Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Statist whore wants wikileaks classified as "terrorist" org (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Statist whore wants wikileaks classified as "terrorist" org
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/29/politics/main7098919.shtml

quote:
The incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says WikiLeaks should be officially designated as a terrorist organization.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the panel's next head, asked the Obama administration today to "determine whether WikiLeaks could be designated a foreign terrorist organization," putting the group in the same company as Al Qaeda and Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese cult that released deadly sarin gas on the Tokyo subway.

"WikiLeaks appears to meet the legal criteria" of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, King wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reviewed by CNET.

What legal criteria are those? If wikileaks fits the criteria, then they must be pretty focking stupid criteria.

quote:
He added: "WikiLeaks presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States."
That may be true. But our definition of terrorism is anything that presents clear and present danger to state national security, then what separates us from the PRC?
Posts: 36604 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If this was done, would it make the people who produced the material being leaked "terrorists"?
Posts: 3382 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
What legal criteria are those? If wikileaks fits the criteria, then they must be pretty focking stupid criteria.

I think you know.
quote:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master - that's all."

Welcome to the new world order. Paging George Orwell, line 2010.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's my hope this political grandstanding dies a quick death. Wikileaks isn't the issue. Bad security and bad policies are.

Indeed, in this latest round of "leaks" there doesn't seem to be much of note. Let's look at some of the recent leaks.

*Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran

This isn't exactly a shocking revelation.

* US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN leadership
Bad policy to try and get the Credit card numbers, but requests for email addresses and their policy positions are perfectly reasonable. (This is probably the most embarrassing of all the leaks, and it's pretty minor.)

• Grave fears in Washington and London over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, with officials warning that as the country faces economic collapse, government employees could smuggle out enough nuclear material for terrorists to build a bomb.

Unremarkable, indeed, I'd be upset if official's in Washington and London weren't concerned with "the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme"!

• Inappropriate remarks by Prince Andrew about a UK law enforcement agency and a foreign country.

LOL! Seriously!


• Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government,

What there's corruption in Afghanistan? Shocking, just shocking I say.

• How the hacker attacks which forced Google to quit China in January were orchestrated by a senior member of the Politburo who typed his own name into the global version of the search engine and found articles criticising him personally.

OK, this one is just funny. We all knew that China was behind the attacks, but it's frakking hilarious that the entire security apparatus of China was directed at Google because of a personal black eye.

• Allegations that Russia and its intelligence agencies are using mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations, with one cable reporting that the relationship is so close that the country has become a "virtual mafia state".

What there's corruption in Russia? Shocking, just shocking I say.


• The material includes a reference to Putin as an "alpha-dog" and Hamid Karzai as being "driven by paranoia", while Angela Merkel allegedly "avoids risk and is rarely creative". There is also a comparison between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Adolf Hitler.

I'm pretty sure referring to Putin as an "alpha-dog" in secret communications is worth billions in PR. That's pretty much the opposite of an embarrassing leak.

Link

Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think he's a terrorist, but can't we arrest Julian Assange for something if he enters the United States? It has to be against the law to publish classified information.
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is there some sort of legal middle ground between shrugging our shoulders and declaring him a terrorist? I want to know what our options are when dealing with him or any others actively and effectively undermining our nation. If a Predator drone strike is off the table (and no, I'm not suggesting it should be an option; calm down), then what is on it? Declaring him a terrorist may be too far, and I don't think it meets that definition, but what other middle ground is available?

Espionage seems the most probable to me. But can that be expanded to an organization as opposed to just the founder?

For that matter, what laws are on our books to protect our allies from American scumbuckets who would do the same to them? If I was actively disrupting and undermining Sweden's sovereignty, could, would, and should the US government arrest me? I would hope so.

It bugs me horribly that our government recently shut down 70 or so websites unilaterally and without judiciary approval for copyright infringement, yet sits around and does nothing about this. Whatever motivation Peter King may have behind this request, hopefully it will accelerate the White House to do something about this.

JWatts, the leaks are more than just what they are stating. I have no doubt that these cripple the ability of the State Dept to do their job. Sure, it may not be as immediately repugnant as painting targets on the backs of courageous Afghan citizens doing their part to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda by releasing their personal information to the terrorists, but it still hurts. Some stuff is meant to stay private.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it hilarious that our intrepid HLS can act so quickly to close file sharing sites but seems hogtied to do anything about massive leaks of internal affairs.

crackdown

quote:
The US government has launched a new campaign to crack down on websites that facilitate illegal file sharing and infringe on copyright laws.

