their elevators.[/QUOTE] Actually that's a myth. According to the CPJ which is the "Committee to Protect Journalists", 17 journalists were killed under Putin which is by far less than the number that was killed under previous presidents such as Yeltsin. and only 5 of them can be definitively linked to their professional work.

[QUOTE=Melnek;26879949]Actually that's a myth. According to the CPJ which is the "Committee to Protect Journalists", 17 journalists were killed under Putin which is by far less than the number that was killed under previous presidents such as Yeltsin. and only 5 of them can be definitively linked to their professional work.[/QUOTE] That's still 17 too many.

[QUOTE=Melnek;26879949]Actually that's a myth. According to the CPJ which is the "Committee to Protect Journalists", 17 journalists were killed under Putin which is by far less than the number that was killed under previous presidents such as Yeltsin. and only 5 of them can be definitively linked to their professional work.[/QUOTE] You say that it's a myth that journalists find themselves dead when they criticize the government, but in the next sentence you say 17 journalists were killed under Putin. How many Western journalists have been killed in mysterious circumstances after they criticize their governments?

Yeah because Vladimir Putin is a fucking saint over there. Still, if this openly puts military personnel in danger then it's wrong.

That's funny I thought it tarnished the images of pretty much every country good going pravda. Then again maybe not seeing as there aren't many nations in that region with an image to tarnish.

[QUOTE=Prismatex;26880195]You say that it's a myth that journalists find themselves dead when they criticize the government, but in the next sentence you say 17 journalists were killed under Putin. How many Western journalists have been killed in mysterious circumstances after they criticize their governments?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.oilempire.us/mediawar.html[/url] I am not going to present a tl;dr for you, but I highly suggest you take a look at this and read it all through as it's quite enlightening and interesting. And hell, these journalists weren't even killed "mysteriously", there were straight out shot on sight in many different occasions. [QUOTE=Uber|nooB;26880122]That's still 17 too many.[/QUOTE] I agree completely.

[QUOTE=Prismatex;26879657]Oh, I see, Pravda. The Russian equivalent of the Sun.[/QUOTE] They don't use ours?! [img]http://static.funnyjunk.com/gifs/1269259657_omg_cat.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=kaven;26879655]Totally not biased source...and what exactly about this is news?[/QUOTE] I don't think you can find a totally unbiased source nowadays. They always side with something.

[QUOTE=Melnek;26880403][url]http://www.oilempire.us/mediawar.html[/url] I am not going to present a tl;dr for you, but I highly suggest you take a look at this and read it all through as it's quite enlightening and interesting. And hell, these journalists weren't even killed "mysteriously", there were straight out shot on sight in many different occasions.[/QUOTE] I'm not wasting more than a minute of my life on a site with headings of "JFK", "911", "World War IV", and "fake elections". Find me some non-conspiracy bullshit and I'll read it. [editline]22nd December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Swebonny;26880589]I don't think you can find a totally unbiased source nowadays. They always side with something.[/QUOTE] That may be true, but there are sources (Pravda, to name one) that don't even try to be unbiased.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;26880589]I don't think you can find a totally unbiased source nowadays. They always side with something.[/QUOTE]While that is true, this [i]is[/i] Pravda we're talking about. They are beyond a shadow of doubt incredibly biased. EDIT: Oh damn it, ninja'd.

[QUOTE=Moose;26880269]Yeah because Vladimir Putin is a fucking saint over there. Still, if this openly puts military personnel in danger then it's wrong.[/QUOTE] It would have, In the cold war. The information is probably going to be mostly on what the army did in places they went to, not what they are going to do. Nothing that is currently mission-critical.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;26880589]I don't think you can find a totally unbiased source nowadays. They always side with something.[/QUOTE] Oh, and there are a few sources (The Guardian, al-Jazeera English, Reuters) that are as close to unbiased as you can get. [editline]22nd December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=PunchedInFac;26880987]It would have, In the cold war. The information is probably going to be mostly on what the army did in places they went to, not what they are going to do. Nothing that is currently mission-critical.[/QUOTE] They did release the names of many people who had been cooperating with the US, which I disagree with.

[QUOTE=Melnek;26879949]Actually that's a myth. According to the CPJ which is the "Committee to Protect Journalists", 17 journalists were killed under Putin which is by far less than the number that was killed under previous presidents such as Yeltsin. and only 5 of them can be definitively linked to their professional work.[/QUOTE] Oh, well just as long as he doesn't kill as many journalists as the previous guys.

[QUOTE=Melnek;26879949]Actually that's a myth. According to the CPJ which is the "Committee to Protect Journalists", 17 journalists were killed under Putin which is by far less than the number that was killed under previous presidents such as Yeltsin. and only 5 of them can be definitively linked to their professional work.[/QUOTE] Oh yes so that makes it right because he only had 5 killed OK.

It's reputation was already tarnished.