Julian Assange : Wrong Political Gamble, Know When To Hold'em, Know When To Fold'em...

I guess people like Martin Luther King Jr. are a criminal you can't respect either, huh?

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus is it that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

People like you have no right to cry about criminals when you fail to understand the purpose of the laws we create in our society to begin with.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by SpectreDC]

Look at the books I reference and uncovering the conspiracies.

You said:

I have uncovered more than Assange has in my lifetime.

Reading a book doesn't mean that you personally have uncovered anything. You redistribute information already freely available to the public, wikileaks distributes information that was previously unavailable to the public.

What laws have you attempted to change? Not all information is about changing laws. Information aids in decisions which can then change laws. That is what Wikileaks, and you (if your answer is zero) aid in.

I know Wikileaks is doing nothing to make those laws change.

But hang on, that was never the purpose of Wikileaks thus you must of things mixed up. The purpose of Wikileaks is to obtain information from whistle-blowers and to distribute that information without the whistle-blower becoming compromised. It is up to the public to make decisions based on this information, just as the public makes decisions based on journalism. No, it is not the job of journalists (whom are essentially exactly the same as Wikileaks) to make laws or change them. And let me stress - there is no difference between Wikileaks and many other forms of media including investigative journalists. There are numerous laws to protect groups such as wikileaks thus the claim that they broke the law is borderline at best.

I would say that Assange engaged in criminal activity but justice has been served, over a decade ago, in that case. I haven't seen much evidence that he has engaged in criminal activity since, same with Wikileaks. Hacking computer systems might be wrong, but there is a big difference between hacking systems for what you beleive in, and hacking computer systems to steal identities. That's why Assange got off with hacking almost freely, whereas identity theft will land you in jail for a long time.

[edit on 3/7/2010 by C0bzz]

Freedom of speech is not a crime.

Assange is only doing what any real journalist would do - uncovering the truth.

It just shows the sad state of the world's media that he has broken more real stories than than the rest of them combined. They have completely sold out to TPTB.

You should be happy for people like Julian Assange. Its people like him that keep the flame of democracy alive. Without people like him, you're living in just another totalitarian regime.



[edit on 3-7-2010 by tabris]

[edit on 3-7-2010 by tabris]

You do realize the corrupt hide behind the laws right?

You're logic is flawed, they (the elite) break laws and hide behind them; so if we abide by them they are safe.


I give full support to Assange.

[edit on 3/7/10 by xstealth]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Amagnon


Wow, this is insanity, because from where I sit we are against criminal actions.

If we are against criminal actions, then we cannot commit them, to stop them.

What laws have I written?

None.

At least not yet.

I have however, studied law, policy, procedure, protocol, all things that make me able to say the things I say, it as well make me able to say I am not a criminal.

As stated in my other thread, where you disagreed, this is not some game.

There is no tally board where the Elite will score and we will score.

If we do not actually get involved, with changing the laws, we are as guilty as they are, because we ignored our rights to represent ourselves.

If the law is just to keep us enslaved as you suggest then you are a slave.

I am no slave.

And conditioned to accept their law?

I think not.

I just know law is merely a guide of actions which are acceptable which are not.

Nothing more.

Nothing less.

Yes, it is our duty to expose those crimes, but not via committing more crimes.

Exposing them and doing it in a way which keeps you on the right side of law are important, if you roam into breaking the law, you have become as they are.

Evil.

There is zero secrecy to what Government does if you understand law.

Understanding Government is about as simple as a playground in 3rd Grade.

Government is not the teachers, it is not the children, it is the entire playground.

And the school.

And the Administrative heads of authority.

If a parent disagrees with a School's Administration they go to the P.T.A., right?

Do you see a parent breaking into the school office to get files?

No.

Again, as suggested before, a non-profit and policy think-tank is the way to go.

Not committing criminal actions.

Again, there is zero secrecy, if you study Government.

The Complete Idiot's Guide to U.S. Government and Politics

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d690823ec3bf.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

Understanding how our government functions and the political forces that influence it is vital for all Americans.

As a comprehensive overview and history of the subject, this book is designed to help anyone interested in learning about our government and the origins of its complex inner workings, our political system, and key elements that have affected our growth as a nation- all while serving as the best supplementary reading a student can get.

*Author is an experienced Advanced Placement teacher

*Students looking to take AP exams are a ready audience-along with citizenship applicants and CNN junkies

*Large renewable market

*Suitable as supplemental reading for coursework

Nonprofit Kit For Dummies

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/643aa0d7124e.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

Tips and techniques to help your nonprofit thrive in any economy

Due to the recent downturn in the economy, a significant number of nonprofit organizations have experienced a major decrease in funding and contributions.

