The same thing could happen if the postal service is privatized. In fact, a large part of it is privatized (FedEx transports much of the US mail that goes via air) --- makes you wonder about those vote by mail ballots that seem to arrive late, if at all...

Wow "d"@1:33, *that's* what you so skillfully gleaned from this? An imaginary hint of voter fraud? Do you see such things everywhere? What a &^%$^& idiot.

Great article.

Um, TM, we have a rule against personal attacks on other commenters here. As this is the first time I recall your having commented here, please consider this your friendly warning. Make your point without attacking other commenters. Thanks.

As to the point you were trying to make, "D's" comment had nothing to do with "voter fraud". The voters are doing fine, please leave them alone. It did, however, point out yet another serious concern about election fraud, particularly when it comes to the horrible idea of Vote-by-Mail elections, and how those serious concerns would be further exacerbated by the privatization of the U.S. Post Office (another horrible idea).

Appreciate your kind words about the article, but not the dismissive and personal attack on "D's" interesting point.

The question is: how did wikileaks come to be in posession of this Bank of America executives hard drive? If it was givin to him by the BofA exec, then good for Mr. Assange. You sir hit the jackpot have fun. But I suspect that it was obtained by unethical means as was the stolen information he's released so far. What if wikileaks released a statement that they had obtained a copy of Brad Friedman's hard drive and were going to release it next year.. including confidential information you've obtained through interviews over the years? What if he obtained Ernie's hard drive including lawyer/client privileged information and was set to dump that data? Would the squeekywheel.com still be supportive of wikileaks?

This stuff he's released so far is pretty $hitty stuff IMO. Perfectly illustrates how arrogant, despicable, etc. our government has become. And the corporate stuff to follow will prove what many already feel about those sumbitches. But, it was still acquired unethically so I don't blame paypal, or the credit card companies, or the rest for stifling Assange's ability to reap the rewards off his slimey deeds.

Careful what sort of scumbag behavior you endorse, it may bite you in the ass some day.

All good questions, WingnutSteve, though questions that I shouldn't have to even answer if we had an MSM worth a damn anymore in this nation. But we don't. So here's a few answers for ya:

I suspect that it was obtained by unethical means as was the stolen information he's released so far.

What exactly is "unethical" about receiving documents showing violations of the law? You may remember a li'l trial held at Nuremburg in which the U.S. government argued that merely following orders was not a sufficient defense when those orders were illegal. In other words, even a lowly Army PFC has the responsibility of doing something about illegal war crimes. And, if reports of PFC Bradley Manning as the leaker in the cases I suspect you're referring to, are accurate, it seems as if he did exactly that, and is a hero for having done so.

What if wikileaks released a statement that they had obtained a copy of Brad Friedman's hard drive and were going to release it next year.. including confidential information you've obtained through interviews over the years?

Fair question. But I'm sorry I have to explain the difference between public documents (owned by you and me), and private documents, owned by just me. Surely you understand the difference between public and private property, as well as the difference between violations of law and unlawful search and seizure (and, in the hypothetical you offer, violations of privacy).

What if he obtained Ernie's hard drive including lawyer/client privileged information and was set to dump that data? Would the squeekywheel.com still be supportive of wikileaks?

Again, there is a difference between public information and that protected by attorney/client privilege. Nonetheless, as we've discussed on this blog before --- specifically in the case of Stephen Heller --- an argument can be made that it is appropriate to reveal attorney/client privilege in the case where a) the attorney is instructing the client how to get away with breaking the law and b) the client is using public funds to carry out the illegal activities in question. It's a very very dicey argument to make in that case, but Heller's revelation of illegal doings by Diebold (when they were caught using illegal hardware and software for voting systems in California) certainly supports the notion that there are some cases where the violation of law is justifiable.

This stuff he's released so far is pretty $hitty stuff IMO.

Then you're either not paying attention, or you don't give a shit about war crimes such as murder of civilians and journalists, torture carried out by the state and lied about in the bargain, and the U.S. carrying out wars in secret (and lying about it to the public).

