wikileaks followup
-
digital man wrote:
What-if games are utterly pointless:
Pretty much. But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'.
digital man wrote:
releasing the document is treason - end of story.
I dont think it's that black and white.
Josh Gray wrote:
But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'.
In what way?
Josh Gray wrote:
I dont think it's that black and white.
IMO it is: if, in time of war, you give aid and support to the enemy, in any form, then you are guilty of treason - whatever the value of these documents they provide intel to the enemy. How much more clear cut can it get?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
What-if games are utterly pointless: releasing the document is treason - end of story.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
What-if games are utterly pointless: releasing the document is treason - end of story.
Exactly on the point! Everything else is a jabbering of people sitting safe behind their computers. The situation has nothing to do with whether the government is right or wrong, how many civilian casualties are acceptable, how pointless is the war and so on… There are soldiers from my country there as well as American soldiers and they are the only thing that matters in that case. This little attention-seeking stinky fart has published a thousand of documents without been qualified to distinguish the dangerous ones, from those which could or should be published.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
digital man wrote:
What-if games are utterly pointless: releasing the document is treason - end of story.
Exactly on the point! Everything else is a jabbering of people sitting safe behind their computers. The situation has nothing to do with whether the government is right or wrong, how many civilian casualties are acceptable, how pointless is the war and so on… There are soldiers from my country there as well as American soldiers and they are the only thing that matters in that case. This little attention-seeking stinky fart has published a thousand of documents without been qualified to distinguish the dangerous ones, from those which could or should be published.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
:thumbsup:
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
digital man wrote:
Ridiculous: how can you fight a war with your hands tied behind your back and where the line between civilian and enemy are quite blurred.
Then why are we there? All you hear from the government is Al Qaeda and the Taliban. If we can't tell who the enemy is then we should leave. Staying does nothing but spend money and lives all around. War should be unacceptable to any civilized person. It is a failure to agree to live together in mutual respect. I don't think any Muslims or people of any other faith besides Christianity participate in these sorts of conversations back here. Why do you suppose that is? In college I had a classmate who thought Bin Laden was a hero for the way he evaded the US military. I told her to keep things like that to herself. I then ran into her again when she started working for the financial software company I worked at, before I left. I told one of my coworkers about that experience and he just completely blew it off. She was from Pakistan. Pakistan is suppose to be our allie but they're not. These papers illustrate this point by showing how Pakistan is helping the Taliban. They seem to be ignoring this fact. That area wants our money, but not our culture or way of living. I also had a couple of her cousins as classmates and they were both caught cheating in a programming class we had together. All three of them were born in Pakistan. I don't think they want or need democracy. Some may have been thankful that the Taliban is gone, but it's not our responsibility to spread democracy across the world or our culture. That is a foreign policy that came from Bush.
digital man wrote:
Pity since war isn't going away and, with that attitude, we may as well rollover and hoist the white flag.
War isn't going away anytime soon because there are too many differences between cultures and not enough tolerance on one side or another in this case. There are other reasons too, but that's for another time. Stopping something that is dumb and achieves nothing isn't hoisting the white flag. If the Afghans don't take control of their destiny it's their own fault and not worth our military, or treasure. Our military exists to protect and serve us and no other country.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_<
wolfbinary wrote:
Then why are we there?
Irrelevant: we are there and so that's the end of it. The whys and wherefores are a different conversation.
wolfbinary wrote:
Our military exists to protect and serve us and no other country.
Which is what, purportedly, they are doing. War can no longer be confined to a specific geographical area: it is global and, therefore, to protect your citizens you may have to fight a war outside of your borders. And, again, the whys and wherefores are another discussion - we have to deal with the reality as it is i now and, right now, whomever gave up those documents has betrayed not only their own country but every country that has soldiers fighting in those battles.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Josh Gray wrote:
But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'.
In what way?
Josh Gray wrote:
I dont think it's that black and white.
IMO it is: if, in time of war, you give aid and support to the enemy, in any form, then you are guilty of treason - whatever the value of these documents they provide intel to the enemy. How much more clear cut can it get?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'. In what way?
It's my understanding that a lot of the documents are 'post action reports'. No doubt this would give an enemy more knowledge of how you carry out operations and allow them to make some assumptions or better preparations but once you know they know some of that advantage is lost. So can we categorically say that the actions of wiki leaks resulted in the death of service people? Will we be able to say that in the future? Probably but we cant know for sure now so that makes the statement a case of 'what if'.
digital man wrote:
IMO it is: if, in time of war, you give aid and support to the enemy, in any form, then you are guilty of treason - whatever the value of these documents they provide intel to the enemy. How much more clear cut can it get?
