Michael Moore Posts Julian Assange's Bail 987
digitaldc quotes Michael Moore in a story running on the Huffington Post where he says "Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail. Furthermore, I (Michael Moore) am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars."
It's good to have allies (Score:5, Interesting)
Having a successful Hollywood producer with a track record of successfully embarrassing big companies and governments as a supporter can't hurt.
Re:It's good to have allies (Score:4, Informative)
Except that his movies made at least one completely false statement that I know of for sure. He said that factory that was making the Titan IV was making ballistic missiles. It is not and has never been a ballistic missile. It was based on the Titan II which was ballistic missile but was retired from service long ago.
Re:It's good to have allies (Score:4, Insightful)
When he purports to be creating "documentaries," yes, it kind of does.
You see, documentaries are generally held to be factual representations of some aspect of life that the filmmaker wants to... document. Now, if Mr. Moore titled his movies with such names as "The Conspiracy that I, Michael Moore, am sure is behind the 9/11 attacks!" then you could say that they are documentaries: documenting his views and opinions.
But he represents these opinions and views and interpretations as objective, factual depictions of a situation, and they are demonstrably not in many cases. How much trust can you give to the work of a documentary filmmaker who is known to be distorting the truth, or even deliberately lying, in order to bolster his own viewpoint?
Would you trust the Discovery Channel to tell you the truth if they released a documentary purporting to show the reality of how lions and other animals interact in the wild, and that movie turned out to be Disney's The Lion King, complete with musical numbers?
Re: (Score:3)
No but it erases all trust. The US has not made any new ICBMs since the MX in the late 80s. All the production lines have been closed for a while. Our current ICBMs are Minutemen which where produced in the 60s and maybe early 70s. We have updated the electronics of course. The MX was retired to meet treaty obligations.
The Trident is an SLBM and those are also out of production but we are making spare parts for them too keep them in service.
Other sites list many other errors in his movies but that was the
Re:It's good to have allies (Score:5, Informative)
I started reading that, but the first "lie" was merely dramatic license. I've seen lists like this before and they're all like that.
Moore's use of dramatic methods to tell the story are not lying, not in the way that the right wing's diversions, obfuscations, and blatant lies are lying.
In the end, Moore tells you the truth, and the GOP and its corporate masters and its gibbering minions take your money and move on to their next lie.
Re:It's good to have allies (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the same guy who has insinuated that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden
Well, we can only go on what we know and we know that Bush and Bin Laden, certainly through his family, have invested in a lot of companies together. The Bin Ladens are very well known, wealthy and extremely well connected in Saudi Arabia. The notion that Bush knows nothing about him is just plain fishy.
...and specifically sent too few troops into Afghanistan to make sure Bin Laden escaped and wanted to keep his Taliban friends safe.
Well, all we know is that not a trace of Osama Bin Laden has ever been found. Not a single lead. Not a sausage. Nothing. This is from a guy and his supporters who are supposed to be propping up a worldwide terrorism network who are well connected and well funded. Oh, and there's a lot of companies with directors who are friends of George Bush who are making quite a bit of money from the 'rebuilding' of Afghanistan. Basically, it's in their interests to keep the whole thing going.
I think people are more then entitled to ask what the hell is going on. The trouble with this stuff is that you almost get a kind of 'reverse conspiracy theory' effect and governments have learned to use this phenomenon, especially when they do something bare faced and obvious. Basically, it's so unbelievable for most people that no amount of evidence will convince them that there is even the smallest thing wrong. Note, we're not talking about grand conspiracy theories here, we're just talking about admitting that something is wrong. The notion that there is something wrong and the consequences would rock their cosy little world too much, and so, they will go into denial and even defend the status quo in order to protect their own bubble of perceived security.
Except, he never said those things... facts: (Score:4, Informative)
This is the same guy who has insinuated that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden and specifically sent too few troops into Afghanistan to make sure Bin Laden escaped and wanted to keep his Taliban friends safe.
