WikiLeaks subpoenas spill out into public realm

It is a study of hypocrisy to see how profligate Julian Assange is with others' information and how bitterly he decries the release of his personal information.

When he does it the the government, it is journalism. When the government does it to him, it is illegal search and seizure.

When he does it the the government, it is journalism. When the government does it to him, it is illegal search and seizure.

When he does it to the government, it is espionage.

When the government does it to him, it is due process.

(His behavior remains hypocrisy, regardless of your viewpoint on the activities of the participants).

So, without getting knickers in a knot, what espionage did Julian Assange actually do?

You can use it to impose liberty and freedom, or you can use it to create a police state. Make your choice.

The guy who leaked this info to Assange meets the defintion of a traitor and of treason.

Angry Sparrow,

Read the definition again. No one claims that Julian Assange was involved in personally spying. He used information obtained by others. The definition of espionage includes the act of "using spies to obtain secret information".

Read the definition again and try to understand it.

Sorry, the definition is wrong - but we won't let that get in the way of giving up the democracy to police-state CPC wannabees.

Angry Sparrow,

Sorry, the definition is wrong - but we won't let that get in the way of giving up the democracy to police-state CPC wannabees.

It is not wrong -- and you supplied the definition that you now find wanting.

I never said the definition was wrong - you need to slow down a little.

So again Assange broke NO LAW.

Doing business with americans is a big mistake. They will always betray you no matter what. Stay away from dollars, McDonalds, Coke, Ford and other american crap.

I only challenged you on the point you made about espionage - because you�re simply wrong about that. That�s simply not correct.

The act or practice of spying or of using spies to obtain secret information, as about another government or a business competitor.

clandestine

characterized by, done in, or executed with secrecy or concealment, esp. for purposes of subversion or deception; private or surreptitious

the truth is in your faces and you are arguing about how it got there. what a waste of time.

the truth is in your faces and you are arguing about how it got there. what a waste of time.

"Liberty" and "freedom" are impossible without police enforcement.

If there weren't so many government law enforcement agencies, you would never be safe at anything. The murderers, thieves, rapists, and terrorists would do whatever the heck they cared to do, and you wouldn't have any defense.

Some guy just might decide to come kill you and rape your wife. Or make you watch first, then kill you. Which they damn near do now anyway even with the police and other law enforcement.

The guy who leaked this info to Assange meets the defintion of a traitor and of treason.

The US gov is going to spend a lot of $$ to try & drum up a case against whoever they say spilled the beans. Meanwhile Dick Cheney outs a CIA agent, we go to war over imaginary WMD

and it gets swept under the rug.

Something doesn't add up. Is this a government by and for the people? This is more like a hijacking of the Constitution.

I don't agree with all the leaks they did, they should have looked over them and made a judgment call

Doing business with americans is a big mistake. They will always betray you no matter what. Stay away from dollars, McDonalds, Coke, Ford and other american crap.

Can we at least agree that not telling everyone about troop deployments might save soldiers' lives

Pvt Manning sacrificed his life to reveal truth. It was an act of bravery and fortitude worthy of remembrance.

Pvt Manning sacrificed his life to reveal truth. It was an act of bravery and fortitude worthy of remembrance.

Very damn few men will move a muscle to accomplish anything good, especially when it costs them anything. Even worse are those captivated by the illusions of power, having lost the ability to distinguish good from evil.

Doing business with americans is a big mistake. They will always betray you no matter what. Stay away from dollars, McDonalds, Coke, Ford and other american crap.

... is use a spy or spies to obtain secret information.

So again Assange broke NO LAW.

WOW, the US has now laws against foreign nationals obtaining and disclosing its classified information...

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

Assange is a journalist. he's exempt for the law you're thinking of.

Under your definition, every whistle-blower is a spy. You obviously value darkness and secrecy more than you do sunshine and transparency. Loyalty over morality.

It is never moral to betray a trust.

It is never moral to lie and steal.

He betrayed his his fellow soldiers

He lied and stole.

He engaged in a conspiracy with Julian Assange to commit espionage.

Assange conspired with him in his treason.

Neither of these individuals has any claim to morality.

Bradley Manning betrayed the trust placed in him. He betrayed his his fellow soldiers, the army and the United States. He lied and stole. He engaged in a conspiracy with Julian Assange to commit espionage. Manning was a traitor and Assange conspired with him in his treason.

immorality is moral, lies are truth, theft is not a betrayal, conspiracy is a null concept and espionage is OK if it is directed against the United States.

