See how they reacted to wikileaks?
-
Distind wrote:
The Gov or the Military?
Dutch news makes it appear like it's coming from both, would the USian news be more accurate?
Possibly, The only response I'm seeing is the white house calling it irresponsible and how wiki leaks had not informed them of the information before posting it. Though the military is probably screaming it's way in circles right now. I'm not seeing anything in the way of mass over reaction publicly at the moment, no bills to condemn it in our legislature, no executive ranting about the damage to our security. Just typical military damage control.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It shows the true power of the Internet.
Nope. I believe that they are demonstrating their abuse of free speech at the potential expense of our servicemen's lives. You can read what I have had to say about this next door (S.B.1)[^]. Pity that Harold isn't a member of that private forum, but you Ian are.
Skimmed through the thread there. You do make a valid point, but this isn't a black-and-white issue. If we just assume that everything related to the military is off limits, and don't even TRY to see what's going on, then we're giving the generals free reign to pretty much do anything they want. Then again, if we reveal EVERYTHING, we're making any military action pretty much futile (One look at Art of War will teach you how important secrecy is). So I think this is a gray area... We don't want everything out there, but we don't want 100% secrecy. I think WikiLeaks itself is a good compromise. Think of the process flow here... 1) Someone on the inside, with at least some intelligence (It's not trivial to get "secret" information out of the military networks) has to risk prosecution to release something like that. That means someone with an inside viewpoint considers it to have a certain level of importance. 2) WikiLeaks itself has a review process, and I HOPE they would have the presence of mind to reject anything with obvious consequences (Plans for upcoming missions, etc). Is it perfect? No. Is it ideal? No. So how do we make this better? It can't be a military-controlled process, as that brings us right back to the military being able to keep whatever secrets it wants (And in military terms, that means pretty much everything). Putting control in the hands of congress is not ideal, since again, everything will still just be bottled up. I don't know what the ideal solution would be, but there needs to be some way to make sure the military isn't crossing the line. Sure, war is brutal, and collateral damage WILL happen, but there's still a line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed, whether it's the abuses in Gitmo, intentional targeting of civilians, etc.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Skimmed through the thread there. You do make a valid point, but this isn't a black-and-white issue. If we just assume that everything related to the military is off limits, and don't even TRY to see what's going on, then we're giving the generals free reign to pretty much do anything they want. Then again, if we reveal EVERYTHING, we're making any military action pretty much futile (One look at Art of War will teach you how important secrecy is). So I think this is a gray area... We don't want everything out there, but we don't want 100% secrecy. I think WikiLeaks itself is a good compromise. Think of the process flow here... 1) Someone on the inside, with at least some intelligence (It's not trivial to get "secret" information out of the military networks) has to risk prosecution to release something like that. That means someone with an inside viewpoint considers it to have a certain level of importance. 2) WikiLeaks itself has a review process, and I HOPE they would have the presence of mind to reject anything with obvious consequences (Plans for upcoming missions, etc). Is it perfect? No. Is it ideal? No. So how do we make this better? It can't be a military-controlled process, as that brings us right back to the military being able to keep whatever secrets it wants (And in military terms, that means pretty much everything). Putting control in the hands of congress is not ideal, since again, everything will still just be bottled up. I don't know what the ideal solution would be, but there needs to be some way to make sure the military isn't crossing the line. Sure, war is brutal, and collateral damage WILL happen, but there's still a line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed, whether it's the abuses in Gitmo, intentional targeting of civilians, etc.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
then we're giving the generals free reign to pretty much do anything they want
No. The Generals are always subject to civilian control be it your POTUS or UK Prime Minister and so on. And they will be dismissed as necessary if they overstep the bounds of their remit. Documents that are confidential/secret/top secret are so classified so that those who must not know are denied knowledge and that includes members of the press, the peoples and websites such as Wikileaks, Infowars and so forth. Purpose is the restrict the probability that the enemy can do harm.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
has to risk prosecution to release something like that
There are reasons why Official Secrets Acts exist, and they are to protect the country against those enemies who would do us harm.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
WikiLeaks itself has a review process
So! I have review processes from time to time but that doesn't give me the rights to publish state secrets.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't know what the ideal solution would be
At the conclusion of ALL hostilities plus a period of time most appropriate, then you can start to discharge these documents into the public arena. Just like what happened after the conclusion of WWI, WWII, etc.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