If that's "$hitty stuff", then so is the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law, as far as you're concerned, I guess.

Perfectly illustrates how arrogant, despicable, etc. our government has become.

No. It perfectly illustrates how our government has carried out serious crimes and war crimes. That, of course, is despicable. But that you seem to marginalize these acts is somewhat extraordinary.

And the corporate stuff to follow will prove what many already feel about those sumbitches. But, it was still acquired unethically so I don't blame paypal, or the credit card companies, or the rest for stifling Assange's ability to reap the rewards off his slimey deeds.

Ah, so no "due process" is necessary for folks like you either? Seriously, does the U.S. Constitution really mean that little to "Wingnuts" such as yourself? I thought you guys used to pretend you gave a shit about it.

We'll see what comes out in re: Bank of America. But again, when you have institution receiving trillions in tax payer dollars, with virtually no accountability, it's difficult for me, at least, to get too upset if violations of the law are shown by "leaks" in such cases.

I sure hope PayPal and Mastercard and Visa and Bank of America don't decide they don't like Republicans some day, or any particular rightwing group which hasn't been charged with violating a single law, but which those banks arbitrarely decide they wish to punish by cutting off their ability to carry out any financial activity whatsoever.

We have a Constitution for a reason around here. It's terribly depressing to see folks like you disregarding it in virtually every way. Sounds like you'd prefer a wholly unaccountable, extra legal dictatorship as your preferred form of government from the arguments you aver here.

I don't marginalize anything Brad. The "shitty stuff" comment was meant to illustrate my opinion of how unethical these people are.. meaning the politicians and the corporate bigwigs etc.

What exactly is "unethical" about receiving documents showing violations of the law?

Stolen documents are stolen documents. Receiving stolen documents and then data dumping them on the world is unethical. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

If that's "$hitty stuff", then so is the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law, as far as you're concerned, I guess.

I already answered that, our politicians and the corporations they seem to serve are assholes which is what I meant. BUT, please explain to me how Mr. Assange managed to score the hard drive of the BofA exec? Because in the comment you slam me and yet you are apparently eagerly awaiting the results of this likely stolen hard drive. So don't preach "Rule of Law" to me when you are all to eager to ignore the same rule in "certain" situations. You either believe in it or you don't.

WingnutSteve said:

Stolen documents are stolen documents. Receiving stolen documents and then data dumping them on the world is unethical.

Then I guess every media organization in the world --- including Fox "News", NYTimes, Washington Post, TIME, Newsweek, WikiLeaks and The BRAD BLOG --- are all "unethical".

I guess revealing illegalities, if the documents showing them were "stolen" by someone and given to a media outlet, is "unethical"? The "ethical" thing to do in such a case would be for the media outlet to return the documents to the law breakers and not tell anybody about it? Really?

Seriously, I don't think you've fully thought this one through, Steve.

please explain to me how Mr. Assange managed to score the hard drive of the BofA exec?

We don't know whether he did or not. But assuming that WikiLeaks "managed to score" such a thing, it's likely because they've long provided (about 4 years) a place where sources may leak such documents anonymously. What's the mystery? For all we know, the "BofA exec's" hard drive was leaked to WikiLeaks by the BofA exec himself (kinda the way health ins. industry exec Wendell Potter finally found his conscience and blew the whistle on that industry)

Because in the comment you slam me and yet you are apparently eagerly awaiting the results of this likely stolen hard drive.

Again, no idea if it's "stolen" or not. But if the theoretical documents reveal illegal misdeeds by corporate officials against private citizens and/or abuse of public tax-payer funds or trust, then yes, I'd be eager to see them.

So don't preach "Rule of Law" to me when you are all to eager to ignore the same rule in "certain" situations. You either believe in it or you don't.

