Whitehouse bans all federal employees from viewing Wikileaks material at home and work-ATS included

reply to post by youdidntseeme


The way you and the above forementioned state would relate a crime against the goverment. Yet what the citizen is recieving is information detailing crimes against the citizens

peace to us all we need it

reply to post by ExPostFacto


This is the same country that critisized china for censoring what
the chineese government did at Tienerman square or any other act
involving Human Rights.

Talk about hyocritical, but then, you;ve borrowed so much money from China they
basically owns your a__ anyway.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

But the courts can override the President's policies. The problem is the citizens must challenge the policy. Those that do not take the mark will not be able to buy and sell comes to mind. If the federal employees raise any issue with this their job may be in jeopardy and they will join the long line of unemployed. If you speak up you are silenced. If you enforce your rights they find a way to exert economic pressure on you.

This is very true, and everyone should ask themselves a question. If you did not know this post was about US, which country would you think it referred to?

Do you still believe you live in a free democracy?

Originally posted by lbndhr
In our greatly written Declaration of Indepenedance it states, when our government becomes a Tyrany and makes laws we the citizens do not approve we can revolt and overturn, I am and have been trying to understand what part of this you people do not understand and have been trying to express sense I BECAME A MEMBER OF ATS

peace to us all we need it

I like that. So the big owners of the sheep say we (the sheep to the government) aren't allowed to view this, time for us to eat our grass somewhere else....

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by ExPostFacto

 

This is the same country that critisized china for censoring what
the chineese government did at Tienerman square or any other act
involving Human Rights.

Talk about hyocritical, but then, you;ve borrowed so much money from China they
basically owns your a__ anyway.

Yes, what is really being exposed here is this Governments lies and hypocrisy. See Guardian article from January this year. See the extent of this woman's HYPOCRISY.

End snip
Hillary Clinton today called on Beijing to hold a thorough and open investigation into the hacking of human rights activists' email accounts.

The US secretary of state's comments, made in a speech, marked an apparent shift away from Washington's reluctance to challenge China on a number of issues in recent years.

Clinton voiced unusual – if cautious – criticism of China over its internet censorship, throwing her weight behind Google's threat to withdraw from the country over the hacking and also being forced to censor its search engine.

"In an interconnected world, an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all," she said. "Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face consequences and international condemnation.

"By reinforcing that message, we can create norms of behaviour among states and encourage respect for the global networked commons."

Clinton likened online censorship by countries such as China, Vietnam and Iran to the rise of communist Europe, warning that a new "information curtain" threatened to descend on the world unless action to protect internet freedoms was taken
End snip

It is clear they make one statement to the public and do the complete opposite in practise. They campaigned on the ticket of Democracy - when in fact they are imposing a fascist dictatorship.

They are nothing if not predictable.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Well I still can't decide if Wikileaks is a genuine site or simply a front used by the US government for their own ends. Regardless it seems like we are slowly being more controlled and censored. Bets on when other governments start taking the same line?

S+F

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
You have t forgive my ignorance, but since when can the President create and pass laws? What is the Congress for then?

The President can create laws by executive order which can later be approved or revoked by congress. If congress takes no action, the "law" or order is "approved". This ruling seems to affect only the executive branch though, and as head of the executive branch he can promulgate rules for them. As to whether this ruling is legal or not is certainly open to debate.

And those executive orders would all become invalid if he was impeached, just sayin'

second

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
You have t forgive my ignorance, but since when can the President create and pass laws? What is the Congress for then?

The President can create laws by executive order which can later be approved or revoked by congress. If congress takes no action, the "law" or order is "approved". This ruling seems to affect only the executive branch though, and as head of the executive branch he can promulgate rules for them. As to whether this ruling is legal or not is certainly open to debate.

And those executive orders would all become invalid if he was impeached, just sayin'

second

edit on 5-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

No they do not automatically become invalid. They can be undone by the next executive though.

reply to post by StarrGazer25


I have been born and raised in America. All MEN in this country who are laying down taking this from the GOVERNMENT ARE COWARDS!! "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson ITS TIME!!!! I am NOT ok and I cannot even live normal life anymore knowing what I know. How do you guys ignore this and go about your 40 hours a week. I am seing a psychiatrist and he is soo brainwashed he doesn't get what I am saying.

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by ommadawn

1.its only wikileaks that have broken the law here?

No. The information appears to have been stolen by someone else and handed to them so far as I understand it.
They (Wikileaks) are the Publisher of apparently stolen info.

2. the govenment has never broken the law and tryed to hide it?
I did not say that.

3. calls of asasination are against the human rights and hauge court rulings but ok for journalists?
Who is calling for that?

4. if evedence of a crime is discovered it must be reported or it is a crime but what happens if the govenment is the perpre trator of this crime?

Appears to be two issues in that question. So far as I know, a crime has been reported, and a named individual associated with that. Innocent until proven guilty of course. But the crime appears to exist and by all accounts the 'stolen data'. Evidence of that by inspection of the Public Domain record.

5. do you really beleive the govenment is above the law?
My beliefs a very personal and not for public discussion, such is my freedom of choice.

You are very much on point here. There is quite a list of who may be guilty of a crime here.
Whoever procured the documents has responsibility.
Whoever handled the documents has responsibilty.
Whoever publishes the documents has responsibilty.
As do federal employees who do not meet the security clearance.

Someone above me put it very clearly in a more everyday situation and I will repeat it here:

A thief takes all of your personal information from your laptop, including your SSN, name, birthdate, mothers maiden name, address, pictures of your children, your internet history, credit card numbers etc etc...