Do you have a citation for these claims? From what I remember of the movie, the points you refer to are:
The Bush/Bin Laden family and business connection stuff is documented fact. The President's special "fly" approval enabling the Bin Laden's to leave the U.S. immediately after the 9/11 attacks is documented fact. The decision to send fewer than 30 soldiers to pursue Osama, when they knew (or claimed to know) where he was, is documented fact. What is so outrageous about Moore's statements here?
Re: (Score:3)
No, standing behind liars doesn't make you a hero and a paragon of truth. It makes you a hypocrite.
If you truly believe in the pursuit of truth, then you need to focus on the truth. I know that is a crazy concept in this partisan society of ours where we want to side with anyone who picks a fight with the other side.
Re:It's good to have allies (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
One can be successful without being good or honest. By most standards, Mr Moore is very, very successful.
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is that it's a collection of public and private individuals funding Assange's bail, not Wikileaks.
I wouldn't expect Wikileaks to seek to defend criminal charges on staff members that are entirely unrelated to their operations, although I could probably argue why they should :)
Posts it where?? (Score:4, Funny)
ummmm.... (Score:3)
uhhhh, thanks, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm still confused why the people that are supposed to be for a smaller government would be nay saying evidence that big government is doing horrible things behind our backs.
Ok, well here you go: (Score:4, Insightful)
-They're moving prisoners out of Guantanamo to foreign prisons.
-Under reporting deaths in Afghanistan. It's not going nearly as well as they've said it has.
-Strong-arm tactics regarding the Copenhagen Accord. Spying, bribing, threats, and cutting off millions of dollars to Ecuador and Bolivia. Politics as usual, sure, but it's still corruption.
-Shoving US-style IP laws down Spain's throat.
-Diplomats know that the Saudi Arabians are the primary donors to Al-Queada. Aren't they an ally? Isn't our "strong military presence" in the area supposed to stop that sort of thing?
-The CIA pressured Spain into dropping investigations into the killing of José Couso, a Spanish journalist, in Iraq by American troops.
That's, you know, our government doing horrible things of various levels. There's a BOATLOAD of details about others doing horrible things. For example:
The Shell Oil Company claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to every movement of politicians. Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.
Not a Michael Moore Fan (Score:5, Insightful)
No money actually required (Score:5, Informative)
You do not have to post any actual money when you provide a surety in the UK. You only have to show that you have the sum available and are liable for the sum in the event the (alleged) offender breaches bail conditions in some significant manner. See http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-defendants/bail.html [yourrights.org.uk] for a further explanation.
Sweet, Sweet Irony (Score:5, Funny)
If would be sweet, sweet irony if it turns out that Wikileaks has something on Michael Moore, like that's he a paid corporate shill, or that he has an account on iheart12yoldboys.com. /just sayin'
Re:Sweet, Sweet Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Common sense wins (Score:5, Interesting)
Journalist John Pilger and socialite Jemima Khan are putting up $31,600 surety each, with bail set at $380,000. It looks like enough people like Michael Moore have guaranteed the bail money as he has been bailed pending appeal [bbc.co.uk] (the prosecutors have 2 hours to appeal). He should be released by the end of the day.
He has had his passport confiscated, been electronically tagged, is under curfew and house arrest during the evenings, and must report to the police station every day. This is fair enough, it is no different to any other offender afaik. Certainly not the Guantamo Bay scenario he has had the past week, with "absolutely no access to any electronic equipment, no access to the outside world, no access to outside media" and no correspondence allowed.
The fast tracking through political influence, and the imprisonment for an as yet unfounded allegation in a foreign country, is a blot on our country's record, but it's good to see our strong and mostly fair legal system reassert itself after a short delay.
Phillip.
Re:Common sense wins (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry to reply to my own post, but things have changed. Sweden have now decided they want to appeal against the bail, but have declined to provide any evidence as to any crimes committed. It looks like a vindictive attack is in process to keep him in jail and incommunicado as long as possible. Also the courts aren't taking cheques as they take 7 days to clear, so $380,000 has to be found in used pound notes. Looks like restaurant designer Sarah Saunders, who is putting up $237,000 of bail money, is going to be making a large withdrawal.