but there needs to be some way to make sure the military isn't crossing the line
This is why you have civilian control. This is why you hold (usually) private, but can be public, investigative reviews where prosecutions do happen where wrongful acts have occurred by the military.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
then we're giving the generals free reign to pretty much do anything they want
No. The Generals are always subject to civilian control be it your POTUS or UK Prime Minister and so on. And they will be dismissed as necessary if they overstep the bounds of their remit. Documents that are confidential/secret/top secret are so classified so that those who must not know are denied knowledge and that includes members of the press, the peoples and websites such as Wikileaks, Infowars and so forth. Purpose is the restrict the probability that the enemy can do harm.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
has to risk prosecution to release something like that
There are reasons why Official Secrets Acts exist, and they are to protect the country against those enemies who would do us harm.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
WikiLeaks itself has a review process
So! I have review processes from time to time but that doesn't give me the rights to publish state secrets.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't know what the ideal solution would be
At the conclusion of ALL hostilities plus a period of time most appropriate, then you can start to discharge these documents into the public arena. Just like what happened after the conclusion of WWI, WWII, etc.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
but there needs to be some way to make sure the military isn't crossing the line
This is why you have civilian control. This is why you hold (usually) private, but can be public, investigative reviews where prosecutions do happen where wrongful acts have occurred by the military.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The Generals are always subject to civilian control be it your POTUS or UK Prime Minister and so on.
I wasn't aware that they were civilians. Even if they were, who trusts them? They are god-level officials, authorities, officers. I'm all for exposing the fraud, corruption, and criminality in all aspects of the government, that includes the military. It does not compromise OUR security, it compromises the security of the elitists and crooks. It may cost a few lives on the ground, but its for a good cause. A better cause than opium and the interests of the elite ruling class and the whims of politicians.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The Generals are always subject to civilian control be it your POTUS or UK Prime Minister and so on.
I wasn't aware that they were civilians. Even if they were, who trusts them? They are god-level officials, authorities, officers. I'm all for exposing the fraud, corruption, and criminality in all aspects of the government, that includes the military. It does not compromise OUR security, it compromises the security of the elitists and crooks. It may cost a few lives on the ground, but its for a good cause. A better cause than opium and the interests of the elite ruling class and the whims of politicians.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It may cost a few lives on the ground, but its for a good cause.
Even one life lost, or one life compromised, as the result of those WikiLeak articles is one life too many.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm all for exposing the fraud, corruption, and criminality in all aspects of the government, that includes the military.
Do so, but NOT while you are active in a war. Wait until the war concludes, then you can hold as many enquires as you like. Doing otherwise risks the competency, perhaps through paralysis, of our fighting forces.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
OUR security
In war MUST never be compromised by a whistle-blowing do-gooder
-
Seems like there are quite some gray area's and possibly even mutually interfering laws at work there! Still, it kinda proves my point - the US is angry, the Netherlands are not. Among the 90k documents are some that describe "incidents" involving Dutch soldiers, incidents that were not properly reported (or at all). Reason enough for some RAAAGE here but the level of rage is very low. One political party has demanded an independent investigation, the military just tries to explain and/or deny everything, blaming ambiguous wording. Nowhere have I seen WikiLeaks being blamed for something bad.
-
Seems like there are quite some gray area's and possibly even mutually interfering laws at work there! Still, it kinda proves my point - the US is angry, the Netherlands are not. Among the 90k documents are some that describe "incidents" involving Dutch soldiers, incidents that were not properly reported (or at all). Reason enough for some RAAAGE here but the level of rage is very low. One political party has demanded an independent investigation, the military just tries to explain and/or deny everything, blaming ambiguous wording. Nowhere have I seen WikiLeaks being blamed for something bad.
harold aptroot wrote:
incidents that were not properly reported
In the fog of war, such are not an overwhelming priority. The priority is the safety and fighting effectiveness of the armed forces.
harold aptroot wrote:
One political party has demanded an independent investigation
At the conclusion of this war plus an acceptable time scale thereafter, then you can hold as many public investigations as you like. BUT never while you are active at war.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It may cost a few lives on the ground, but its for a good cause.