Hate, apparently, covers all sins ...

WOW, the US has now laws against foreign nationals obtaining and disclosing its classified information...

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

Assange is a journalist. he's exempt for the law you're thinking of.

No he isn't, otherwise all foreign spy agencies would need to do is give their agents press credentials....

Sorry SH that's a ludicrous statement.

Bradley Manning betrayed the trust placed in him. He betrayed his his fellow soldiers, the army and the United States. He lied and stole. He engaged in a conspiracy with Julian Assange to commit espionage. Manning was a traitor and Assange conspired with him in his treason.

Bradley Manning has one overriding trust, his oath to protect and defend the Constitution....

In short, you're wrong.

He wasnt in a position to make that judgement. He didnt single out one incident but chose to release tons of unrelated documents, apparently out of spite. He is not a hero but a criminal because he was not trying to right a particular wrong, he was simply attacking 'authority' wholesale.

No he isn't, otherwise all foreign spy agencies would need to do is give their agents press credentials....

Sorry SH that's a ludicrous statement.

Then I challenge you to define journalist under US Federal law as I did dogbert.

I don't have to define journalist. What he did is obviously a crime journalist or not.

I don't have to define journalist. What he did is obviously a crime journalist or not.

Except if a journalist does it, it isn't a crime. If you're saying he isn't a journalist, you have to define what a journalist is and why Assange isn't one.

Thank you for defending the Republic of these United States against the invasion of this forum by foreign invaders and their strange tyrannical ideology. They speak our language, but it's obviously a trick designed to fool the unwary.

You sure you want to side with people who think and talk like this SH?

And the documents he released have resulted in no formal inquiries into the govt or the military, nor any actions whatsoever against them.

I'm saying it doesn't matter, again, otherwise all enemy agents would have to do is claim press status. You're making no sense. Were this the case then you could prosecute NO ONE for espionage.

It obviously does matter. If I know something that the government is doing, let's say putting pharmaceuticals in the water supply (jsut to pick something fully hypothetical) and that information is classified, should I leak it to the public?

You're saying I shouldn't because it's illegal.

Sure, but don't claim it's legal. If it's classified then by DEFINITION it's illegal to disclose. I think you're confusing what's moral with what's legal in this case.

No I'm saying it's illegal period.

Gee I wonder why the government didn't punish itself for being bad.

I see your point, I completely agree with you in some instances. However I KNOW you're intelligent enough to see mine too...

No, there's a protection specifically for journalists who are engaging in the very same acts that Assange is.

I see your point, I completely agree with you in some instances. However I KNOW you're intelligent enough to see mine too...

But in this instance you're operating on opinion. If we don't look at the law itself and make sure we define the characters involved in the situation, then we're going to be going on opinion. I will never want someone put to death for my opinion of them. That is antithetical to what America stands for.

So then SH, let's say the NY Times got hold of specifications on the F-22. It's legit to publish that? What about our missile codes? Military frequencies? Troop deployment plans? Secret service itineraries on the President's movements.

Hey they're journalists...

Youre acting on opinion too.

Yeah but in this case it's my opinion he committed a crime that put American's lives at risk or even is possibly responsible for deaths.

So then SH, let's say the NY Times got hold of specifications on the F-22. It's legit to publish that? What about our missile codes? Military frequencies? Troop deployment plans? Secret service itineraries on the President's movements.

Hey they're journalists...

That's quite a different situation and I think you're aware of that.

Well that's my opinion, and your opinion, but what about a "journalist" from North Korea, or Iran?

So are you going to prosecute him for a crime or a potential crime?

U.S. government is hypocrite, in fact they call themself 'democratic' but U.S. government is responsible for the Guantanamo prison, an illegal concentration camp that it's a crime against humanity

Actually we call ourselves a republic.

Gitmo isn't illegal, it isn't a concentration camp it's a POW camp

He and his ilk don't care for crimes, potential crimes, or non-crimes. They want to punish convictions which are contrary to their own exceptionality[sic] thinking which they project onto their government, be it right or wrong.
They'd never call Emile Zola's J'accuse if their own authorities have failed or committed crimes.
And they'd never care if a documentation of another government's crimes would be published.
It's a remnant of the 19th century illnesses of nationalism and chauvinism which drove Europe twice into chaos.
Again, it's a matter of paranoid replacement of a (missing) sound inner self-esteem by the projected esteem of the own nation's grandeur, or "deutschland, deutschland ueber alles".