In addition to conditions above, curfew from 10am-2pm and 10pm-2am according to the BBC. What a coincidence these are the hours that cover the prime-time news slots.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:3)
In addition to conditions above, curfew from 10am-2pm and 10pm-2am according to the BBC. What a coincidence these are the hours that cover the prime-time news slots.
That part isn't really a concern, since he doesn't have to be in studio to do a live interview. And of course, a taped interview can be recorded anytime.
Ulterior Motive? (Score:5, Funny)
If Assange goes missing and Moore puts on another 90lbs, I think we can chalk this up as the most expensive Take-Out meal ever
Re:Ulterior Motive? (Score:4, Funny)
Surely it's worth it, for only be feasting on his flesh may he gain his powers.
Re:Empty theatrics (Score:5, Informative)
um... [huffingtonpost.com]
"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is back in court today, and has been granted bail by a British judge. He has been in a British prison for a week after being denied bail last week. Assange is wanted for questioning for alleged sex crimes involving two women in Sweden. It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."
Re:Empty theatrics (Score:5, Interesting)
It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."
It should be mentioned that this statement stems from the fact that she is currently on a three month stay in Israel with an ecumenical Christian group. She has been blogging how excited she is about this trip for months.
Goose Gander (Score:3)
Assange was excited about posting the documents for quite some time, but when he was busy doing so rather than reporting to those same police he was "not cooperating with police." Why is this
Re:Goose Gander (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Goose Gander (Score:5, Informative)
What to say to police (Score:5, Informative)
I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted in this topic. Really, the only things you should say to a police officer are the following:
Re:What to say to police (Score:5, Funny)
COP: Is that your penis in the drive-thru window?
COP: Did someone force you to do that?
No, officer.
COP: Why is your hand in your ass cheeks?
Officer, I'm getting my wallet from my pocket now.
COP: Why are you bending over like that?
Officer, I'm getting my registration/insurance documents from the glove compartment.
COP: I think you lost your mind. Let's look for it.
I do not consent to any searches.
Do you have a warrant, officer?
COP: Did you ask me if I have a warrant?
I will not answer questions without a lawyer.
Re:What to say to police (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What to say to police (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been my experience that most police officers are nice people that have to deal with the occasional asshole who automatically assumes he is being hassled and wrongfully claims he has never done anything wrong in his entire life, or feels that the police officers should have something better to do than to pull them over for going 15 mph over the speed limit since he can drive safely at that speed.
Well
Re:What to say to police (what is costs) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What to say to police (Score:5, Informative)
Great point -- however, if one has a weapon of any variety (even one that might be in plain sight), it's wise to tell the officer that before making any moves that might possibly be construed as reaching for a weapon. Things like, "Officer, I am wearing a pistol on my hip, which is near my seatbelt" or "I have a pistol in my glove compartment" or "I have a hunting knife on my belt", followed by a question about how you can most safely comply with their directions might help their peace of mind (and your safety) a lot.
Re:What to say to police (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Goose Gander (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Goose Gander (Score:4, Informative)
Heh...more the fool you.
Here's a gem that shoots down the premise you're trying to promulgate here...
Part 1 [youtube.com]
Part 2 [youtube.com]
These are videos of a lecture given by Professor Duane, an instructor at Regent Law School and a Experienced LEO that's moving into the Legal profession on just precisely WHY you don't do what you're talking about.
Pay particular attention to how fast someone can be deep-sixed in a courtroom on flimsy crap, stuff that a Jury would have some difficulty discounting.
Regardless of "if you don't have anything to hide"...anything can and WILL be used against you at any time.
Re:Goose Gander (Score:4, Informative)
Go watch the Youtube videos "Never talk to the police" and then come back to the thread.
"I have nothing to say"
"My lawyer's name is [their name here]"
Re:Goose Gander (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with that is, most cops in the US are corrupt dickheads who will beat you down or arrest you on the "fuck it we'll find something to charge you with later" principle if they don't think you are being properly "respectful" to them.