Even one life lost, or one life compromised, as the result of those WikiLeak articles is one life too many.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm all for exposing the fraud, corruption, and criminality in all aspects of the government, that includes the military.
Do so, but NOT while you are active in a war. Wait until the war concludes, then you can hold as many enquires as you like. Doing otherwise risks the competency, perhaps through paralysis, of our fighting forces.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
OUR security
In war MUST never be compromised by a whistle-blowing do-gooder
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Even one life lost, or one life compromised, as the result of those WikiLeak articles is one life too many.
I don't know about that... I haven't looked at the new leak yet, but yes, the ones I've seen have not been important enough, in my opinion, to risk lives to leak. I would agree that in the vast majority of cases, this is correct... But if things really do get bad, meaning if some chunk of the military starts to REALLY cross the line, it might be worth risking a few lives to save others... Lesser of two evils, and all that.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Do so, but NOT while you are active in a war. Wait until the war concludes, then you can hold as many enquires as you like.
Very sensible, in theory... But what happens when ol' Dubya starts the "War on Terror," which is never going to end... We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and before we pull out of those (If ever), we'll probably end up in Iran or North Korea or something... There may be no conclusion in the foreseeable future, which means any crimes that do occur would be buried almost indefinitely. Don't get me wrong... I understand where you're coming from, and in an ideal world, I think that's the right way to do things... This just isn't an ideal world, and the military has developed a reputation of being excessively secretive...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
harold aptroot wrote:
incidents that were not properly reported
In the fog of war, such are not an overwhelming priority. The priority is the safety and fighting effectiveness of the armed forces.
harold aptroot wrote:
One political party has demanded an independent investigation
At the conclusion of this war plus an acceptable time scale thereafter, then you can hold as many public investigations as you like. BUT never while you are active at war.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The Generals are always subject to civilian control be it your POTUS or UK Prime Minister and so on.
I wasn't aware that they were civilians. Even if they were, who trusts them? They are god-level officials, authorities, officers. I'm all for exposing the fraud, corruption, and criminality in all aspects of the government, that includes the military. It does not compromise OUR security, it compromises the security of the elitists and crooks. It may cost a few lives on the ground, but its for a good cause. A better cause than opium and the interests of the elite ruling class and the whims of politicians.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They are god-level officials, authorities, officers.
Paranoid.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It may cost a few lives on the ground, but its for a good cause.
How easy it is to say that when you know that it won't be your life that is compromised. And don't pretend that you are prepared to die for that cause. You, who will not go on a Tea Party protest because you are too afraid of the possible consequences. Makes one hope that H.R. 5741 is passed, and that you are immediately drafted to Afghanistan.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It may cost a few lives on the ground, but its for a good cause.
Even one life lost, or one life compromised, as the result of those WikiLeak articles is one life too many.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm all for exposing the fraud, corruption, and criminality in all aspects of the government, that includes the military.
Do so, but NOT while you are active in a war. Wait until the war concludes, then you can hold as many enquires as you like. Doing otherwise risks the competency, perhaps through paralysis, of our fighting forces.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
OUR security
In war MUST never be compromised by a whistle-blowing do-gooder
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Even one life lost, or one life compromised, as the result of those WikiLeak articles is one life too many.
Why don't you support that viewpoint when it comes to the war itself, or how about the lives lost due to corruption and criminality within the military?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Wait until the war concludes
Yeah right. How long has it been now?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Even one life lost, or one life compromised, as the result of those WikiLeak articles is one life too many.