Did all the prisoners in Gitmo come from Congressionally sanctioned wars

Excessive secrecy is a signature of incompetence, criminality, and corruption

I agree. Those evil bastards at KFC should tell us what those secret herbs and spices are,

We're talking about a journalist from Australia right now. Which means he isn't an agent of the state of Australia.

That's quite a different situation

Do leaks damage the interests of the bureaucracy that tried to conceal the information? Every time. So what?

Actually we dont know this. Journalists can make excellent spies. Many many examples. And you want to give them state secrets.

There's nothing to gain here - not for me, not for them, not for silent observers.

So you're trying to say that the various intelligence agencies world wide have completely missed the fact that one of the most popular anti-governmental organizers and most prolific internet journalists was a spy against the US working as an Australian state agent....

They also can get innocent people killed. So what?

They can also damage good governments and strengthen bad ones.

They can also get both you and me killed.

Freaking anarchists.

Oh really? So now public disclosure and government transparency and accountability, are tantamount to anarchy? My, my. I don't throw the word around lightly, but it's quite a fascistic mindset you're developing there, otto.

How many innocents would be alive, if our government couldn't conspire for mass-murder and illegal warfare in the dark of its secrecy?

That being said, only those who perform acts that are unfounded or evil require secrecy.

How many innocents would be DEAD, if our govt couldnt ally with others to fight oppression by destroying fascist dictatorships by waging LEGAL warfare in the light of public scrutiny?

if the US didnt choose to wage war as it has always been waged, by not telling the enemy how they planned on destroying him

The good guys must necessarily do nasty things sometimes, because that is often the only way to win.

According to TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 798

there is no provision for the moral content of the information. Therefore, legally, it IS espionage.

It is illegal for you, as a citizen of the USA, to have knowledge of illegal activity, and fail to report it.

Yes. That's precisely the argument used by the likes of Iran and China

It is illegal[...]report it.

Well sure caliban, but I don't know if there was anything specifically illegal indicated in any of those docs. Like I say nobody that I know of has been indicted. There were 1000s of topics in them, most of which manning was almost certainly not aware of. He just grabbed a bunch of stuff and gave it to assange without regard to content. It doesn't appear as if he was interested in helping anyone.

Caliban
Just read your article. Pretty incendiary stuff but also pretty familiar. One
"...after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001 ..."
-This means that the Taliban can replace battle losses faster than they can be killed or captured. The real reason is not that we are creating more enemies by our actions, but that the explosive growth of pops in the region is creating gens of idle, underfed youth looking to blame their troubles on someone, anyone. Afghanistan has one of the highest growth rates in the world. That is why they have almost always been at war. The region has been stripped bare of forests, vegetation, topsoil.

This will not stop until the culture which creates the problem is destroyed. Vietnam is now quiet, peaceful, productive. I suppose Afghanistan will be one day too.

I think that you will be disturbed by what you read.

As it is, the west has compartmentalized the middle east, preventing any major consolidations and conjoined movements either east or west.

Ok, so I've wasted an untold amount of time tring to post and repost a comment that contained a link to an article

Unfortunately, it won't post to physorg.

was a spy against the US working as an Australian state agent

would you want an employee to step out and say the meat was tainted

I really don't see how this benfits Americans, as America is currently constituted.

After reading many comments both liberal and conservative, I'm siding with the liberals. Wikileaks is important as a backup plan for a free press. A government without criticism is nothing more than a tyrant, benevolent and oppressive or otherwise.

Since it's the portion of the US code which deals with the dissemination of classified information, and also the portion of the code used to prosecute espionage...and since that's what the whole thread has been about I just figured it was relevant.

Now include the revisions and case law with it and it would be a suitable legal reference. For comparison, The Constitution isn't the Constitution if you omit the amendments.

I'm not saying classified information should NEVER be disclosed, I'm saying I don't see where you can claim it's legal.

Well until you define the term 'journalist" for us we can't.

... benevolent and oppressive or otherwise.

And the governments that the west is forced to fight...

I just figured it was relevant. Silly me...

Right and wrong isn't always clear in good leadership.

Picture what the region would look like if the allies weren't there. Hussein dead or deposed, the caliphate reestablished stretching from lebanon to Pakistan. A Moslem empire with nukes

It's not relevant to either Assange or to Wikileaks, as that part of U.S. code can not be reasonably interpreted to apply to them. It's only relevant to Manning.