If you purposefully give aid and support to the enemy then yes, that's treason. If you attempt to expose a corrupt government or a war based on lies or some other injustice by exposing secret material then the motivation is very different. If it did result in aiding and supporting the enemy then I think any charge should reflect that. Kind of a murder vs manslaughter. Just for the record I'm not suggesting that the war(s) in question are based on lies or that the material in this case is going to expose some massive scandal that will bring the UK, US etc governments to their knees and result in an immediate end to the fighting. It's just an interesting 'what if'.
-
digital man wrote:
What-if games are utterly pointless: releasing the document is treason - end of story.
Exactly on the point! Everything else is a jabbering of people sitting safe behind their computers. The situation has nothing to do with whether the government is right or wrong, how many civilian casualties are acceptable, how pointless is the war and so on… There are soldiers from my country there as well as American soldiers and they are the only thing that matters in that case. This little attention-seeking stinky fart has published a thousand of documents without been qualified to distinguish the dangerous ones, from those which could or should be published.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
The situation has nothing to do with whether the government is right or wrong, how many civilian casualties are acceptable, how pointless is the war and so on…
It has everything to do with these things. As long as governments are willing to lie and hide behind a veil a secrecy then wistle-blowers will need to step forward. If one is really concerned about the soldiers I would think that deciding whether or not they should even be in Afghanistan might be a good place to start.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
without been qualified to distinguish the dangerous ones, from those which could or should be published.
Perhaps so, but the real issue is the government's excessive use of secrecy to not just protect real secrets but to also protect itself from embarrassment and accountability.
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civilian deaths are unacceptable
Ridiculous: how can you fight a war with your hands tied behind your back and where the line between civilian and enemy are quite blurred. Modern wars are not about 2 uniformed armies lining up against each other so it can be albeit impossible to distinguish. Accidents also happen, blue-on-blue as well as civilian casualties. All that happens when you release information like this during the war is it gives strength and intel to the enemy: whoever leaked this is treasonous and the media outlets should be utterly ashamed of themselves (and, where possible, should be prosecuted). The problem is that war has become unacceptable to the west: even 1 casualty is too many. Pity since war isn't going away and, with that attitude, we may as well rollover and hoist the white flag.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Have you even read any of the documents. The billions of dollars we have been giving to Pakastan to fight terrorism was actually being used to fund terrorism. The fucking Al'Quada are controlled by the same people who control the troops. The terrorist are a bunch of opium dealers that didn't pay their cut to the CIA. Now you tell me who the traitors are.
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[^]
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
The situation has nothing to do with whether the government is right or wrong, how many civilian casualties are acceptable, how pointless is the war and so on…
It has everything to do with these things. As long as governments are willing to lie and hide behind a veil a secrecy then wistle-blowers will need to step forward. If one is really concerned about the soldiers I would think that deciding whether or not they should even be in Afghanistan might be a good place to start.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
without been qualified to distinguish the dangerous ones, from those which could or should be published.
Perhaps so, but the real issue is the government's excessive use of secrecy to not just protect real secrets but to also protect itself from embarrassment and accountability.
Carbon12 wrote:
I would think that deciding whether or not they should even be in Afghanistan might be a good place to start.
A little late for that.
Carbon12 wrote:
Perhaps so, but the real issue is the government's excessive use of secrecy to not just protect real secrets but to also protect itself from embarrassment and accountability.
And this surprises you?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Then why are we there?
Irrelevant: we are there and so that's the end of it. The whys and wherefores are a different conversation.
wolfbinary wrote:
Our military exists to protect and serve us and no other country.
Which is what, purportedly, they are doing. War can no longer be confined to a specific geographical area: it is global and, therefore, to protect your citizens you may have to fight a war outside of your borders. And, again, the whys and wherefores are another discussion - we have to deal with the reality as it is i now and, right now, whomever gave up those documents has betrayed not only their own country but every country that has soldiers fighting in those battles.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
You are just a blind war monger. A useful idiot. You would make good cannon fodder.
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[^]
-
Josh Gray wrote:
But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'.
In what way?
Josh Gray wrote:
I dont think it's that black and white.
