I'm sure that you're not as ignorant of this event as your sarcasm suggests - they refused a FOIA request to release the video on grounds of political expediency.

That's a cover up.

Is it Watergate? No. It's worse. Innocent people were murdered.

The military report described in that article identifies Wikileaks as an operational threat, and describes several methods which could be used to "damage or destroy" the trust and reputation of Wikileaks.

That report is two years old and the military have been using those tactics against Wikileaks since.

But nice attempt trying to discredit me as a truther. And fuck you, too.

Sure

There is evidence for that, too.

But judging from your condescending tone, I don't expect fact to sway your opinion, so please continue.

This argument would have more weight if it were not for the fact that because of Wikileaks we have been made more aware of conspiracies to cover up illegal activities, and that some of those groups whose actions have been uncovered are actively trying to discredit Wikileaks and limit its ability to function.

..and the Streisand effect they are now creating ensures that the redacted information is rapidly identified and disseminated?

Wow. This is insanely delusional.

Considering that this proposal does not change the status-quo with regards wireless networks, this makes absolutely no sense at all.

No, it really isn't.

Explain how, after making no legislative change to the way wireless networks are regulated, Google is suddenly granted potential super powers which it doesn't already have today.

Okay, sure.

What? Where? When? ... Huh?

You've lost me.

Uh huh. How about hating on Google for the things they do screw up on, rather than all this conspiracy theory paranoid what-if rabbit-holing?

Ah, so it's an ideological purity issue -- compromise is evil!

Now I understand.

I think you're reading too much into it. They've been accused of "trying to eliminate net neutrality" over wireless, and they're responding to the rumour mill, using the same language. If that was a conspiracy to confuse, then yes - I agree that would be evil.

You seem to be saying that I can't logically support issue X if I also agree to a compromise that X only be applied to Y now and defer the decision on Z. I don't understand this all-or-nothing attitude, as it does not seem to hold any realistic chance of success.

Once net neutrality is enshrined into law for wireline networks, won't it be easier to apply that precedent to wireless?

Do you mean this?

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

I don't see dishonesty. If there is no net neutrality for wireless now, how can it be eliminated?

You failed to answer the question.

Why is it evil to try a path to enshrine net neutrality into law for wireline traffic? The only argument I've seen - that they should also try (and fail) to get consensus for net neutrality for wireless networks _now_, seems naive to me.

I don't see anything in the proposal which would prevent future legislation for wireless networks.

Where is the evil?

Why is it a unchallenged premise, that operatives simply must be dealing in information which will risk their lives? Whose social contract states that we all must subscribe to that ideology?

Leaking, if it does nothing else, demonstrates that the ability of any organisation to keep deadly secrets, secret, continues to diminish. I don't think I'd like to live in a society where leaks were harder to accomplish. I can't help thinking that institutionalised secrecy is a dead-end strategy, which could be (somewhat, if not completely) mitigated by just being better at what you do.

That said, I don't see how we get from here to there - if leaking those documents will endanger lives and do nothing to alter policy with regards the trade in secrets - then isn't wikileaks just using this as a shameless publicity stunt?

So basically "unprovoked violence is legitimate if it supports my ends"?

I find that rather uncivilised.

I'm sure you're right, but realized that you're talking about CALIFORNIA. Probably the most gay-friendly state in the union. I wouldn't be too quick to assume that the rights homosexuals have there are the same rights they have in most of the country. Particularly in the Bible Belt region. Allowing gay marriage? Hell I'm straight myself but get accused of being gay and half ran out of a room as I suggest that maybe, just maybe it's not fair to lynch mob every gay person in sight (or as I've heard suggested, "roundin 'em up and gittin rid of 'em").