Well that's one opinion, and a highly debatable one at that as this tread demonstrates.

Sorry, your picture doesn't jive with my understanding of the region. Hussein would never be deposed by radicals

Iran vs. Iraq vs. Turkey vs. Pakistan vs. Saudi Arabia: no way in hell would they ever unite into any sort of empire

American presence in Saudi Arabia and continued unconditional American boosterism of Israel, that feed the pipelines of Al Qaida and every other extremist Islamic group in the region

We literally *invented* the Mujahideen.

Firstly, Assange in particular, and Wikileaks in general, owe no allegiance to the United States, are not subject to United States law,

I dont see how civilian deaths in afghanistan are considered important to national security except that it makes the united states look like a piece of shit murderer.

I for one see that as a higher crime than anything Assange did. Or Pvt manning for that matter.

He published information on the internet. That's hardly murder.

Don't want your country being criticized? Then don't let your government do bad things.

It's called "maturity" - time to grow up.

I dont see how civilian deaths in afghanistan are considered important to national security except that it makes the united states look like a piece of shit murderer.

I for one see that as a higher crime than anything Assange did. Or Pvt manning for that matter.

Listen you belligerent blowhard, it doesn’t apply to Julian Assange because he’s an Australian citizen. He’s broken no law in Australia, so you can’t charge him with treason.

Yes “treason” – which is what this is all about.

He published information on the internet. That’s hardly murder

You know what? … You don’t want US soldiers taking any risks? ….. then don’t send them into risky situations.

Don’t want your country being criticized? Then don’t let your government do bad things.

It’s called “maturity” – time to grow up.

Don’t want your country being criticized? Then don’t let your government do bad things.

Tell the [...] people if the don't want a shit storm in their backyard they shouldn't have let their government do bad things

if you don't want a shitstorm in your backyard then don't let your government blow up buildings and kill 3000 civilians

belonging to the world's only superpower...

It wasn't a government.

belonging to the world's only superpower...

Double standards are ok for you.

Is "dogbert" a government stooge. He and others of his ilk sound like it.

there is no need for any one to be a United States citizen in order to be prosecuted by the United States. It's no different than if a foreign national committed murder in the country.

Were it otherwise we could prosecute NO foreign national for spying.

Lastly the section cited clearly refers to ANY classified information.

Asssange has engaged in espionage.

Mirriam-Webster
espionage: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company

Can you post the link to the evidence showing Assange approached Manning and had him steal the cables for wikileaks?

Thats something a child would say.

Bad behavior remains bad behavior even when some people laud it.

Bad behavior remains bad behavior even when some people laud it.

Bad behavior remains bad behavior even when some people declare it secret.

dogbert, the core problem here, whether you support Assange or think he's scum is the precedent being set.

PE touched upon it above.

If the US is allowed to dictate legal proceedings in other countries simply because we're the world superpower, would that make it acceptable for China to control legal proceedings over US citizens if the situation reverses?

I think I already know what your answer is.

MM, not an apt comparison. Again, goes allllll the way back to the definition of the law and the provisions of the case law.

Bad behavior remains bad behavior even when some people laud it.

Bad behavior remains bad behavior even when some people declare it secret.

IOW we need laws against treason and espionage. Sometimes those laws will be applied in accordance with your opinions, sometimes they won't. That's just the way it is.

IOW we need more brave people who don't help the reckless ones to cover up their reckless deeds. Sometimes those people will act in accordance with your opinion, sometimes they won't. That's just the way it is.

Why do you insist on returning to arguments already settled?

Mirriam-Webster
espionage: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information.....

Assange used Manning to obtain his information -- hence he engaged in espionage.

You're seriously twisting language and rationality, by calling Assange a spy.

dogbert, by your own definition ...

A person who engages in espionage is by definition a spy.

MorituriMax ,Now stop talking. You embarrass us with your inability to understand coupled with your YELLING.

"Not my definition. Mirriam-Websters."

espionage:
the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company

No, he did not "use" Manning. If Manning -- on his own initiative -- printed out all the documents, put them in a box, and mailed them to your house address -- without your foreknowledge or even assent -- would that mean that you can be accused of USING Manning to commit espionage?

the US is exploring ways of charging assange with complicity in espionage or stealing govt property- so at least it is possible

the US is exploring ways of charging assange with complicity in espionage or stealing govt property- so at least it is possible

The US needs to start behaving like a responsible citizen of the world, not as a A belligerent bully.