I don't think you understand the definition of "whistleblower", which is recognized under law. Revealing illegalities, such as fraud, even when it may require another violation of law (such as a contractual violation) is not "illegal" --- at least where whistleblower laws are in place. That's why the NYTimes was allowed by the US Supreme Court to publish the "stolen" Pentagon Papers, and it's why the leaker, legendary whistleblower Dan Ellsberg was never convicted of a crime (even though it was "illegal" to release those classified documents).

Yes, I believe in the rule of law. But the law is not meant to protect wrongdoers (see Nuremberg example above). Moreover, laws are often unjust. Rosa Parks broke the law by not giving up her seat to a white man. I'm glad she did. Much as I'm glad that Bradley Manning, if he did as has been reported, revealed war crimes, murder of citizens and journalists, and other abuses of the public trust --- even if he had to "break the law" to do it.

I have a hard time respecting Assange after his interview here and I believe he's a plant to help the government shut down free speech on the internet:
When the Belfast Telegraph interviewed him on July 19, he stated,

"Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two...." What about 9/11?: "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg Conference?: "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

We know how you *feel*, Marzi. Noted. Again.

@ Marzi One Note - since you've basically re-posted your unsupported, instinctual, fact-free sentiment from another thread, I'd thought you might like to read the comments left there for you in response from a 9/11 recovery worker...

...you know, just in case you missed it.

Can we put to bed the notion that Assange is Mossad once and for all (not that there was any real evidence for it):

http://www.haaretz.com/n...wikileaks-shows-1.333608

Unless this is just a Mossad diversionary tactic to throw us off their trail.

@ Marzi-Mono-Rail:

We have read and responded to that Assange 9/11 quote several times now in these threads. Guessing you didn't see it because you don't tend to see anything you don't want to.

(I wish you Prison-pebble-heads wouldn't assume the rest of us don't read the links posted here like you apparently don't. It's a courtesy we usually afford one another at The Brad Blog before launching into our blah blah.)

Since we have to constantly slow down and keep repeating everything for the paste-eaters, I'm reposting the (above) well spoken 9/11 recovery worker's response to that quote - posted by "Mick"...twice.

I don't see your problem with this quote, Mick - that is, if you remove a perceived ego-bruising on behalf of the Truth Movement. All Assange has posited is that we don't have any PROOF of the 9/11 "conspiracy" - and we don't! We have a story we know ISN'T true. We have an official narrative that doesn't make sense and volumes of lies, impossible time-lines, misinformation, silenced whitsleblowers, and stonewalled widows...
...but no proof.
...yet.

I know, I know. I can feel your "time will tell" cycling around...your mantra in blind response to whatever evidence is presented to you here. Your pre-dispositioned comments seem purely reflexive, just as Brad and David Lasagna aptly describe above.

... JEANNIE DEAN said on 12/13/2010 @ 1:16 am PT...

Oh, and as for Assange's direct quote re: "false conspiracies" re: 9/11 - there are a ton of them, Mick. (One of the most widely circulated despite being debunked time and time again? The "Five Dancing Israelis". Thanks to Brad for taking the time in another thread to tap that one down. I can't tell you how bastardized that report has become since the first time I heard it.)
Just because there are all kind of speculations and rumors out there as to what happened - still doesn't preclude solid evidence from existing, somewhere. Assange wants evidence. So do I. So should you.

And yes, now that I know what horrors are in the .5% of released Wikileaks docs (and so should you) I *do* think it would be frustrating to constantly be addressing 9/11 hypotheticals in light of all the proof acquired of all the *other* atrocities we've committed against the peoples of the world.

...

Did you read the whole thing, Marzi?
If so, color me impressed!

Soul @ 11 ~! Ha! We crossed over w/ exact same sentiment. Just saw your comment. xoxo!

Amy Goodman just reported that the C.I.A. has formed a task force to determine the damage Wikileaks has wrought...calling it the "Wikileaks Task Force" or...."WTF".

Dunno 'bout you, but I'm getting the "feeling" from my "finely tuned bullshit detector" that Marzi and Mick are W.T.F. agents, paid to troll us.