IMO it is: if, in time of war, you give aid and support to the enemy, in any form, then you are guilty of treason - whatever the value of these documents they provide intel to the enemy. How much more clear cut can it get?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Carbon12 wrote:
I would think that deciding whether or not they should even be in Afghanistan might be a good place to start.
A little late for that.
Carbon12 wrote:
Perhaps so, but the real issue is the government's excessive use of secrecy to not just protect real secrets but to also protect itself from embarrassment and accountability.
And this surprises you?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
A little late for that
No, it isn't. We can chose to get out at anytime.
digital man wrote:
And this surprises you?
No, what makes you think that? You are clearly aware that the gov't abuses secrecy, yet you oppose any attempt to hold the gov't accountable. Why is that?
-
Carbon12 wrote:
I would think that deciding whether or not they should even be in Afghanistan might be a good place to start.
A little late for that.
Carbon12 wrote:
Perhaps so, but the real issue is the government's excessive use of secrecy to not just protect real secrets but to also protect itself from embarrassment and accountability.
And this surprises you?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Carbon12 wrote:
I would think that deciding whether or not they should even be in Afghanistan might be a good place to start.
A little late for that.
Carbon12 wrote:
Perhaps so, but the real issue is the government's excessive use of secrecy to not just protect real secrets but to also protect itself from embarrassment and accountability.
And this surprises you?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
And this surprises you?
I doubt it surprises anyone, but I will add that somewhere upwards of 1000 documents were not released due to concerns the wikileaks administrator had over threats to troops posed by their release. From what little I've seen of them the content is mostly after action reports and the like, not plans or anything resembling current intelligence. If this is treason, so is telling the unadulterated truth.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-michael-johnson/analysis-of-civilian-casu_b_660273.html[^] An article looking at the way that the leaks were reported. As for the whole support the troops argument. criticism != to lack of support. Any civillian deaths are unnaceptable, preventable or not.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civillian deaths are unnaceptable, preventable or not.
How do you respond to this: Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants[^] I'd say that the leak has now put a lot of civilian lives at risk. There's a reason that this information was classified.
-
digital man wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'. In what way?
It's my understanding that a lot of the documents are 'post action reports'. No doubt this would give an enemy more knowledge of how you carry out operations and allow them to make some assumptions or better preparations but once you know they know some of that advantage is lost. So can we categorically say that the actions of wiki leaks resulted in the death of service people? Will we be able to say that in the future? Probably but we cant know for sure now so that makes the statement a case of 'what if'.
digital man wrote:
IMO it is: if, in time of war, you give aid and support to the enemy, in any form, then you are guilty of treason - whatever the value of these documents they provide intel to the enemy. How much more clear cut can it get?
If you purposefully give aid and support to the enemy then yes, that's treason. If you attempt to expose a corrupt government or a war based on lies or some other injustice by exposing secret material then the motivation is very different. If it did result in aiding and supporting the enemy then I think any charge should reflect that. Kind of a murder vs manslaughter. Just for the record I'm not suggesting that the war(s) in question are based on lies or that the material in this case is going to expose some massive scandal that will bring the UK, US etc governments to their knees and result in an immediate end to the fighting. It's just an interesting 'what if'.
Josh Gray wrote:
If you attempt to expose a corrupt government or a war based on lies or some other injustice by exposing secret material then the motivation is very different. If it did result in aiding and supporting the enemy then I think any charge should reflect that. Kind of a murder vs manslaughter.
To obtain a National Security Clearance, you have to go through a briefing and test and agree to various things. This briefing says Classified National Security Information is: "Official government information that relates to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States, which has been deemed to require protection from unauthorized disclosure. (E.O. 12958, as amended)" The person also has to sign an SF-312 "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" which says: "1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information... 3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information... In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, * the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intellige
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civillian deaths are unnaceptable, preventable or not.
How do you respond to this: Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants[^] I'd say that the leak has now put a lot of civilian lives at risk. There's a reason that this information was classified.
-
Fox is not credible.
William Winner wrote:
There's a reason that this information was classified.
I'm sure there are many reasons. I just doubt that they are valid security reasons.
Fox didn't find it. The Times of London did. Fox was just the first result that google pulled up. The Today show reported it along with pretty much any newspaper that uses AP or Routers.
Carbon12 wrote:
I'm sure there are many reasons. I just doubt that they are valid security reasons.