That we wish to make an example of Assange in order to inhibit pillaging of state secrets is the height of responsibility. That we probably won't succeed demonstrates the strength of our core principles.

The paradox at the heart of the issue, uvavontuba.
You've expressed it quite nicely. I only gave you 4, however, because I disagree with your (at least contextual) definition of "responsibility".

The paradox at the heart of the issue, uvavontuba.
You've expressed it quite nicely. I only gave you 4, however, because I disagree with your (at least contextual) definition of "responsibility".

I suppose I could have used, "is understandable." but it sounds wishy-washy.

Anyway, I'll gladly accept the 4.

Thank you.

the US is exploring ways of charging assange with complicity in espionage or stealing govt property- so at least it is possible

The US needs to start behaving like a responsible citizen of the world, not as a A belligerent bully.

Receiving unsolicited information from anonymous sources cannot be reasonably equated to using spies. Using spies entails an operation that actually manages and supports a spy network. Wikileaks does no such thing.

The fact that they're CRYING about getting the shit kicked out of them now is totally irrelevant, totally expected, and funny as hell.

The fact that you knowingly accept the killing of innocent civilians in order to feel something "funny as hell" is telling more than enough about your mental state.

WOW this is the kind of shit that just kills me hehehehe. We get attacked and WE are the bully. WTF did they expect? Turn the other cheek and all that happy horseshit?

I mean hey he's not supporting a "network" of bank robbers, he's just advancing his career by using the information he gets right?

In order to be guilty of DISCLOSING classified information you don't have to have gathered it...you just have to DISCLOSE it...

Not one. And not one criminal indictment of Assange by the big bad USA Justice Machine so far. And they are the ones who CAN charge him as a spy and/or terrorist. Hell, he hasn't even been abducted by the CIA and spirited away to one of those black houses all over the world.

DISCLOSING classified information is a CRIME.

BTW, Wikileaks does scrub the information that it publishes, to reduce potential for harm.

BTW, Wikileaks does scrub the information that it publishes, to reduce potential for harm.

They DO do they? And how are they possibly qualified to know what can cause harm and what can't? They're releasing domestic corporate info that affects the lives of everyone in a corporation. They have no knowledge or understanding of what they're doing and who they're affecting. Will companies be forced out of business due to contracts rendered void?

If you look at it historically, we have been the bullies. We fought WW1 in their lands, destroying massive amounts of infrastructure. Then we did it again in WW2. Then we started messing around with their government structures so we could ensure who we would be trading with.

We're not blameless in this endeavor, we're not the clear cut aggressors, but we're certainly not blameless.

Wow. You REALLY need to take a history class.

We fought WW1 in their lands, destroying massive amounts of infrastructure

You're really going to try to dispute this?

A fence who receives stolen goods from a thief is also committing a crime.

Wow. You REALLY need to take a history class.

You're really going to try to dispute this? Look in the mirror next time you say that.

Yes, I'll dispute it. My Grampa was a WW1 Doughboy and my Dad was in the WW2 Army Air Corps, so it's a personal matter.

That's a nice pedigree for your fightin' forefathers, QC, but I can do better, and probably a few more people here could, as well.

To wit: Grandfather: Doughboy. Uncles: WWII Vets My father came home from WWWII(AAC), but then continued on active duty through Korea, Viet Nam, and all the other odds and ends in between, so it's a personal matter.

The actual truth of the matter is somewhere in between, and for every good thing done by the US or its representatives, there was an atrocity.

Sure there was massive infrastructure damage prior to aour arrival on the European scene, but we certainly finished -and utterly- the job, didn't we? And Let's not forget Japan, Okinawa, Guam, the Phillipines -and then merrily troop on to Korea, and then Viet Nam(we'll stick with the best-known).

It's a lie that we rode in with white hats and made everything right.
[/blockquote]

That's a nice pedigree for your fightin' forefathers, QC...

The actual truth of the matter is somewhere in between, and for every good thing done by the US or its representatives, there was an atrocity.

Sure there was massive infrastructure damage prior to aour arrival on the European scene, but we certainly finished -and utterly- the job, didn't we?

And Let's not forget Japan, Okinawa, Guam, the Phillipines

It's a lie that we rode in with white hats and made everything right.

Clearly, the US and its allies saved the world from evil oppression.

