Argument for what? I have no need to prove to you that classified documents remained classified whether or not they've been leaked.
Do you expect the US gov't to suddenly open up SIPRNET to everyone, you know, only the parts that been compromised? Otherwise, I mean, they're just "censoring" and "sticking their head in the sand", and any other parroted phrase around here.
Another day, and another set of keyboard commando's complaining they could do a better job at gov't work...then back over to Newser for a few hours...and top it off with a handful of Cheetos. Ah, the life of a critic is great.
Goodwin's Law? Oh, you mean Godwin's Law. Wow, just a recursive loop of ad hom attacks, huh? Next time if a poster himself (me) notes the argument was ad Hitlerum, isn't your mispelled point pretty much moot?
With a complete lack of humility, you quote these sources as if they hold the complete truth, but lessons from the past and simple reason shows us that the whole set of facts rarely makes an appearance in daily life.
Yet one point does remain, the actus reus came when this man willfully pushed a button under the assumption he was going to kill people. You can argue all you'd like about how unfair it is for him, but I don't see the ACLU jumping in anytime soon, but I'm open to be proven wrong.
I appreciate the article, and I'd like to not continue arguing.
Salon.com leans very much to the left. It is what it is, and I'm definitely not the first to say this. And I'm sorry, but trying to harvest this type of skewed information without the prejudice of American politics in the forefront of your mind is like reading Mein Kampf for it's redemptive purposes.
I know it's reductio ad Hitlerum, but I feel the point still comes across.
No matter how much evidence piles up, you'll just look the other way and whine about how the USG is killing freedom...meanwhile the FBI is tracking down folks who are more than willing to push a button to kill you.
You're completely disregarding the fact that circumstantial evidence carries any weight - I don't give a shit about the legal definition.
Given the tone of the responses above, I suspect everyone is very much satisfied with the verdict of OJ Simpson trial (criminal, not civil). What bloody gloves? What reckless pursuit down the freeway with a bloodied SUV? Aw, thats's just circumstantial.
Moreover, the fact that a man, who had ties to an "alleged" terrorist recruiter, pushed a button under the assumption he would mass murder people, is not enough evidence for you.
A few weeks back, we wrote about the FBI celebrating that they stopped a terrorist plot that appeared to have been mostly planned by the FBI itself -- basically encouraging one guy, who had no actual terrorist connections, to think he was a part of a terrorist plot where none actually existed... and then arresting the guy.
I'm still in shocking disbelief that you find it acceptable to trivialize attempted mass murder in such a way. Your description of the story is disingenuous at best, and completely misleading at worst.
No terrorist connections? Here's an excerpt from the link you yourself referenced:
"The F.B.I.ís surveillance started in August 2009 after agents intercepted his e-mails with a man he had met in Oregon who had returned to the Middle East, according to a law enforcement official who described the man as a recruiter for terrorism"
Does whatever law enforcement believe nullify your view? Do you not agree he had connections to a terrorist recruiter? What information do you have to support that theory?
"Ok, if "the law is the law," then why didn't the Librarian of Congress also block the other sites offering up these documents?"
So which is it Mike: if they block access from just the Library of Congress, and leave other sites accessible, it's called denial - and if they actually did block access to those sites from within the Library of Congress you'd complain it was censorship.
I'm starting to think you really can't be satisfied with anything.