And yes, this includes telling them "no, I don't consent to any searches." Their actual response isn't "well then I can't search you", it's "well fuck that, I'll beat you up, throw you in my car in cuffs, and while you spend 48 hours in jail we'll break your window and search your car anyways."
Re:Goose Gander (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit.
They all start out on the lowest rung, making ticket quota. They quickly learn every trick in the book to make it "my word vs yours" - pointing their car's nose wrong-way to block off dashcam, leaning into your car to muffle the audio recording, and so on.
By the time they graduate from traffic ticket quota days, there's no saving them - they're about number of arrests and convictions, not whether they actually did their job right, or followed the law, or got the real culprit. The goal of the police interrogator isn't to find out what you know and determine if your alibi checks out, it's to get you to say something that can be used to incriminate you, and to do so, they will pull any underhanded trick they need - drop a hint in the hallway [youtube.com], sit there "waiting for your lawyer" with the tape off for hours while bugging you about how "all you have to do is talk to us and you can go home", and on and on and on.
I never wanted to admit this growing up, but cops - at least, cops that come up through the corrupt US system - are slime. If not 100% of them, better than 90% of them, easily.
Re:Goose Gander (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Goose Gander (Score:4, Insightful)
And in the US, you pay taxes and are given a court-appointed attorney to represent you if you can't afford to hire one of your own.
Or are you suggesting that in the UK, your taxes get you legal representation from lawyers on par with Alan Dershowitz and William Rehnquist?
I used to think the same thing. A friend of mine was recently arrested in an airport for saying the wrong thing. (It turns out that the officer misheard what he had said but that's another story.) This friend makes $13K a year. He was denied access to a public defender. Apparently, in some jurisdictions the judge gets to decide who can afford a lawyer. The incident happened during a layover on an international flight so the charges were in a city 1000's of miles from my friend's home. He had to pay to fly himself 1/2 way across the country to appear at his court date. Travel costs alone were a huge fraction of his yearly income. Still, they denied him a public defender.
Re:Empty theatrics (Score:5, Insightful)
What annoys me with media is that they twist the sentence above to say that he's wanted for rape charges.
Re:Empty theatrics (Score:4, Informative)
My understanding is he's wanted for some non-standard local law having to do with wearing a condom, and that that "crime" is specifically not rape. Having seen this in at least a couple dozen news articles, you'd have to show me quite a bit of alternative stories saying the charge is RAPE, in order to convince me.
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem with him on a personal level is he doesn't let the evidence speak for itself...he seems to find it imperitive to make sure that you know that he's the one saying it.
Like I said, I absolutely support and love the work he does, but the man's need for attention pisses me off.
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Moore is a counterpoint to places like Fox News and CNN which screech really loudly their views. They sure as hell aren't letting the evidence speak for itself -- they speak for it, and sometimes, in lieu of it.
I don't think Moore has ever denied that he has an agenda, and that he's telling the story his way.
Well, Sarah Palin is no different, really ... just with a different set of biases. Same goes for most of the talking heads on CNN.
Heck, I remember watching some guy on CNN several years ago saying that the crash of 2008 was coming because of all of the crap credit out there. He basically got shouted down by a bunch of arch-conservative guys who believed that it could never happen.
Re:Doomed (Score:4, Informative)
People can hate both Moore and Palin.
No, you have to choose. You get to pick either Moore, abortion, gun control, gay marriage support; or Palin, destroying terrorists, bailouts and conservative values.
You can't pick and choose a la carte. This isn't a restaurant. This is America.
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doomed (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, because, in a state that has such a large dependence on tourism based around nature, most bullets sold are primarily for the purpose of murder rather than hunting, wildlife management, or target shooting.
In 2009, there were 175 murders in Colorado. In 1981, the year with the greatest number of murders on record, there were 239. These are total counts for murder, they do not delineate gun murders from any other method. In 2008 approximately 41,000 pheasant roosters were harvested. That's just pheasants. I'm not even going to take the time to find out the bag totals of other animals/hunting seasons.
Nobody's "pretending" that the majority of bullets sold are for hunting.
Re:oh gee (Score:5, Insightful)
so this is different from fox news, all the corporate news channels, how ?