No. We mostly fought over previously fought over land. Land in France taken by Germans and then churned for years. We were invited by France.
You're really going to try to dispute this?
I just did. You are wrong on WWI. WWII, yes we did destroy a lot of enemy infrastructure. Too effing bad. We interferred with the occupied countries new governments. GOOD the previous sucked and were guilty of crimes against humanity.

That's a nice pedigree for your fightin' forefathers, QC...

Who are you calling QC?

You're wrong Ethel.

...there were probably just as many muslims as catholics fighting in WW1 and within their territory at the behest of the west.

For you to agree with uba and try to state this didn't happen is a complete ignorance of history.

You're wrong Ethel. Flat out wrong.

British India alone, which included Pakistan and Bangladesh fought for us

The Ottoman empire was devastated

the various Czech groups were involved,

there were probably just as many muslims as catholics fighting in WW1

and within their territory at the behest of the west.

For you to agree with uba and try to state this didn't happen is a complete ignorance of history.

For instance otto's Truman reference was something he said when he was a senator from Missouri. Whereas otto implies it was said by someone who had the power to plan the war out, ahead of time.

And, this was during the US', pre-entry into the war when American sentimnet ran strongly in favor of isolationism, particularly in the Midwest.

And then along comes a Reason that makes involvement essential and unavoidable.

So what are you implying Would you have had us surrender with the first bomb dropped on Pearl harbor?

Pretty slick eh?

So you see conspiracies in every major historical event, rather than just history? It doesn't occur to you that sometimes, stuff just happens?

Do you have similar abilities to minutely predict and control your own future (much less everyone else's)? Did you know I was going to type these exact words and did you manipulate me into doing so?

Who are these "special" people with these abilities, and why are they different than the rest of us?

Doesn't it occur to you ...you're attributing these people with godlike abilities?

Are you looking for someone to worship, otto?

otto, you're not wearing your foil hat today. I can tell you're not. I see your mind. I'm reading your mind right now. I will now make you type words onto the internet. You are under my control...

otto, you're not wearing your foil hat today. I can tell you're not. I see your mind. I'm reading your mind right now. I will now make you type words onto the internet. You are under my control...

Jeez ubu, doesn't your god frown on mysticism (except for Kabbalah)? Aren't you afraid you'll lose your place in line? He might turn you into a pillar of mustard or some other condiment.

I will now make you type words onto the internet.

Ah you're just making fun of me

Refute something I've said in your slice and dice style.

See if you can discount the Philosophy of inevitability

and the desire to prepare for it.

Or if you can't, bask in the wonderful mystery that is Empire.

We see preparation for the future at all levels of human endeavor.

We expect it and are petulant

when the leaders we can see do not do it for us.

But you fail to accept that the most significant, and most ominous of Inevitabilities

Noah built his ark because it looked like rain, yes?

Economic cycles, consisting of growth, decay, collapse, and rebirth,

are and have always been unavoidable

then wars are and always have been unavoidable.

The propensity of the species to repeatedly grow beyond it's means is the cause of this.

Rule Britannia Britannia waves the rule.

This has been obvious to recordkeepers since the beginning of civilization.

Yes or what?

I thought it was Hail Britannia Britannia rules the waves.

Which will do you no good because it is inveitable.

Ergo, Empire. Questions, comments?

But until you have some evidence of actual collusion (e.g. an authentic copy of the instruction manual passed on to incoming leaders), it's only a fantasy.

nobody gets to be a leader without backstabbing competitors and stepping on corpses all the way to the top. The leader class tends to concentrate the choicest sociopaths. And amid sociopaths the key operative concept is not trust or even collusion: they're all about paranoia, betrayal, and megalomania.

Whereas in fact nobody gets to be a leader without backstabbing competitors and stepping on corpses all the way to the top.

You can do better than that.

as they did on your clay tablets

arks

The populace grows faster than the food supply

THAT is why they blame the king

What is the Solution? Think man, think

I find that over polishing turns funny to unfunny.

Evidence would necessarily need to be forensic

But there are dozens of them, all conforming to the above philosophy...

insanity tends to be unreliable and inconsistant.

And how do know this is true?

They are good because they Enjoy what they do.

The lie that power corrupts is a form of deception.

if this were true, the world would be a ruin, but its not.

We have seen incredible strides in technology that will soon enable us to leave the planet and establish permanent footholds elsewhere.