As a part of the crack down, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security has seized more than 70 websites associated with the illegal file sharing of music and movies, and offering counterfeit goods for sale.

Fact is, nothing will be done to Wikileaks or Julian Assange. We are all quite familiar with black ops. All it would take is an accidental nudge on a long stretch of highway to get rid of the Julian problem. What role these leaks are playing is not clear as yet, but the first leak would have been the last if Mr. Assange were not doing exactly what the puppeteers want him to do.

[ November 29, 2010, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: cb ]

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wikileaks should be shut down, but the use of the T word does nothing to further this debate. Assange and his buddies may be arrogant, reckless, irresponsible, but they're not terrorists.
Posts: 7123 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
Fact is, nothing will be done to Wikileaks or Julian Assange. We are all quite familiar with black ops. All it would take is an accidental nudge on a long stretch of highway to get rid of the Julian problem.

And I'm hoping that nothing does happen to him at this point. Since the US is generally the default "bad guy" if he dies we will be blamed. Which will be a far greater embarrassment to the US than anything leaked so far.

PS - The title of this thread really should have been "Statist Pimp" ...

[ November 29, 2010, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Assange and his buddies may be arrogant, reckless, irresponsible, but they're not terrorists.

I thought that this effort was quite responsible:
indexoncencorship.org
quote:
26 November
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
to
US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman

Subject to the general objective of ensuring maximum disclosure of information in the public interest, WikiLeaks would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed. PDF

27 November
Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, United States Department of State
to
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks

We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. PDF

28 November
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
to
US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman

I understand that the United States government would prefer not to have the information that will be published in the public domain and is not in favour of openness. That said, either there is a risk or there is not. You have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour. PDF


Posts: 3382 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Assange and his buddies may be arrogant, reckless, irresponsible, but they're not terrorists.

I thought that this effort was quite responsible:
indexoncencorship.org
quote:
26 November
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
to
US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman

Subject to the general objective of ensuring maximum disclosure of information in the public interest, WikiLeaks would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed. PDF

27 November
Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, United States Department of State
to
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks

We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. PDF

28 November
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
to
US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman

I understand that the United States government would prefer not to have the information that will be published in the public domain and is not in favour of openness. That said, either there is a risk or there is not. You have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour. PDF


That wasn't really that laudible, since the Ambassador wasn't about to specifically go into detail about what "Top Secret" data might cause harm. By doing so he would point out which data was the high value data and would quite likely reveal even more sensitive information.

If some of the massive amount of data involved was collected by a source in a high risk position, pointing out that data specifically would highlight that information. As it is, it's lost in the details. That's mostly a PR move for the gullible than an actual "responsible position".

Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You find that correspondense RESPONSIBLE!?!?

I find it arrogant and audacious. Assange's last response shows he was simply looking for the response he received so he could justify any danger his leaks would cause by saying "Well, I tried to get the USDoS to edit my leaks for possible danger, so my hands are clean."

How self serving is that.

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More responsible than not giving the US a chance to redact anything that might have been important, especially considering that he was self-publishing and didn't have any kind of pressure from his editors or owners to do so.

[ November 29, 2010, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]

Posts: 3382 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You find that correspondense RESPONSIBLE!?!?
Of course it was irresponsible. The United States government cynically refused to help redact all the information that is supposedly going to lead to loss of life, like an obstinate child.
Posts: 6373 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dramatic re-enactment of the administration's response to these leaks.
Posts: 6373 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WikiLeaks is, in my opinion, exactly the sort of genuine freedom-loving operation that every single human being who expresses any sort of grudging respect for the Tea Party should be lining up to support.
Posts: 19666 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
WikiLeaks is, in my opinion, exactly the sort of genuine freedom-loving operation that every single human being who expresses any sort of grudging respect for the Tea Party should be lining up to support.

The primary purpose of the Tea Party is to make sure the baby boomers get their social security and medicaid (which to be fair they paid for). It's got zip to do with freedom, at least not for a gen Yer millenial or whatever you'd be.
Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had a long post, but you know what? I agree wholeheartedly with TomDavidson here.

