MSNBC.com is hosting a live vote on if you feel WikiLeaks should be labeled a "Foreign Terrorist Organization". Apparently a ranking member of the Homeland Security Comittee wants WL labeled as such.
What do you think?
[center][url=http://www.thebump.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=UBB&utm_campaign=tickers][img]http://global.thebump.com/tickers/ttfe42b.aspx[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=UBB&utm_campaign=tickers][img]http://global.thenest.com/tickers/ttd8d88.aspx[/img][/url] [IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/29fci0i.jpg[/IMG]
<p><p>
[url=http://akathewife.com/]Also Known As...the Wife[/url][/center]
Re: WikiLeaks
[url=http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=UBB&utm_campaign=tickers][img]http://global.thenest.com/tickers/ttd8d88.aspx[/img][/url] [IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/29fci0i.jpg[/IMG]
<p><p>
[url=http://akathewife.com/]Also Known As...the Wife[/url][/center]
Eh, I'm uncomfortable with using the word terrorist too freely, I think it lessens the seriousness of the word.
I think the thieves involved need to be pursued and prosecuted fully.
Also, KC, what pfc are you talking about?
Edit: NM
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/09/ap-wikileaks-manning-sanity-questioned-090110/
I don't know, but we got this reminder this morning:
From OASD(NII)/DoD CIO:
?Department of Defense (DoD) military, civilian and contractor personnel should not access the WikiLeaks website to view or download the publicized classified information. Doing so could introduce potentially classified information on unclassified networks. There has been rumor that the information is no longer classified since it resides in the public domain. This is NOT true. The subject information was not ?declassified? by an appropriate authority and requires continued classification or reclassification.
If someone else asks you about the WikiLeaks material or the validity of this suspect information, remember that you can never confirm or deny the validity of leaked Government information. Any comment by you could be treated as an official confirmation by a Government spokesperson.?
1. I'm glad they're putting out a written reminder.
2. I refuse to visit the site solely because I disagree with his actions and I refuse to encourage this man.
[url=http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=UBB&utm_campaign=tickers][img]http://global.thenest.com/tickers/ttd8d88.aspx[/img][/url] [IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/29fci0i.jpg[/IMG]
<p><p>
[url=http://akathewife.com/]Also Known As...the Wife[/url][/center]
This. This. This.
According to google the definition of terrorism is: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
The wikileaks seems to me more that he's trying to inspire anger at the government or military or something, not fear. There is no threat of violence either, so I would have to disagree with labeling it a terrorist organization. I do agree with it being a threat to military security and all though.
That line has to be prettly darn specific. Remember all those commercials about how if you buy marijuana, you're funding terrorism? Have you done any research on where terrorist organizations get their weapons? For some reason, a lot of weapons have U.S. serial numbers on them.
It was a soldier who provided the information and he has since been convicted and incarcerated for that shiit.
I'll have to do a look see so I can find you the name and circumstances.
Click me, click me!