Alexander, Caesar, Ghengis Kahn, Attila, Mohammad, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao

The hebrews were given a mission

Sociopaths are usually quite sane. They just have a malfunctioning emotional apparatus (severely deficient in empathy, and overly proficient in narcissism.)

So do serial murderers. Many people who are actually decent in nature, reflexively shy away from leadership because the politics and machinations entailed disgust them.

They were 0.1% of the world's population.

where do we learn this from?

Why would you possibly think leaders would necessarily be bad?

they rarely get where they are by themselves

They make alliances, develop reputations, gain trust, demonstrate performance

I wouldn't say steve jobs is particularly evil.

God says it is ok and necessary, and he should know because he is the source of all that is good and right, yes?

Those Mongols you mentioned previously, didn't know the first thing about any "God".

they pillaged and raped; they conquered and culled.

Selection of the fittest. Also read some Nietzsche and Machiavelli.

Why would you possibly think leaders would necessarily be bad?

I wish you guys would do a little research before you post.

They also united and showed great mercy to cultures which accepted them.

Sociopathy is a well-established medical diagnosis (notice I said medical, rather than psychoanalytical: these days, sociopathic traits are easily quantifiable

Indeed, many sociopaths are especially adept at manipulation: they derive a degree of pleasure from it.

To begin with, the pool of applicants for leadership-by-choice is already winnowed down to the ambitious, the narcissistic, and the sociopathic. Then, a sort of alchemical refinement takes place as these people struggle to ascend within the organization -- where the most noxious are the ones who rise the fastest and highest.

Didn't I say they were pagans? They just weren't monotheists

People like Jobs are the rule.

Where do you get this stuff from?

They quickly learn to hide their less attractive impulses (e.g. toward cruelty and selfishness), to simulate the expected responses, and to emulate the "normal"

Stop stop you're creepin me out.

Think of how we evolved.

Well, actually back in the college days I did a second-major in Cognitive Science

I didn't realize it was possible to creep out a conspiracy theorist...

And in any case, there is always game theory at play. If we were all perfectly well-adjusted, then a single sociopath mutant

how do you apply that to an entire class of individuals

What, for instance, would a prince Charles need with more wealth?

can ascribe to accomplishing Good in the world

rules may have exceptions, but those exceptions don't disprove the rules.

All I'm saying is that a certain kind of environment and social dynamic, will tend to favor a certain kind of personality

Charles falls into the latter category.

would have quickly been drummed out of the tribe, or would've gotten them all killed

tribal warfare and the development if the human intellect as a direct result

Trust, courage, honor, respect, these are what made us human.

we appoint leaders we can trust, and rid ourselves of those we cant

people like you tended to believe they were just as corrupt and evil, yes

I was lamenting your lack of effort in refutation.

You compare otto to godders

Is it because ottos man-based theories are less obviously nonsense?

I think my philosophy is impeccable

I say the why is much more revealing.

Its been pecked. Many times. Like Creationists you simply ignore it and go on.

Do you realize that the earliest-known human cultures tended to be matriarchal rather than patriarchal?

Do you realize that the earliest-known human cultures tended to be matriarchal rather than patriarchal? Why are you so certain that male aggression advanced human evolution

Do you realize that the earliest-known human cultures tended to be matriarchal rather than patriarchal? Why are you so certain that male aggression advanced human evolution any more than female bonding and socialization? (Did you obtain your degree in Scientific Chauvinism, back in the 19th century -- or is there still some backwater teaching it these days?)

It's a popular myth but completely false.

You brought up the Ark not me.

They quickly learn to hide their less attractive impulses (e.g. toward cruelty and selfishness), to simulate the expected responses, and to emulate the "normal" behaviors they observe around them...They learn to deceive and play-act very early in life, and they develop a two-faced personality: their public mask, vs. their true private self. To some extent this is true of all humans, but it is vastly amplified in sociopaths.

Actually it depends on the region of the world. The vast majority of smaller civilizations were matriarchal

PEs point does illuminate the extent of misinformation

there are far more important things that can motivate the most talented and resourceful.

Who said that the qualities of trust, respect, loyalty, courage, or cooperation were exclusively male?

tribal warfare and the development if(sic) the human intellect as a direct result

MM is right SH. One of the reasons anthropology is no longer considered a science. PEs point does illuminate the extent of misinformation we are subject to in the name of politics, including the tripe that all leaders are evil. Many of them are only acting that way.

Except when he's wrong.