Nonprofit Kit for Dummies, 3rd Edition caters to these organizations and shows you how your nonprofit can thrive and survive even in the current economic climate.

With 25% new and revised material, Nonprofit Kit For Dummies, 3rd Edition offers new tips and information on everything you need to navigate the process of setting up and effectively running a nonprofit organization.

Covers raising money, applying for grants, and developing the perfect mission statement

Details on how state laws vary; conducting program evaluations; and conforming to accounting standards

CD includes forms, worksheets, templates, and more

Whether you're thinking about starting your own nonprofit or are already working in the sector, Nonprofit Kit For Dummies, 3rd Edition is a valuable source for getting the latest information and practical advice on running a prosperous nonprofit organization.

The Competition of Ideas: The World of the Washington Think Tanks

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c1b437d545f.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

Murray Weidenbaum has been a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a speaker at meetings at the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation and has also written for their publications, and served as a reviewer of ongoing studies.

In The Competition of Ideas, Weidenbaum examines the political economy of these vital institutions, drawing heavily on several decades of involvement in their activities.

He is uniquely able to see their accomplishments as well as their shortcomings.

Because of the importance of the activities of their organizations, and their tax-exempt status, think tanks are held to a high standard.

Weidenbaum shows that sometimes think tanks are more tank than think - major think tanks are often predictable in the positions they take on public issues and are far better at analyzing the shortcomings of other elements of society than of their own operations.

The overarching issue of quality control, Weidenbaum holds, deserves more attention than it has attained in the think tank world.

This book presents a careful, balanced account of where think tanks have been and where thay are now headed.

Given the high levels of professionalism in many think tanks, a fundamental change in the attitude of their management is important.

The compelling need is less for the wielder of policy than for the lucid synthesizer of relevant research and analysis.

Likewise, society needs sensitivity to the long-term concerns of the citizenry more urgently than rapid response to the opportunities of the moment.

Future competition, particularly among the major think tanks, could well be centered, not on achieving greater visibility, but on developing responses to economic, environmental, and national security problems that are likely to be adopted and carried out.

Murray Weidenbaum is Edward Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professor of Economics at Washington University in St. Louis and Honorary Chairman of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy.

He was the first chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to Ronald Reagan and also served as a member of Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board.

He is the author of numerous books including Business and Government in the Global Marketplace, One-Armed Economist (Transaction), and The Bamboo Network.

That is how you fight without firing a single shot.

The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/995a50b011c3.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

The Bush years have given rise to fears of a resurgent Imperial Presidency.

Those fears are justified, but the problem cannot be solved simply by bringing a new administration to power.

In his provocative new book, The Cult of the Presidency, Gene Healy argues that the fault lies not in our leaders but in ourselves.

When our scholars lionize presidents who break free from constitutional restraints, when our columnists and talking heads repeatedly call upon the "commander in chief " to dream great dreams and seek the power to achieve them--when voters look to the president for salvation from all problems great and small--should we really be surprised that the presidency has burst its constitutional bonds and grown powerful enough to threaten American liberty?

The Cult of the Presidency takes a step back from the ongoing red team/blue team combat and shows that, at bottom, conservatives and liberals agree on the boundless nature of presidential responsibility.

For both camps, it is the president's job to grow the economy, teach our children well, provide seamless protection from terrorist threats, and rescue Americans from spiritual malaise.

Very few Americans seem to think it odd, says Healy, "when presidential candidates talk as if they're running for a job that's a combination of guardian angel, shaman, and supreme warlord of the earth."

Healy takes aim at that unconfined conception of presidential responsibility, identifying it as the source of much of our political woe and some of the gravest threats to our liberties.

If the public expects the president to heal everything that ails us, the president is going to demand--or seize--the power necessary to handle that responsibility.

Interweaving historical scholarship, legal analysis, and trenchant cultural commentary, The Cult of the Presidency traces America's decades-long drift from the Framers' vision for the presidency: a constitutionally constrained chief magistrate charged with faithful execution of the laws.

Restoring that vision will require a Congress and a Court willing to check executive power, but Healy emphasizes that there is no simple legislative or judicial "fix" to the problems of the presidency.
Unless Americans change what we ask of the office--no longer demanding what we should not want and cannot have--we'll get what, in a sense, we deserve.

