US diplomatic cables to be dropped by wikileaks; US doing pre-emptive damage control

[Mistress Stowastiq]

I can't believe that someone put the cables on sale in the Kindle Book Shop and packaged them all up [only the ones released so far] with a cover and price. Wonder what kinda laws that breaks, but then buying the NYT is kind of the same thing I suppose.

[Callisto]

The info is technically not copyrighted I'd guess so sounds like fair game lol

[BerenTebogo]

I can't believe that someone put the cables on sale in the Kindle Book Shop and packaged them all up [only the ones released so far] with a cover and price. Wonder what kinda laws that breaks, but then buying the NYT is kind of the same thing I suppose.

Capitalism flourishes under the guiding hand of the free-flow of information. This proves it.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So in a law review written in 1988, prior to 1988, there were (edit) 0 cases where the Supreme Court found someone could be punished for leaking secret information after it was already leaked.

Edit: Unless of course they were operating within the context of spying.

[Cadsuane]

You seriously have the worst grasp of jurisprudence I've ever come across in a law student

[aurik]

Look it's this simple, if someone does something to be a prick, which is directly responsible for the consequences he/she suffers, I have no sympathy for them. Now if he's doing this for some high-minded cause, then of course I have some sympathy if his rights are violated.

And I'm not advancing theory that he's a prick, I thought it was obvious he was doing this b/c he believes in transparency, but apparently according to aurik it may not be.

I think Assange is a prick with an axe to grind, but that doesn't make what he's doing wrong, and certainly saying "yes I understand he has rights but I'll laugh when the US Gov't renditions him" is revealing as to your true adherence to the founding principles of the USA.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

And what jurisprudence would that be?

Edit aurik: I've not said, "if he's being a prick he's 'wrong,'" or not entitled to his rights. I'm simply saying if he get's fucked, I won't feel sorry for him.

[aurik]

You won't feel sorry that someone was unjustly deprived of his inalienable rights, most likely at the behest of the US?

[aurik]

You won't feel ashamed that this is your country doing it?

[Callisto]

Look idk how you do things over in terrorland, but the American thing to do is submit quietly.

[Cyn]

Look idk how you do things over in terrorland, but the American thing to do is submit quietly.

And not feel guilty about it.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You won't feel sorry that someone was unjustly deprived of his inalienable rights, most likely at the behest of the US?

If he was being a prick no. If he wasn't, yes.

[Callisto]

Awesome, lol.

[isladar]

Oh wow, lol

[Cadsuane]

And what jurisprudence would that be?

The kind that informs us that this

You won't feel sorry that someone was unjustly deprived of his inalienable rights, most likely at the behest of the US?

If he was being a prick no. If he wasn't, yes.

is a fucking stupid thing to say.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Last I checked, the definition of jurisprudence did not include "compassion."

Let me illustrate for you.

If I had said, "a prick is not entitled to his rights," then you might be correct. But I said, "a prick is entitled to his rights, I just won't feel sorry for him if he gets fucked."

[Cadsuane]

Last I checked, the definition of jurisprudence did not include "compassion."

It doesn't include "justice" either apparently

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It doesn't include "justice" either apparently

I'll illustrate again.

I said, "a prick is entitled to his rights (justice), I just won't feel sorry for him if he gets fucked." You might be right if I said, "a prick is not entitled to his rights (justice)."

[Mistress Stowastiq]

Capitalism flourishes under the guiding hand of the free-flow of information. This proves it.

Yes but I am naive about these things.

1.Amazon reluctantly pulls the child molester's how to book after threats of boycott.
2.Amazon pulls WL.
3.Amazon allows the cables book to sell [Eurodollars].
4.profit

[Cadsuane]

I'll illustrate again.

I said, "a prick is entitled to his rights (justice), I just won't feel sorry for him if he gets fucked." You might be right if I said, "a prick is not entitled to his rights (justice)."

I'll illustrate in turn:

Applauding or, at least, failing to be concerned over a subversion of the legal process as an arbiter of justice because, in a particular case, that subversion happens to vindicate a petty personal sentiment, indicates a grave ignorance of what justice is or is supposed to be and is a pretty fucking stupid thing to admit, particularly in your case being a student of the law and ostensibly familiar with the concept of jurisprudence.