Unfortunately for you, that's for a court to decide, and it doesn't take much to convince them that a report needs to be classified.
-
digital man wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'. In what way?
It's my understanding that a lot of the documents are 'post action reports'. No doubt this would give an enemy more knowledge of how you carry out operations and allow them to make some assumptions or better preparations but once you know they know some of that advantage is lost. So can we categorically say that the actions of wiki leaks resulted in the death of service people? Will we be able to say that in the future? Probably but we cant know for sure now so that makes the statement a case of 'what if'.
digital man wrote:
IMO it is: if, in time of war, you give aid and support to the enemy, in any form, then you are guilty of treason - whatever the value of these documents they provide intel to the enemy. How much more clear cut can it get?
If you purposefully give aid and support to the enemy then yes, that's treason. If you attempt to expose a corrupt government or a war based on lies or some other injustice by exposing secret material then the motivation is very different. If it did result in aiding and supporting the enemy then I think any charge should reflect that. Kind of a murder vs manslaughter. Just for the record I'm not suggesting that the war(s) in question are based on lies or that the material in this case is going to expose some massive scandal that will bring the UK, US etc governments to their knees and result in an immediate end to the fighting. It's just an interesting 'what if'.
Josh Gray wrote:
If you attempt to expose a corrupt government or a war based on lies or some other injustice by exposing secret material then the motivation is very different. If it did result in aiding and supporting the enemy then I think any charge should reflect that. Kind of a murder vs manslaughter.
I think that you are too hard on the whistle-blower. Even if somehow one could actually identify specific instances where the information that was leaked led directly to the death of an individual, I don't think the leaker is responsible for the death. This is the responsibility of the government. They that have chosen to make everything a secret. If a whistle-blower ends up releasing something that actually should be a secret - how could one know?
-
Fox didn't find it. The Times of London did. Fox was just the first result that google pulled up. The Today show reported it along with pretty much any newspaper that uses AP or Routers.
Carbon12 wrote:
I'm sure there are many reasons. I just doubt that they are valid security reasons.
Unfortunately for you, that's for a court to decide, and it doesn't take much to convince them that a report needs to be classified.
William Winner wrote:
Unfortunately for you, that's for a court to decide
I don't know why you think that is unfortunate. Whistle-blowers are often squashed by the government. That's what makes them heros. When a government tried to hide it's mistakes and it's crimes it's the whistle-blowers that can help hold the government accountable.
-
William Winner wrote:
Unfortunately for you, that's for a court to decide
I don't know why you think that is unfortunate. Whistle-blowers are often squashed by the government. That's what makes them heros. When a government tried to hide it's mistakes and it's crimes it's the whistle-blowers that can help hold the government accountable.
A federal judge has said that a "whistleblower" should leak the information...but only if they're also willing to pay the penalty for doing that. Here's the transcript: http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/franklin061109.html[^] Some interesting quotes from the judge in that case: "It isn't the judge, the judge's view, it isn't the judiciary's task or obligation to determine what should or shouldn't be classified. That's, again, an Executive Branch decision." (Actually, I was wrong about it being up to the court to decide what is classified. It's up to the Executive Branch according this this judge) "He said that this case is different from Rosen and Weissman, in that Mr. Franklin was a government official." "Now, it's true that there have been disclosures, as Mr. Cacheris points out, in which people have disclosed classified information to the press, when they shouldn't have under the law, and they haven't been pursued and prosecuted. I don't have a problem with people doing that if they are held accountable for it. To use the Jack Bauer analogy, one might hope that, for example, someone might have the courage to do something that would break the law if it meant they're the savior of the country; but then one has to take the consequences, because the rule of law is so important." (I love the use of Jack Bauer!) "So, what I do today -- what has happened to Mr. Franklin and what will happen after I rule today has to stand as a beacon to government officials, because Mr. Hammerstrom is absolutely right, it is important that government officials, more than anyone else, get this message: You cannot engage in disclosure of classified information, certainly not NDI -- I mean, it may turn out in the end not to be NDI, under the statute. But you are precluded by your agreement with the government and by internal regulations from disclosing classified information, which in all likelihood might well be NDI; and that if you do so, there are consequences; and that noble motives don't erase the violation." And as a soldier, which I believe the person who leaked the information was, you actually give up a lot of your rights and become the property of the US government. So, you have even less 1st amendment cover. But if he's willing to take the punishment, then go ahead. After all, as has been said, "If a person is willing to give his li