Skip to main content

View Diary: Wikileaks Releases Statement After U.S. Intel Detains Editor (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If they can intimidate Wikileaks then the same (34+ / 0-)

    goes for everything from Daily Kos to RedState and Huffpo to Drudge even Amazon needs to watch out "they" may have a book "they" don't want Amazon putting "out-there" to sell.

    •  The violent Radical Right goes free. (24+ / 0-)

      While Leftists who do nothing more than exercise their Constitutional rights are thrown in jail.

      The more things "change," the more they stay the same.

      "Capitalism is irresponsibility organized into a system." -- Emil Brunner

      by goinsouth on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:10:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is very important to understand this (20+ / 0-)

        The security services the author speaks of are part of the right. The notion that police, military and intel sevices are loyal to the Constitution or something like that is simply wrong. Some are loyal but as institutions they are solidly right or ultra-right which is why we have been drifting to the right for decades. Outer things like elections etc. are not very important compared to understanding who opposes progressive politics and who are the instruments of control and who controls them. This shadow world is virtually ignored on this site because if you speak about "deep politics" here you can be banned. Think about that for awhile.

        •  Don't need to convince me. (14+ / 0-)

          I have to laugh when I see people saying, "The FBI will get them.  Report them to the FBI."

          All you can do is try to give people a little historical background.  That's what that link was for.

          "Capitalism is irresponsibility organized into a system." -- Emil Brunner

          by goinsouth on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 06:40:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Banned? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          highacidity, MichaelNY

          if you speak about "deep politics" here you can be banned

          Would you care to back this up? Maybe to take the phrase out of quotes and into plain English, and name a user banned for speaking about it? Or are you complaining about lack of tolerance for CT?

          We're on a blind date with Destiny, and it looks like she's ordered the lobster!

          by Prof Haley on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 09:59:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes I am, maybe (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            Your CT is my deep politics. I know people have gotten themselves banned from DKOS -- there are sites I take part in that have several of those people (e.g., Docudharma). I'm not suggesting any changes here -- this place is what it is and that's fine.

            Are you saying people have not been banned for violating DKOS rules about things like alt views on 9/11?

            •  dKos rules specifically prohibit (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              diaries that:

              - refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks

              - refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse.

              and I do not dispute that people have been banned for violating these rules.

              My comment was directed at daylighting the opaque phrase "deep politics" and ensuring that discussion remains reality-based. Facts are good. Theories without backup, or that assert that there can be no backup but they're true anyway, look flaky whether they're against the rules or not.

              We're on a blind date with Destiny, and it looks like she's ordered the lobster!

              by Prof Haley on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 05:48:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If one item can be banned (0+ / 0-)

                I cannot, for example, produce facts about 9/11 on this site that implies that the gov't you mentioned were involved in the attacks because if I did I would be not only banned but a liar because it is assumed, on theological grounds, that the U.S. and other gov't cannot be involved in false-flag operations despite the fact that such operations are routine in history and, believe or not, so infrequent in daily life.

                In contrast, when I mention that no fact-based forensic investigations were made of the various events and that the story is, essentially, an assertion by gov't officials I am suddenly a conspiracy theorist. The governments story could be completely true. There was no compelling reason why a careful investigation could not have been made. Having said that, I respect this forum and know this is not the place for such discussions.

                My sense of deep politics involves the understanding that human beings crave power and will do anything to get it and that what we call Machiavellian politics is the rule not the exception. And this comes from someone who has spent much of his life in the Washington DC area at various levels. I was, for example, around Republican operatives the day after Clinton was elected. They were openly plotting to bring him down and making extended phone calls around the country vowing to "get him" on sexual indiscretions. Out of this a whole "covert operations" project was established within the Republican Party that manufactured "facts" in order to bring Clinton down and nearly succeeded. That's how politics works in Washington.

                If you were to create a political game where one set of actors (the covert-ops community) were largely immune from the checks and balances of other actors then, eventually, that group would win the power game. My view is that the covert-op community (both gov't and private since some of this community was "privatized" after the Church Committee hearings) has far more power than anyone around here seems to accept and I think one can make a good case for that theory. I'm suggesting that it is difficult to make that case here because it threatens what I consider a fairly naive view of politics prevalent among the liberal/progressive groups in this country. It is also, as I have found, deeply distressing to believe the sorts of things I believe. I have been told on many occasions "even if it's true, I don't want to believe it". As T.S. Eliot said:

                Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
                Cannot bear very much reality.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site