For example: Bribri, Filipinos, Garo, Hopi, Iban (to an extent), Iroquois, Jaintia, Karen, Khasi, Marshallese, Mosuo, Tlingit, Vanatinai, Minangkabau, E De, Mosuo, Tuareg, and Basques.
The Sardinians are arguably matriarchial, however, recent evidence has suggested they were patriarchial and matrilocal.

As I said above, larger civilizations were very much patriarchial.

I merely pointed out your outdated 19th-century style tilt regarding advancement through conflict.

It stinks of the rotten old baloney

how the males of the species drive evolution because they are adventurers and explorers, whereas the females retard progress because all they're good for is reproduction and domestication.

Development of human intellect as a direct result of tribal warfare? Bull.

But who tends to engage in tribal warfare among humans in the vast overwhelming majority of cases: males or females? Hmm, let me think... yeah, males sounds about right.

How about that.

The chief was invariably a man.

And what power/responsibilities did the chief have, relative to the council of mothers?

The wise contingent with experience and perspective, in any small tribe would have always been predominantly female

The tribes who strategized and fought best were the ones who killed the opposing males and impregnated all the females. A sure formula for accelerated evolution of the intellect.

Bull. Until population densities escalated due to adoption of agriculture and domestication of lifestock, any two tribes would've been lucky to bump into each other about once in a lifetime.

I merely pointed out your outdated 19th-century style tilt regarding advancement through conflict. It stinks of the rotten old baloney about how the males of the species drive evolution because they are adventurers and explorers, whereas the females retard progress because all they're good for is reproduction and domestication.

That's not what you said, nor what it sounded like you meant. As far as that goes I agree. In fact I think social cooperation has done as much for human technical development as conflict.

Chimps and gorillas wage tribal conflict in the same manner, and for the same reasons, as humans have done

there have never been any true matriarchal societies

BTW, among the great apes the conflicts are usually territorial in nature. It's not about killing and raping the other tribe. Territorial conflicts are possible only when there is already a sufficient population density achieved.

I'm not saying protohumans weren't aggressive.

Regardless, the emergence of prominent patriarchal order is quite clearly a modern development...

You DO understand the difference between making something up to suit your own preconceived notions, and actually understanding something, dont you?

Apes DO invade other camps and carry off females

And pre-modern humans were intensely territorial.

Pure, unabashed ignorance.

You know me better than that. Question is, can you recognize your own bias?

our ability to counter agents of natural attrition

Primate females needed males for a number of reasons including protection, and would not be off living by themselves.

This further relegated women to birthing and rearing

They became more sedentary.

Mans tools made him the masters of his environment and the only enemy left became the tribe next door.

Our brains grew because conflict became a truly intellectual endeavor.

What magical ability are you referring to? Please recall that paleolithic tribes didn't have personal physicians and 911 emergency service.

If you bothered to read up on modern thinking about how the human brain has evolved, you would discover that warfare doesn't even appear on the radar of actual experts in the field:

You're selecting a correlate of human evolution, and postulating it as causative. That is a classic mistake. Correlation does not entail causation.

Fire. Clothes. Agriculture. Huts and tepees and yurts.

You're completely incorrect on this part.

This part is spot on.

This part is spot on. Otto, you are looking at it incorrectly.

Bull. You're thinking well into the neolithic period. Modern humans had already emerged in their full genetic repertoire, hundreds of thousands of years earlier.

In paleolithic conflicts survival was still far more an athletic, rather than intellectual, endeavor.

No fire in paleolithic cultures. Only the crudest cloth (basically, just animal skins.) No huts, tepees or yurts.

All of that came LONG AFTER the modern human emerged with its complete cognitive repertoire and anatomy.

Horseshit. Women can walk quite well, and they tend to simply carry their infants (or sling them around the back), while they go about their business. Older children keep up on foot.

this all was first postulated by darwin and is considered true by many researchers today

Tools have been with hominids from the beginning. They quickly and permanently shifted the odds in his favor.

If apes can be observed doing this then proto-humans certainly would have.

making plans and coordinating efforts among ever larger raiding parties

-From your own article: ... --Meaning tribal war.

Again, from your own article: ... -Meaning tribal war.

war as an extension of animal behaviour

All fine and good, but animal behavior spans far more than just war

your particular notions carry absolutely NO credibility, any longer. Welcome to the 21st century

Apes don't raid. They patrol territories. There is nothing TO raid.