Wikileaks is vital. If the government wants to keep its secrets... well, I don't mind that someone's invading their privacy the way the government does to too many of its own citizens. I believe what Wikileaks is doing is the very thing that should be done in any freedom-loving society. Wikileaks is the embodiment of the vigilance needed to preserve freedom. It's the kind of tool necessary to root out corruption. Because from time to time, the government needs to be reminded that it can't keep its secrets forever. How else can it be ensured they'll behave?

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
WikiLeaks is, in my opinion, exactly the sort of genuine freedom-loving operation that every single human being who expresses any sort of grudging respect for the Tea Party should be lining up to support.

I have no respect, grudging or otherwise, for the T party.

Nor have I any respect for wikilinks.

Despite the latter statement, despite the fact that I agree that wikilinks poses a clear and present danger to our repubic, I stand by my statement that the **** that said that wikilinks is terrorist, is a statist whore.

Terrorism is terrorism.

Wikilinks is not terrorism.

It's a big focking inconvenience.

We might decare war on the SoB.

but if we have any interity, we won't call him a terrorist.

Posts: 36604 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A clear and present danger to our republic? It's the salvation of the republic.

Here's a link to the New York Times' rationale for making articles based on the new leaks. I agree with them, in principle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29editornote.html

As they say, "The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match."

They go on to say "But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name."

I agree with them fully in their rationale. They stated my principles in the matter better than I could.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
A clear and present danger to our republic? It's the salvation of the republic.

Tomato, tomahto.

regardless, it ain't terrorism. It ain't arson. It ain't rape.

The rest is arguable.

Posts: 36604 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On that, we do agree.

Even if we disagree on everything else on this matter, I think I can live with that.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Even if we disagree on everything else on this matter, I think I can live with that.
Nonsense, you must reach a consensus. DESTROY EACH OTHER.
Posts: 6373 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheRallanator
Member
Member # 6624

 - posted      Profile for TheRallanator   Email TheRallanator       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
WikiLeaks is, in my opinion, exactly the sort of genuine freedom-loving operation that every single human being who expresses any sort of grudging respect for the Tea Party should be lining up to support.

So what about those of us who appreciate where WikiLeaks is coming from but think that the Tea Party is a movement founded by idiots, coopted by opportunists, and aimed at the gullible and easily inflamed? [Big Grin]
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would have thought the GOP response would be more along the lines of "if you don't have anything to hide, why don't you want to let them search you?"
Posts: 3382 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny, phil - I said exactly those words this morning to my companion, while listening to the news coverage of this on the radio.

If the government isn't doing anything wrong, why are they being so secretive?
[Smile]

Posts: 3628 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The government: "Public affairs require privacy."
The TSA: "Your privates need be made public."

[ November 30, 2010, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 2996 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So what about those of us who appreciate where WikiLeaks is coming from but think that the Tea Party is a movement founded by idiots, coopted by opportunists, and aimed at the gullible and easily inflamed?
Those opinions do not, to me, seem to be incompatible.
Posts: 19666 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Embassy cables, guys. Diplomacy. Yeah, it hurts the country and innocent people when this stuff is in the news.

I agree there's a strong argument that we have a right to know what's being done in our name. We also have an interest to have it done effectively, and these leaks have got to hurt the effectiveness, the trust that other countries will place in us.

Posts: 36604 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It hurts their trust in us only because it shows them why they shouldn't trust us. If we deserved their trust, we'd be fine.
Posts: 19666 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that we have an interest in having it done effectively.

But right now, if these leaks didn't happen here, then it probably never would have happened at all. It takes a stick to get the rabbit to eat the carrot, sometimes... by stick I mean wikileaks, rabbit I mean the U.S. government, and by carrot I mean an actual, honest transparency of government.

Even if Wikileaks went too far, it teaches a lesson the government needs to know. We will find out. We will know what they're doing. So they had better watch out.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Even if Wikileaks went too far, it teaches a lesson the government needs to know. We will find out. We will know what they're doing. So they had better watch out.
Or government will crack down on and purge leakers, and declare another ****ing war against hackers/terrorists.
Posts: 6373 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
Or government will crack down on and purge leakers, and declare another ****ing war against hackers/terrorists.

That's almost certainly going to be the result.