Moore works to expose corruption, while corporate media generally helps enable it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.
Re:oh gee (Score:5, Insightful)
the man engages in ideological arguments that don't guarantee any financial return. he could take the money he earns and lead a much more lucrative life, not doing things like, for example, springing for assange's bail
look: you don't have to like michael moore, but you have to admit that he is a man of conscience, that what motivates him is belief, not greed. to say that someone like michael moore is really just motivated by money, when he clearly is a shining example of a person motivated by ideology, is just a lame weak ignorant smear on your part
Re:Doomed (Score:4, Insightful)
I enthusiastically applaud his work in pulling off the lamb outfit from world governments and corporations.
What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?
That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.
Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.
Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?
That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.
Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.
If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about...right? I mean, that's what they told us with the Patriot Act and warrentless wiretapping, so...
Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?
Can you find me one single recorded instance of anyone over there being killed directly because of the Iraq/Afghanistan war docs?
Re:Doomed (Score:4, Informative)
The law isn't always used for justice. It's also used for revenge and control.
Max Stirner would like a word with you. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
How does it aid your international relations?...
Fuck you and your country's international relations.
People in a lot of countries are getting a wakeup call on how the US really views them and their elected (or not elected) leaders, and while it has been 'known' by those in the know... Still to have it exposed to the public in such a manner means it's much harder to try hiding it from the people.
Much of it is just embarrassing and not really 'relevant' stuff, true. Yet being a 'crime' is not really the standard by which we should filter them... Cause in that case even talk of acts of torture would be considered not interesting considering what the US has been up to lately.
Remember; these leaks are not primarily for the American people. They are for the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
I despise Moore as a person. .
Michael Moore went through a mass character assassination to similar to Julian Assange. Note that as the stream of negative publicity backfired as the ulterior motives were exposed and people stopped swallowing so much shit, the pictures attached to news articles changed from an seedy looking, sneering, oily Gollum lookalike into a reasonably normal looking guy. They could both be asshats or great guys, I have no idea but I certainly don't intend to allow two faced news rag peddlers dictate my opinions of anyone.
Lacking the opportunity to meet these people within my normal social circles, I prefer to form my own opinions based upon unedited and unbiased interviews of a reasonable enough length to prevent any contextual manipulation. Sadly that's not how the news will ever portray someone, it doesn't sell so well.
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear this all the time, "He makes some good points but makes them badly." I don't understand this at all. You agree with him, but the way he says things makes you not want to agree? How does that work? What is it about his communication style that makes you want to disagree with things you actually agree with?
Are you sure you agree with what he is saying? Maybe you do agree with him, but you really don't want to agree with him? Maybe you don't want a fat hippie liberal slob to be right, because it sets a bad precedent and then other fat hippie liberal slobs might start speaking up? I don't know, I'm just guessing here. Maybe it is because he is a populist, and you are an elitist, and even when populists are correct, elitists have to put them down, to maintain their elite status? Maybe "He makes some good points but makes them badly." is some sort of code for "I really don't want to agree with him, but I have pretensions of intellectual honesty I am loath to give up, and I have to admit that he is telling the truth even though I don't want to."
Re:Doomed (Score:4, Insightful)
And I think your mother was a llama. What do I base that on? Absolutely nothing, which appears to be the standard of proof you are using.
Moore made his argument. Your rebuttal to his argument is "He lies and uses bad logic." which isn't really any kind of rebuttal or argument at all, it is just an unsupported opinion. Remember, that which can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. So, consider yourself and your opinions dismissed until you come back with some evidence.
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, wow. Just... wow. You saw this movie? You saw a movie named "Bowling for Columbine," and you watched the whole thing? Really?
I am reminded of a scene in A Fish Called Wanda and a line that goes "The central theme of Buddhism is NOT 'Every man for himself.'" You think the central theme of Bowling for Columbine is gun control?!? Really?!?
I just have to ask, what about the whole last half of the movie? What about Canada? Micheal discovers that gun control isn't the answer, because guns were never the problem in the first place, and he makes that very clear.
So, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you right there and ask you to actually watch one of Micheal Moore's films before you critique him.
Re: (Score:3)
Please point out where MM is lying. I hear this all the time, but his work has been fact checked left, right, up, down and sideways and no one can find the glaring lies that some people claim are there. Please, you seem quite upset by him, so I just know you have actual factual, verifiable examples of him lying.
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason that I want specific examples, rather than a general fucking google search, is that I can rebut specific examples. Thanks for wasting everyone's time with your useless contribution to the discussion. Give me some specific examples of Micheal Moore lying so I can prove he isn't, or shut the hell up.
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In an alternate reality... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, since he's fat, he's lazy? Piercing insight, that.
I don't care much for Moore, but he's doing the right thing here, so maybe store the venom up for a day when he's not?
Re:In an alternate reality... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, it's the worst atrocities, or nothing. Nobody's supposed to condemn any of the other stuff in between. Certainly they're not supposed to address the issues that they, personally, find important. What the hell would we have then? Freedom? The hell with that.
Re:In an alternate reality... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point. There isn't really a health care crisis in this country and we weren't lied into the Iraq war. Thanks for clearing that up.
Re:In an alternate reality... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, Michael Moore may resort to half-truths and tugging at the heart strings, but if you have a brain you can see beyond that while still finding a valid message.
If you're an idiot, I'd still rather have you following Michael Moore's rhetoric than Glenn Beck's.
Re:In an alternate reality... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, Michael Moore may resort to half-truths and tugging at the heart strings, but if you have a brain you can see beyond that while still finding a valid message.
The thing is, there IS a valid message, and he doesn't need to resort to half-truths to get that message across. The message should speak for itself. Embellishments and falsehoods are only going to cloud the validity of that message.
Re: (Score:3)
..Micheal Moore actually exposes real crimes carried out by all the unpleasent dictatorships around the world. Though that might require him getting off his fat backside and doing some real investigative reporting and even putting himself in real danger , as opposed to the manufacturered danger he conjures up to keep up viewer interesr on his lame expose films.
So, you do not agree that he should try to clean up his own yard first, then go elsewhere?
You'd prefer him to clean Zimbabwe's yard, for example, while ignoring shit that is happening in his own?
Brilliant logic. I wish I had your brain for a week, so I can get a lifetime's rest...
Re:Just Leave (Score:5, Insightful)
Why doesn't Michael Moore just move to a country more to his liking since he clearly hates the one he is a citizen of? Cuba, perhaps?
A lot of people here like this country just the way it is and don't want anyone, Moore, Obama, or anyone else changing it in to something else.
Leave, Michael! You'd be happier, and we'd be happier.
If you think that allowing a government to flat out lie to us is 'loving your country', then I'd personally rather YOU leave. I don't care for Moore, but I care even less for all the sheep begging to be shorn!
Your distaste for Michael Moore is causing you to lobby against THE TRUTH for crying out loud. And I'm sorry, but that's just morally bankrupt.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not fit to judge which laws are valid and which are not unless you're likewise prepared to back that up with full strength of government.
So, yes, that is a double standard. It is the very definition of a double standard to say that China is not permitted to have secrets while we are. That's insane.
And just because the law has details within it does not mean that the secrets being exposed were worth keeping.
I believe in a government without any secrets. Governments aren't people, so they have no ri
Re:Just Leave (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess he's much like me. I love the US. I love the country, I love the people.
I just hate the government and the way it's run.
Re: (Score:3)
Michael Moore finds way to stay relevant
Michael Moore was never relevant.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I don't like Michael Moore (he's comparable to a propagandist) he sometimes does the right thing. His mid-90s movie about manufacturing an excuse to declare war (and give the president a boost in popularity) was very good. And this act to bail a Reporter out of jail and protect the Right to a Free Press is also very good.
Without wikileaks we wouldn't know that US Soldiers were killing innocent journalists and children (the Pentagon denied the event happened). That Hillary Clinton was stealing credit card numbers from foreign diplomats. The content of the ACTA treaty to make backing-up your CDs or DVDs or MP3s and illegal act. And on and on and on.