By being smarter than them not stupider than them.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

But without information then there is no way to create the policies on which a think-tank is based on. That is the point of Wikileaks - to give the world information. What you have done is rubbish all forms of information simply stating that if it doesn't create or change law then it is useless and apparently does no accomplish anything. The irony is that it applies to all of your own posts too. If information is useless then so would all your posts, and ATS as a whole. You still haven't proved that they have done anything criminal, you just keep repeating it over and over again.

Oh, and you're encouraging more lobbying. Just what America needs.

[edit on 3/7/2010 by C0bzz]

Ok, my other post was removed, apparently to offensive, I didn't even bother reading your post Mr. Halo, but calling hackers and crackers criminals is like calling people who attempt to combat the rising tide of private sector information keeping and cloistering criminals. Hackers, real hackers do not destroy, they pursue knowledge for the betterment of there fellow man, End statement.

Posting from U2U:

OP

*Snip*

The piece I quoted from comes from Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Martin Luther King did not do everything legally, and in fact in that very letter he expressively states that it is our moral obligation to reject unjust laws.

Many of the things done in the civil rights movement were by the law, criminal.

But just because they were defined by society as criminal, they are not by any means improper or wrong.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Do Not Post U2Us

[edit on 7/3/2010 by semperfortis]

reply to post by C0bzz


First of all, my reading is not one book, more like thousands.

Second, I never suggested Wikileaks was for the purposes you said.

Third, there's much more in those books, than Assange has uncovered.

Other people, however have, I suggested he is not a conspiracy theorist.

In answering both this post, as well as your last one, the information is out there, without Wikileaks, if you understand and comprehend Government, period.

If people seriously think Assange has anything relevant to stopping Government, they are wrong, again, embarrassing, possibly, but it will not stop them.

Please, go back and read what I have said, instead of mis-stating my intent.

I can watch anything on Government, through any venue, and tell exaclty what is going on, without the assistance of stolen documents and stolen information.

It is called using God given common sense.

Second, I never suggested Wikileaks was for the purposes you said.

Well what I said is the actual purpose of wikileaks.

Third, there's much more in those books, than Assange has uncovered.

A few thousand books is more than what Assange has uncovered. No #. I will take this as an acceptance that you personally have not uncovered more than Assange, but rather that over a few thousand books have uncovered more than Assange. Reading books doesn't make you smarter than someone who actually does uncover real information. Reading a book doesn't make you smarter than the author.

Other people, however have, I suggested he is not a conspiracy theorist.

He spreads information of course he is not a conspiracy theorist.

In answering both this post, as well as your last one, the information is out there, without Wikileaks, if you understand and comprehend Government, period.

As Reuters found out in their failure to get the collateral murder video after years? I dare say that what Wikileaks has leaked has gotten more information to the public than any of your books ever has.

If people seriously think Assange has anything relevant to stopping Government, they are wrong, again, embarrassing, possibly, but it will not stop them.

You never said anything about stopping the government. I would also argue that none of your books has anything relevant at stopping the government, because according to your logic if it did then the authors would of been killed. Doesn't mean that it is useless information.

I can watch anything on Government, through any venue, and tell exaclty what is going on, without the assistance of stolen documents and stolen information.

It is called using God given common sense.

1. No, making up theories without information is called 'delusion', and again, as Reuters found out, they couldn't get the information themselves nor could one get most of the information that Wikileaks has obtained without leaks; hence the leaks were necessary.

2. I will resume waiting for any substance to the claim that they have done anything illegal which you have so far failed to provide. Pentagon papers comes to mind which were also leaked but deemed legal.

3. You have also missed the point of my post, that if Wikileaks was useless then so is all the information in your books. Information can be used to help people make decisions - that is the role of journalism. The role of journalism is NOT to create law which is part of the reason why Reuters is not a think-tank, for example. Publishing a book, or posting incriminating government documents online, can have an effect depending on how it is used.

4. Wikileaks has contributed massively to information about many atrocities worldwide which is why they have won numerous media awards, and an award from a human rights organization - Amnesty International. Your claims on them are so far unsubstantiated and are borderline slander which itself is illegal as it should be.

5. Law should be about justice, morals, and ethics.. If you're telling me leaking a video of the US Army shooting up civilians (as well as reporting on toxic waste dumping in Africa) is not just, moral or ethical then you're stupid. If the law says it's illegal then it is the law that should be changed, not the behavior. Not all laws are correct.

6. In many cases breaking the law can be justified. Look at Martin Luther King, for example. He broke the law and also managed to change the law because what he did was justified. I don't encourage breaking the law, but at the same time the world is not some fairy tale where every law is correct in every situation, it's much more complex than that as this and Wikileaks show.

