Originally Posted by patsfan13

Gee I don't recall the outrage from the press or lefties when Newt Gingrich cell phone calls were 'hacked' and given to cem congressmen.

2 Charged For Taping Gingrich A Florida Couple Intercepted A Cellular Phone Call. They Agreed To Plead Guilty. - Philly.com

Originally Posted by chicowalker

You'As for wikileaks's illegal methods of obtaining info, what methods of obtaining info did they use that were illegal? Were they bribing officials like News Corp's unit allegedly was?

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Sorry, but if those are honest questions you honestly don't know the answers to, then you're simply way too ignorant to participate in this conversation (not that that has ever stopped you before).

Originally Posted by Patters

I know several liberals who work for the Boston Herald, but they are professionals first and do not put their politics in the way of the stories they are writing.

Originally Posted by chicowalker

You're the one who said it's ok.

Brandon said they had hacked to get information. I don't think they did that, so I asked him whether they had actually done any hacking. If you want to jump in, at least follow the back and forth.

As for wikileaks's illegal methods of obtaining info, what methods of obtaining info did they use that were illegal? Were they bribing officials like News Corp's unit allegedly was?

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five

How did Manning obtain the information that was posted on Wikileaks? It was not legal for him to copy it. Same for the other sources.

Wikileaks believes that governments and corporations should not have any privacy. Seeing the reaction from some people here, it appears that personal privacy is seen to be sacrosanct (I can't say that I disagree). To me, the distinction appears to more of a partisan one than an ethical one.

Originally Posted by chicowalker

There's a difference b/t Assange / wikileaks and Manning, isn't there?

Isn't wikileaks in some ways like a newspaper deciding whether to publish information?

The question of government secrecy is an interesting one. I think most people believe the government, particularly the federal government, must have classified information. But there are varying degrees of skepticism, and that crosses party lines, I think.

I also think most people believe corporations should have privacy as well -- I'd actually be surprised if anybody disagreed with that.

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five

That was my original point: that Murdoch was not directly involved in any of the questionable (and outright offensive) practices that were exposed here. That isn't stopping people from calling for his head.

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

We've read the headline... we all know what's next.

At present, there are reports that Murdoch operations were bribing American cops to try to phone-hack 9/11 victims. That's all we've heard, and it's from another gossipy tab in Britain.

Howsomever, there are now calls in Congress for investigation of the Murdoch machine in the U.S.; AG Eric Holder has also expressed interest in just how far Murdoch's antics went in the U.S.

Yet very little here on this board about it. I thought I'd give our righties some time to think through the implications out loud.

Let's do what the righties usually do...

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five

That was my original point: that Murdoch was not directly involved in any of the questionable (and outright offensive) practices that were exposed here. That isn't stopping people from calling for his head.