Democracy can not work when the people are kept in the dark about what their public servants are doing.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a better idea:
Let's bring the soldiers home so they can't accidentally kill children, journalists, or innocents. Or get killed themselves. And I don't mean two years from now ('bama's schedule) but immediately. Tomorrow. The Soviets wisely stopped fighting in Afghanistan when they realized it's hopeless to civilize that mountain country, and we should too. We'd save a LOT of lives.
>>>you didn't know that in war civilian sometimes get killed?
Of course. But that doesn't excuse the Pentagon lying about it and pretending war is as clean as a hospital room ("surgical precision to avoid civilian casualties" they claimed). It's good to have these videos exposed to reveal the lie.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
only if (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:only if (Score:4, Insightful)
from the outside, we see moore a hero. maybe its possible that the endless propaganda perpetrated by corporate owned mass media have twisted you american people's views about moore
The problem is that most of Moore's "facts" which he presents in his movies turn out to be no more than elaborate fabrications. He routinely takes quotes out of context, overlays a speech over video from another event, re-arranges video and audio, creates set-up interviews where he asks the guy one question and then re-shoots himself asking another question so the answer is presented in the manner which Moore wants, and many more methods of turning real events into fictional ones.
There are plenty of websites out there that take Moore's movies and show, "fact" by "fact", just how badly Moore manipulates reality. Now this doesn't mean that Moore's topics aren't worth investigating, it just means that you can't take anything he says as the truth. Do your own investigation into the truth and you'll be far better off than relying on Moore to do the job for you.
Re:only if (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that pretty much the modus operandi of most American "news" sources, not to mention government institutions and politicians ?
Re:All that means is you don't fact check (Score:5, Insightful)
His version of the Iraq War? That the United States
1) Manufactured intelligence about WMDs
2) Ignored all international inspectors who said there were no WMDs
3) Kicked the inspectors out so they could have their war
4) Lied to the American people about the cost and length of war, with Rumsfeld publicly stating that it won't last "much longer" than 5 months or cost more than 50 to 60 billion dollars
5) Ended up torturing Iraqis in the same prisons where Saddam did his dirty work
6) Pretended that we hadn't supported Saddam right through his worst atrocities in the 80s, including supplying him with "dual use" technology to wage a war with Iran that killed a million people and
7) Removing Iraq from the State sponsors of Terror list in 1982 so US firms could also sell him biological weapons to kill Kurds with
If you were born in Germany in 1920, you would have died wearing a belt buckle that read "GOTT MIT UNS." Blind fealty to the flag is fucking pathetic.
Re:only if (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing seriously needing George W. Bush's attention was actually happening.
What the fuck? No, seriously, what the fuck?!?! Fucking A, do you really believe this?
9/11 just happened, and it wasn't anything seriously enough happening to require our President's attention?!? God damn man, seriously?!?!?
Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear? Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc? He's not supossed to do any of that? What is this England, and he's royalty, some figurehead?
Seriously, I am just mouth agape at this point. My god.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the fuck? No, seriously, what the fuck?!?! Fucking A, do you really believe this?
Yeah, there wasn't much he could do at the current time. There was no source of attack known and he can't personally gather intelligence on this. Someone will tell his secretary if Russia calls, and the CIA will be informed, and he will get a notification immediately.
Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear?
Already happening, that's what the intelligence community does. If they know it, he'll know it.
Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc?
Well, generally the state of new york and the locality of new york city are going to respond first. Nobody claimed an attack yet, so we're not automatically at war. Plane crashes are considered a "disaster," not an "attack." So the governor of New York State or the mayor of New York City would be calling in the New York National Guard, fire department, etc, and setting disaster areas.
At this point, it's the President's job to either run around going "what what I'm confused did somebody blow shit up what's happening?!" or kick his feet up on his desk smoking a cigar telling "the boys" to keep him informed. There's no cigars allowed in first grade classrooms.
Re:only if (Score:4, Insightful)
Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear? Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc? He's not supossed to do any of that?.
No.... He wasn't really supposed to do any of that. Seriously.