7. If you actually had any of the information that Wikileaks has obtained I would of expected that you would of posted it. No, you do not know everything using common sense, you know things from sources such as books and often leaks.

8. Leaking documents easily has the potential to reform public opinion on an issue which can lead to decisive and proper action (which is has in the past. See: Watergate scandal, Pentagon Papers, Climategate). It is somewhat difficult to believe that any of that could occur without leaks which is why in many cases news leakers are protected by the law.

9. Assange was caught and punished for hacking. However the charges were by no means severe and furthermore it has zero relevance to Wikileaks today. It's not as if he stole banking details, for example.

[edit on 3/7/2010 by C0bzz]

If these documents show the United States engaging in Illegal activities then it's likewise illegal for government to classify them. They just can't classify something as secret because they want to hide the record of wrongdoing.

I see valuable precedents established by the Supreme Court in defending the rights of the press in the similar situation of The Pentagon Papers

Bear in mind, I didn't read every post but I do know what you're talking about.

You're suggesting that what Julian is doing does not help us at all and in the end goes against what we're trying to accomplish.

You suggest the things he does are not necessary in keeping an eye on the government and in the end, using criminality to fight criminals does not work.


Firstly, regarding the U2U's again, you're wrong. King did organize many events that, by legal standards, were illegal and criminal actions. You can't deny that and in fact King openly stated this.

See, my point is that just because something is illegal, does not make it wrong. My view on law is much the same as King's is. Unjust laws and unjust actions need to be fought against and can not be accepted.

What Assange does, in nature, is certainly criminal, but the reasons for him doing it is because the actions committed in relative secrecy by our government are unjust. In fact, on a scale of justice I would argue a majority of the actions committed by our government and a majority of our laws are in fact unjust.

I see what Assange does, assuming he is in fact not a facade of some sorts, no different than what King did.

You say that our laws can be changed by us. And this to a degree is true. But the problem is that a large majority of people in this country are unconscious of what actually occurs and generally doesn't care. You say you're able to see without a shadow of doubt what is going on in this world. Firstly I would say you're full of yourself, because like you I put myself on a higher standard than most people and even then I don't fool myself into believing I know for sure what is and is not occurring in our world today.

And secondly, well, that's just you. If more people were like you or I, Assange's actions would not be necessary. But in light of the fact that people generally don't care and that the government does go in lengths to hide things from us, I do think it's necessary.

What he is doing by nature is criminal but is it unjust? Remember, the purpose of our system of law is to bring about justice. And much like how King organized many demonstrations that violated laws in order to bring about justice, so is Assange.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


" If Assange or any other member of the hacking/cracking community were doing it for more than criminal behaviors, I might see him as a viable person. "

So , you actually believe Assange does this simply to be known for 'criminal behavior' ?

" However, he is not doing anything we cannot figure out on our own, period. "

Did you have knowledge of the 'Collateral Murder' video before it was made public thru Wiki ? If so , why did you not share it with the world ?

" Using your brain is the best means of figuring things out. "

Um , that's kind of a given , don't know why you felt you needed to share that little pearl of wisdom with us .

" If you cannot understand policy, procedure, and protocol then how can you actually change the laws for a positive, if you want them changed? "

Once more , I can't help but notice how you tend to assume that we are all uneducated idiots here . Surely , you don't believe that you are the only one who understands such things ? Please tell us , without making an entire thread out of it , HOW MANY LAWS HAVE YOU GOTTEN CHANGED ?

You cannot.

" The Government has nothing planned but our putting ourselves in prison. "

I am seriously wondering if the real Spartan has fallen out of a tree and landed on his head . I have S&F'ed your threads for months , this one comes as a total surprise .

Still have to disagree with you totally on this one bub .

To the Original Poster -- the logic you're using is truly terrifying. I think the problem is that you have gotten "lawfulness" and "goodness" all tangled up to the point where they've become synonyms for you. This could not be further from the truth. Some of the most pure-hearted and heroic people in history have been utter criminals. "Criminal" does not have to carry a negative connotation. A person who is morally good is still a criminal to a morally evil government.

Laws are NOT intrinsically good. Laws are a means of control that one human places upon another; it's a power disparity. That is not to say that ALL laws are bad, since I'm sure we can all agree that murder and theft are wrong -- but saying that there is a definitive link between laws and goodness/righteousness is just ridiculous.