Why don't you support that viewpoint when it comes to the war itself, or how about the lives lost due to corruption and criminality within the military?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Wait until the war concludes
Yeah right. How long has it been now?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
A war exists. Whilst your armed forces are engaged in war activities, they deserve your full support. Any corruption or criminality will eventually be exposed, then you prosecute according to military law, or civil law if they are discharged. How long? When the conclusion comes, that will be how long.
-
A war exists. Whilst your armed forces are engaged in war activities, they deserve your full support. Any corruption or criminality will eventually be exposed, then you prosecute according to military law, or civil law if they are discharged. How long? When the conclusion comes, that will be how long.
You might as well be a hardcore warmonger. The troops deserve better than this.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You might as well be a hardcore warmonger. The troops deserve better than this.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
The troops deserve better, the civilians over there deserve better, but thanks to operation fustercluck they don't have better. Now we have a war, which no one deserves, particularly those who profit from them. Well, actually we have two, neither of which have managed to achieve their stated goal, both of which would appear to have started off false premises. And hell, both were fought against us with at least a few weapons we gave them two decades ago. Even if we took the best course of action possible, assuming we knew what that was, due to the actions taken in the last 50 years we're going to be paying for generations to come. And we aren't the only ones. It's not going to take warmongers, or even evil people, the problems are there, it's just a matter of time before someone hits them.
-
You might as well be a hardcore warmonger. The troops deserve better than this.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
The armed forces always deserve better than what they have. But, alas, they can't always have whatever they want whenever they want them. The logistics, the procurement, the money, the politics and so on are obstacles, and our respective armed forces know that all too well, but they often make do and mend. Like I said, they deserve better. A warmonger and a realist are not the same thing at all. And my post you replied to shows the realist point of view.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It shows the true power of the Internet.
Nope. I believe that they are demonstrating their abuse of free speech at the potential expense of our servicemen's lives. You can read what I have had to say about this next door (S.B.1)[^]. Pity that Harold isn't a member of that private forum, but you Ian are.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Nope. I believe that they are demonstrating their abuse of free speech
I'll have to disagree with you on this. This is what free speech is all about. How can citizens make informed choices about the war when the gov't tries to hide everything behind a veil of secrecy? From what I've read, the documents don't really reveal anything new. The importance lies in the fact that there is now gov't documentation about this conflict. We can now, as citizens, make more informed choices about the costs we are willing to bear for this war. As long as gov'ts abuse secrecy Wikileaks will be important and necessary.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
potential expense of our servicemen's lives.
That is always used to shut down debate about the war. I am not impressed.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Nope. I believe that they are demonstrating their abuse of free speech
I'll have to disagree with you on this. This is what free speech is all about. How can citizens make informed choices about the war when the gov't tries to hide everything behind a veil of secrecy? From what I've read, the documents don't really reveal anything new. The importance lies in the fact that there is now gov't documentation about this conflict. We can now, as citizens, make more informed choices about the costs we are willing to bear for this war. As long as gov'ts abuse secrecy Wikileaks will be important and necessary.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
potential expense of our servicemen's lives.
That is always used to shut down debate about the war. I am not impressed.
During WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Falklands Conflict and the various Middle East Wars, reporters reported what they saw and witnessed. But even then, there were restrictions on what could in fact be said, printed or transmitted. The reason is simple - you do not report that which could compromise the activities and the safety of your fighting forces. But after the wars were finished, those restrictions were generally lifted. But even then, there were some restrictions because of the continuing sensitivities where exposure places secrets at risk. Free speech during times of war is restricted for damned good reasons. You don't let the enemy know what you are doing.
Carbon12 wrote:
As long as gov'ts abuse secrecy Wikileaks will be important and necessary.
Well, let us hope that your safety is not compromised should you be in a combat situation when a wikileak occurs.
Carbon12 wrote:
I am not impressed
You would be less impressed if you or a close family member suffered as the result of some wikileak. Even innocent looking documents could be a source of your suffering.
Carbon12 wrote:
We can now, as citizens
Choose to ensure your armed forces safety or discard it as some piece of worthless material. Your choice, but make that choice wisely.