wikileaks followup
-
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
-
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
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civillian deaths are unnaceptable, preventable or not.
What's that, are you a girl? What's so unacceptable about a civilian death? In fact, you have to accept them, because they already happened and you can not undo that. And unpreventable deaths can only be accepted - what else would you do, deny them? Also, who gives a shit about civilians - not any single one of them contributes significantly to anything. They're all replaceable - maybe a couple of exceptions here and there but if I don't generalize, my post would be gigantic and largely tangential to the topic. The only people who do not think that, are people who are "thinking" with their emotions, and that just doesn't work. And of course, these emotion-"thinkers" have the power to vote. OTOH the army is not the boss of us and we shouldn't let them pretend they are.
harold aptroot wrote:
And unpreventable deaths can only be accepted - what else would you do, deny them?
Once you accept that civilian deaths are acceptable you stop questioning how they should be prevented. sure in a war situation you are unlikely to get to a case that there are zero civillian deaths but you should always question and try to prevent civillian deaths. The acceptance of any civillian deaths and the lack of questioning it brings only leads to further disregard for civillioan deaths. A statement proved by your next sentence.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
harold aptroot wrote:
And unpreventable deaths can only be accepted - what else would you do, deny them?
Once you accept that civilian deaths are acceptable you stop questioning how they should be prevented. sure in a war situation you are unlikely to get to a case that there are zero civillian deaths but you should always question and try to prevent civillian deaths. The acceptance of any civillian deaths and the lack of questioning it brings only leads to further disregard for civillioan deaths. A statement proved by your next sentence.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civillian deaths are unnaceptable, preventable or not.
On paper that is correct. BUT what happens when the civillian population that your protecting etc. can earn more by joining our enemy?
As barmey as a sack of badgers
Simon_Whale wrote:
BUT what happens when the civillian population that your protecting etc. can earn more by joining our enemy?
if you can't tell who the enemy is you are not fighting a war. You are fighting a police action. The worst thing you can do in a police action is send in the troops. It's called using the right tools for the job.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
harold aptroot wrote:
And unpreventable deaths can only be accepted - what else would you do, deny them?
Once you accept that civilian deaths are acceptable you stop questioning how they should be prevented. sure in a war situation you are unlikely to get to a case that there are zero civillian deaths but you should always question and try to prevent civillian deaths. The acceptance of any civillian deaths and the lack of questioning it brings only leads to further disregard for civillioan deaths. A statement proved by your next sentence.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
Actually, this really does tell me something. The Military side of this is so insane, that if I actively go out of my way to come off as much worse than the most insane warmongerer, it instead appears to be authentic. Or maybe I should just be trying harder?
-
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?
Carbon12 wrote:
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?
Every government has the right to hold secrets and the responsibility to balance the desire to be open with the desire to protect the country. The only question is where does the balance point lie? Should we expect it to be in the same place during times of war and peace?
-
As a friendly reminder, WikiLeaks is not a US citizen and therefore can not commit treason against the US. The guy who leaked the documents to WikiLeaks in the first place, however, is probably going to be in some deep shit if he isn't already.
harold aptroot wrote:
As a friendly reminder, WikiLeaks is not a US citizen and therefore can not commit treason against the US.
He's an Australian and the Australian Defense Association, a lobby group, are pushing for him to be charged under Australian law.
-
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?
All government departments (not just Ministry of Defence) have reasons for restricting who can see or access information. In the UK (and most probably elsewhere), Personal Vetting and your signatory of the various Official Secrets Acts is a pre-requirement before you can handle certain classifications of secrets, and I have gone through that process, and it is not a nice process to experience. It depends on the type of data and the degree of harm that could result if such data was released. There is a whole classification index of where an item of data, or information, can justifiably live. They vary from those personal information that is defined as some degree of "in confidence" to those marked as (1) Unclassified, (2) Restricted, (3) Confidential, (4) Secret, (5) Top Secret, and higher classifications, and yes, there are higher classifications than Top Secret. Even those marked as Unclassified could contain information of benefit to an undesirable entity*. If you are unaware of the meaning (in this case, as applied to UK, and perhaps elsewhere) of why documents/information/data is so marked, these explanations might help you ...
Top Secret - cause "exceptionally grave damage".
Secret - cause "grave damage".
Confidential - cause "damage" or be "prejudicial".
Restricted - cause "undesirable effects".
Unclassified - used for government documents that do not have a classification listed above.
Such documents can sometimes be viewed by those without security clearance.* An undesirable entity does not need to be defined as a country you are at war against. It could equally refer to something to do with Economics, or, Political Policy etc. So "whistle-blowing" doesn't really sit well when talking about documents/information/data that should not be released into the public domain.