He then delivers them to me, and I proceed to publish the information to the world.
Am I innocent here? The thief is obviously guilty, but what becomes of me? And what becomes of the websites and news companies that then publish the information after me?

You fail to address two very relevant and vital distinctions here. Your superior is either ignorant or deliberately using manipulation techniques.

If someone stole info from my laptop, that is my own private information. The information in cablegate is not private, it is public, it is communications carried out by public officials who are paid BY the public, to work in the best interests of the public. The publication of this information CANNOT, therefore, be compared to violation of an individual's right to privacy. Incidentally, that right to privacy is violated every day by the government.

Secondly, the Government is ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE. A government which lies and deceives and witholds vital information from the public suppresses and therefore violates the public's right to hold its government accountable. This is a very, very serious breach of democracy and must not be allowed in a democratic country.

Originally posted by Interfacer
reply to post by StarrGazer25

 

I have been born and raised in America. All MEN in this country who are laying down taking this from the GOVERNMENT ARE COWARDS!! "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson ITS TIME!!!! I am NOT ok and I cannot even live normal life anymore knowing what I know. How do you guys ignore this and go about your 40 hours a week. I am seing a psychiatrist and he is soo brainwashed he doesn't get what I am saying.

I sympathise with you. It is deeply shocking when we wake up to what's really going on. Do you have a friend or two you can talk to about these things who have also seen the reality of things? That can be a great help. IMO much better than a psychiatrist. I don't trust them, I have to say! Also, start to believe it's going to be overcome. We can and we will. There's a positive too!

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
You have t forgive my ignorance, but since when can the President create and pass laws? What is the Congress for then?

The President can create laws by executive order which can later be approved or revoked by congress. If congress takes no action, the "law" or order is "approved". This ruling seems to affect only the executive branch though, and as head of the executive branch he can promulgate rules for them. As to whether this ruling is legal or not is certainly open to debate.

And those executive orders would all become invalid if he was impeached, just sayin'

second

edit on 5-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

No they do not automatically become invalid. They can be undone by the next executive though.

OK, my mistake. I thought I had read that the executive orders of an impeached president are invalidated. What about treason? Lol!

Originally posted by St Udio

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Has anyone figured out how the government intends to implement and enforce this rule?

its only a matter of following ones' internet activity,
heres what i posted on the thread anout the State Department, telling employess not to get involved with the wikileaks disclosures:

the 'warning' is anticipating that logging-on or sharing links to the wikilinks disclosures
can (in the future) be deemed as anti-patriotic at least and bordering on the willful intent
to engage in anti-American thought and potential terrorist affiliation...


with all the evidence thus far produced to impune people with 'messages' 'e-mails' and other electronic communication...it sure would be wise to get the wikileaks information from 3rd parties...

You can self incriminate yourself by the records of your direct internet connections -
and sites visited, just like the States Adjudant-Generals are presently doing with the biggest players
in the financial and futures markets. Don't leave a electronic 'trail' is my advice

especially if your career will need certification from TPTB

its been 1984 for years already, but now we get the Øbama regime involved in the action...
aren't you glad that he got the 'Messiah' vote into Office...?

I guess everyone has to make their own decision about whether they intend to comply with this abuse of power or not.

reply to post by wcitizen
Aside from the Obamanation, I can't recall any presidents committing treason. Can you refresh my memory? As a hypothetical question, hopefully congress would invalidate the executive order during or after the impeachment, or the incoming president would vacate it. As a last resort the supreme court could over rule it.
(Yes, other federal courts could also intervene, that is why I said as a last resort)

Originally posted by 2Faced
There was a time when Russia was seen, at least by myself, as a sort of evil empire. Any citizen who spoke up against the regime would end up in a gulag like Siberia, or in a cold grave. Even certain literature could get you in serious trouble. You couldn't trust anyone, not even your neighbours, for fear of being reported to the KGB.

Today, it looks like the U.S. has become what Russia once was....

Your comment is more profound than perhaps you realise. It exposes the real Agenda behind this and previous governments....the similarity with Russia is not accidental. It is deliberate stratagy. This, in turn, shows how the Government has lied to the people. They campaigned on the ticket of Democracy and then install totalitarian communism as fast as they can.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Aside from the Obamanation, I can't recall any presidents committing treason. Can you refresh my memory? As a hypothetical question, hopefully congress would invalidate the executive order during or after the impeachment, or the incoming president would vacate it. As a last resort the supreme court could over rule it.
(Yes, other federal courts could also intervene, that is why I said as a last resort)

GW Bush - for murdering innocent military personnel in an illegal war. And for 9/11

Plenty have committed treason, the people just did nothing about it.

Treason: a crime that undermines the offender's government
disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal


Actually, if you look at the first definition, Hillary Clinton's orders to diplomats to spy on UN and other politicians and collect their DNA, etc, could conceivably be construed as treason, as could the actions of those diplomats who followed her order.

reply to post by wcitizen

Sorry, but whether you support the war or not, it was not illegal. Even the Obamanator voted for continued funding of the wars iirc. Either way, it was legally approved by the senate.

Why ATS? Very few of the cables actually appear on ATS.

It seems to me that if ATS is included, it is more an attempt to prevent Federal employees from seeing criticism of their Government.

Actually, if you look at the first definition, Hillary Clinton's orders to diplomats to spy on UN and other politicians and collect their DNA, etc, could conceivably be construed as treason, as could the actions of those diplomats who followed her order.

Sorry, not treason. Espionage, sure. Nations, all nations, engage in espionage. The "outrage" currently displayed is posturing. They all do it.