Intelligence activity takes time to come up from analysts through the various levels of filters until it gets to the President. We have entire agencies of analysts whose job it is to figure out what is going on and inform him. At that point him doing his job is saying "keep me informed".
And more importantly, the rest of those responsibilities mostly fall under the State and local government. Specifically the National Guard would have had to have been called up by then Governor Pataki. Local emergency response was handled at the municipal level by Giuliani (quite aggressively I might add, he had to be evacuated from several command posts during the course of the day because buildings were falling down around him).
Unless and until a State Governor officially requests federal assistance, the President literally has no authority to send federal troops or resources. Given the number of times this came up during GWB's Presidency, I am shocked that more people don't understand this.
Re: (Score:3)
What's that old adage? "Believe none of wha
Re:Or: (Score:5, Informative)
First of all what you are saying is not true. He offered the State department the chance to redact the documents, which they declined, then worked in conjunction with respectable papers such as the Guardian and New York Times to publish them.
Secondly, the job of a journalist is to find stories in the public interest and publish them. They aren't all caped crusaders. At least Wikileaks is only publishing information that is anonymously sent to them. In the UK journalists are quite happy to break the law, hack into people's private information, and do whatever it takes to get a story. News of The World in the UK hacked into the voicemail of celebrities, politicians and royal family to get stories (list of victims here [guardian.co.uk]).
I would trust Julian Assange to be more apolitical than Michael Moore.
Phillip.
Re:Or: (Score:4, Interesting)
However, Assange is NOT a journalist. Journalists are supposed to have a sense of responsibility. All Assange does is release documents no matter what they are, without apparently trying to determine if they NEED to be leaked.
I don't think you know what the word "journalist" means. A journalist is anyone who reports the news as an occupation. That's it. No other qualification needed.
And journalists who worry about "sense of responsibility" are everywhere -- they're the folks writing bland, instantly forgettable wire service stories; they're the interchangeable talking heads on TV; they're the soothing voices on the radio that you couldn't put names to if your life depended on it. The very few journalists who dig deeper, who know there's always more muck to rake, who have the intelligence and dedication and raw courage to speak truth to power, are the ones whose names are remembered, and rightly so.
Woodward and Bernstein are still household names long after most of their contemporaries have been utterly forgotton. So will Assange be. And while people like you may continue to whine, those of us who want to live in a better world will remember why.
Re:Moore Claims Credit! (Score:5, Informative)
I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail. [emphasis to aid jackasses who can't fucking read]
But hey, look at me quoting what a person actually says he did instead of trusting the headline written by a Slashdot editor.
Re:And you're surprised? (Score:4, Interesting)
He sure does. Sigh. I wish the truth were capable of changing the minds of most people, but it isn't. That's too bad, but until individual humans reject nontruths, at least the side of morality and reason has a liar to rely on. Moore is a rare liberal, the kind that would rather convince than tell the truth, and in that he does the world good. I bet you would agree with me that the optimal world would be one in which the truth is more convincing than a lie. Alas, we will have to long for that world, while we settle for this one.
Re:OUR name and tax money? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is it about Wikileaks that brings out the nutbag libertarians?
Re:OUR name and tax money? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a nutbag anarcho-capitalist, and I donate to Wikileaks.
And Ron Paul supports Wikileaks as well. Good old Wikileaks, bringing the nutbag socialists (myself) and nutbag libertarians into agreement. But really, why should government transparency be a right-wing/left-wing issue? The ones who paint it as a liberal/conservative issue are just trying to demonize their opponents. A sad effect of the two-party system in the U.S.
It's called Democracy (Score:4, Funny)
"Michael Moore falls prey to a mistake in ethical reasoning by failing to expound that taxation is immoral as well as the rest of my trite ideological drivel."
Re: (Score:3)
People with more extreme views are louder, and their supporters are more dedicated (since they tend to focus on their pet peeve while the rest of us have more important things to do), so we tend to see them more.
They're not the majority though. I'd be willing to bet that most Slashdotters don't hate Moore or Assange... they're just not posting about their moderate stance as much as the extremists are yelling about theirs.