Is it morally right for me to be taxed? For one person to have the right to my money even though I don't have the right to his?

What if tomorrow Congress passes a law that commands you to kill any person who disagrees with the policies of the state? What if your wife is a Republican and you're a Democrat? Would you suddenly pick up a gun and kill her because it was lawful to do so? I would certainly hope not, but that is what your logic suggests.

If a law is evil, not only CAN it be violated, but it is your moral duty as a human being to violate it.

Using the logic of the OP the people of North Korea should elect to change the law through official means. Yeah, and what if they can't?

[edit on 3/7/2010 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

In other words, work smarter, not harder, without cheating, like Julian Assange.

While I admire your patriotism, I dont admire your lack of critical thinking and sound reasoning.

When the enemies of our Constitution are writing the rules, and writing them in such a way that they apply to us, but not to them, how on Earth can you play by their rules and win?

How can you "work smarter" when one of their "rules" is that we are to have no truthful information?

What does working harder have to do with anything?

Imagine a game where whomever answers a question receives 3 points, and then the first person to hit 20 points gets to make a rule. Now, I happen to be the first person to hit 20 point, and the first rule I make is that anyone who answers a question correctly must give me 2 of their three points. Can you ever "play by the rules" and win? Is it possible at all?

The answer is, no you cant. And while our "game" is not based on answering questions correctly, a similar thing has happened where at the outset the rules were there to facilitate the possibility of anyone winning, and now the rules have been altered by the winners of previous rounds in such a way that no win is possible by those following "the rules."

If the "rules" we or anyone breaks are in conflict with the original spirit of the game, (what America was intended to be) then we are honoring our country more than mindless patriots like you.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
When it comes to topics like Julian Assange, I have to say something, specifically I find his usage of classified documents as approaching criminal action.

So sorry for anyone who disagrees with me, because I see hackers and crackers as criminals.

And anyone who supports them, speaks well of them, and or believes in their methods.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Hacker (Computing)

Hackers are individuals who come up with novel, complex, simple or elegant ways of writing new software that restates or replaces the existing constraints thereby exposing either some new functionality or some of the original flexibility of the underlying machine.

This community is notable for launching the free software movement. The World Wide Web and the Internet itself are also hacker artifacts.


The community included Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Bill Gates and created the personal computing industry.

Today, mainstream usage mostly refers to computer criminals, due to the mass media usage of the word since the 1980s.

This includes script kiddies, people breaking into computers using programs written by others, with very little knowledge about the way they work.

This usage has become so predominant that a large segment of the general public is unaware that different meanings exist.

While the use of the word by hobbyist hackers is acknowledged by all three kinds of hackers, and the computer security hackers accept all uses of the word, free software hackers consider the computer intrusion related usage incorrect, and try to disassociate the two by referring to security breakers as "crackers" (analogous to a safecracker).

I'm not sure if you read your original post?

Since when has being a hacker been illegal?

Also, notice how the internet and the worldwide web exist because of hackers?

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


"There is zero secrecy to what Government does if you understand law."

Ah yes, of course, and I suppose the very existence of the National "Security" STATE - the REAL government - with its many tentacles of alphabet soup agencies (and Heaven knows what else) certainly has to be a total lovefest of transparency. No secrecy at all, eh? Such Orwellian doublespeak reminds me of the most blatant public statement of the most vile kind of hypocrisy in the US: the etching on the front of the Supreme Court building that reads "equal justice under law." Sure, when injustice is codified into LAW, and therefore the entire (secrecy-BASED) system, it should automatically qualify as "equal justice." F-ing Spookified totalitarians make me SICK, to wildly understate it!


More power to Julian Assange. One can only hope he actually has the courage to RELEASE the information he (presumably) has. And even moreso than Assange, I hope Gary McKinnon - another "evil" hacker - can get the proper publicity he deserves.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by MemoryShock
This is one of the few times I disagree with you, Spartan.

Good presentation...but I disagree...

That's fine, MemoryShock, I expect people to disagree with me.

Care to elaborate where you disagree?

I believe we must not become those which we are opposed to.

By committing a crime Assange has compromised anyone he was connected to.

The very act of calling communication criminal denigrates and misses the point of what a crime is.

It is true that there are people who have something to hide...manipulations which can be called criminal.

Communication is not a crime...period.

Bring it, Julian...you're not the one acting in such a fashion as to get others hurt.

Such is what crime should be defined as...(I know...complicated, but exposing other people in their infinite wisdom is not a bad thing)...

Nothing I have read here dissuades me from my initial reaction...