Yes, when you imply that thousands of Americans are guilty of giving material aid to an active enemy of the United States (a federal crime) because they've donated money to someone who posted documents that were handed to him --- when you, in effect, suggest that the New York Times is an accessory to an act of war on the United States ("act of war", by the way, being Newt's own words) --- yeah, I get to call you a crazy person. You are of course free to disagree.
No, suggesting that Julian Assange might not in fact be an active enemy of the United States and that his supporters might not be stepping close to the line of committing treason does not mean that I think Wikileaks is no big deal.
My favorite part about WL --- a subject I would happily support banning from Hacker News --- is how aggressively it tries to co-opt people into one of two factions. On this side, you have people who believe consent-based sexual assault legal frameworks are an tool of US hegemony, and on the other side you have people who believe that patriotism requires supporting the notion of guy with a bunch of leaked documents being assassinated. It's just a catalyst for drama.
The irony to this subthread? I was agreeing with you.
No, suggesting that Julian Assange might not in fact be an active enemy of the United States and that his supporters might not be stepping close to the line of committing treason does not mean that I think Wikileaks is no big deal.
My favorite part about WL --- a subject I would happily support banning from Hacker News --- is how aggressively it tries to co-opt people into one of two factions. On this side, you have people who believe consent-based sexual assault legal frameworks are an tool of US hegemony, and on the other side you have people who believe that patriotism requires supporting the notion of guy with a bunch of leaked documents being assassinated. It's just a catalyst for drama.
The irony to this subthread? I was agreeing with you.