'Everyone is Mossad cuz I say so' is a great drumb-beat of a distratction...

Here's the quote and Assange never denied it - right on the news site - ad hominem attacks against me will not wipe away his statement.

http://www.belfasttelegr...ks-founder-14880073.html

@ Marzi -

I addressed the Assange quote in full, above.
No one here implied that he denied it. So, your above post is either:

a. just strange,
b. an ineffective strawman argument
c. exactly the kind of response I'd get from a WTF C.I.A. agent /troll.
d. Proof you didn't read my post, like I correctly assumed you didn't.
e. Proof that you didn't comprehend my post like I assume now you can't.

Not attacking you, teasing you.
Mocking you for not sourcing your points strange unfounded accusations (which maybe you can't help) and continued thread flaming (which you can) just as I promised I would if you didn't consider your comments more carefully.

'Cept for calling those of you- (not YOU, Marzi, personally) -who are repeating (non-stop like a lacky) this strange, Gordon Duff / Alex Jonesian line "Prison Planet Pinheads". It's not even remotely personal, let alone 'ad hominem' attacking.

...oh, it wasn't pinheads. It was pebble-heads.
Apologies in advance if I offended you, twice.

Oh, and paste-eaters.
Sorry, thrice.

@ Marzi ~ Oh, I see the source of our confusion(s)!

You thought me calling you out for your 'unsupported, instinctual, fact-free sentiment from another thread' was re: whether or not the Assange quote was *valid*.

But no, I meant your 'unsupported, instinctual, fact-free sentiment from another thread' referring to your bizzarro position on the whole matter.

But you're right. You didn't provide a link to the quote the first time you posted it. So thanks for self-correcting.

That said, you should know that your 'keenly felt theory' is still as paper thin and hollow as being arrested and imprisoned for charges of "sex by surprise".

Oops! That's right, almost plum forgot!...! There ARE NO CHARGES FILED AGAINST ASSANGE. Hard to keep that in mind considering how many indictments are flying out everyone's pie-holes.

WikiLeaks has not been convicted of any crime. In the absence of a legal judgment, the illegal acts to ban WikiLeaks and other websites from global accessibility have largely backfired by promoting mirror sites and further circulation. Moreover, the banksters’ ability to block payments to a legal entity raises a troubling prospect.
Let us analyse other legal issues: Both international law (Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights) and the US Constitution (1st Amendment) prohibit criminal punishment of those who report matters of public interest. Government and diplomatic embarrassment is not a threat to national security. It would be both unwise and of questionable legality to use the 1917 Espionage Act against WikiLeaks and other media who republish information leaked by whistleblowers. Over-interpreting the 1917 Espionage Act to authorize prosecution of non-government agents who simply receive and publish leaked classified information could have similar chilling results.
Prosecution of Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange will degrade freedom of expression for all media, researchers and reporters, and set a terrible precedent that will be eagerly grasped by other governments, particularly those with a record of trying to ban, gag, stifle, muzzle or censor legitimate political reporting. The 1917 Act is frequently used to silence opposition. It criminalises criticism of the globalists’ war efforts, and sends dissenters to jail just for voicing their opinions. It transforms dissent into treason.
It is sad that The New York Times, The Guardian UK, Der Speigel (Germany) and some other unprofessional and unethical media outfits manipulate and publish selective Wikileaks’ diplomatic cables in order to protect war criminals, liars, politicians and paymasters. That is one of the compelling reasons why Wikileaks must publish ALL unredacted US army war logs and official US government cables without any redaction or self-censorship and before ALL secrets and logs are unclassified. Wikileaks opens secrets expose double standards, bully diplomacy and unethical meddling in other countries. The leaks would help avert more enslavement.
Here are two informational clips that may help analyse the objectives and motives behind the war logs and cablegate, Wikileaks, its founder Julian Assange. Make the clips viral; share far and wide http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAGTHRV_PJ0 ; and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeeTlufK3E4 .