Though I'm on the fence on this whole issue. On the one hand the US government tries to classify too much as Top Secret, on the other hand 'leaking' diplomatic messages which amount to nothing more than high level gossip does not serve any greater good and furthermore the inevitable reaction of a massive security clampdown will likely cause the US government to be even more secretive.

On balance, this probably does more harm than good. But at this point the cats out of the bag.

Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know Pete your thread title really is over the top.
Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It hurts their trust in us only because it shows them why they shouldn't trust us. If we deserved their trust, we'd be fine.

agreed. What the government should be doing is spending their time making sure that their diplomatic efforts have integrity and would not embarass us if ever exposed. Realpolitik is ugly in the light of day.

As for the leaks "putting lives at risk" - how many lives, compared the outcome of these diplomatic efforts? Isn't it possible that the public outcry stemming from such publication could actually save lives by reducing the likelihood for armed conflict? Not to mention that the government can't point to a single instance of the earlier leaks causing loss of life, as admitted to by the Pentagon? That truly damaging information, like the names of informants, have been redacted by Wikileaks?

quote:
Of greatest concern to Pentagon officials last week was the potential revelation of the names of 300-plus Iraqis that have worked with US forces and were identified by the Pentagon as being “potentially at risk if their identities were made public.”

For that reason, the Pentagon had a 120-member team working in the weeks before the leaks came out to identify and track down the Iraqis in order to be able to notify them in the event that their names were made public.

But the team, known as the Information Review Task Force, found that the 300-plus names of those most at risk for retribution were redacted from the Wikileaks posting.

The Pentagon continued to stress the danger of the leaks, however. “I’d emphasize that just because the names have been removed, it doesn’t remove the danger,” says Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan. “The names still exist in the documents that are in possession of Wikileaks.”

He added that, “As long as [Wikileaks] remain in possession of un-redacted documents, they’re still a danger.”

quote:
One of the most damaging charges to come out of the Wikileaks posting was that US forces may have observed instances where Iraqi security forces were abusing detainees without intervening.

If this angers some Iraqis, and they kill some US soldiers, is this really Wikileaks fault - or our own policy that lets Americans stand idly by while people are beaten and tortured?

at any rate, labelling these guys "terrorists" would be laughable if it weren't for the number of people buying into it. This is the sort of thing that we applaud when a Chinese or Cuban dissident does it.

quote:
A Chinese dissident said he was forcibly taken from prison after completing a 12-year sentence Monday because he protested the authorities' confiscation of his journals and letters.

"I was not released, I was kidnapped and forced out of prison," Qin Yongmin, a co-founder of the banned China Democracy Party, told the German Press Agency dpa by telephone.

Qin, 57, was jailed for 12 years in the central city of Wuhan after he was convicted in 1998 of "endangering state security" for his part in organizing the opposition party and editing the Human Rights Observer newsletter.

Shame on us that we're even contemplating this kind of state behaviour. You "middle ground" people need to drink a big glass of freedom, and accept potential state embarassment or even some loss of life as the consequence of an open society.
Posts: 7590 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
quote:
One of the most damaging charges to come out of the Wikileaks posting was that US forces may have observed instances where Iraqi security forces were abusing detainees without intervening.

If this angers some Iraqis, and they kill some US soldiers, is this really Wikileaks fault - or our own policy that lets Americans stand idly by while people are beaten and tortured?

Why would Iraqi's kill American soldiers for something Iraqi soldiers did? This seems nonsensical. Are you personally upset at American policy for this? Do you think America should always commit it's soldier to fixing every problem in Iraq? In the Middle East? in the world?


I still think there is very little in this round of leaks that is truly embarrassing to the US.

quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
at any rate, labelling these guys "terrorists" would be laughable if it weren't for the number of people buying into it.

It is laughable to refer to Julian Assange as a terrorist. He is a criminal, but a minor one.


quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
quote:
A Chinese dissident said he was forcibly taken from prison after completing a 12-year sentence Monday because he protested the authorities' confiscation of his journals and letters.
Shame on us that we're even contemplating this kind of state behaviour.
I haven't seen anyone advocating this position as US policy.

[ November 30, 2010, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Pentagon continued to stress the danger of the leaks, however. “I’d emphasize that just because the names have been removed, it doesn’t remove the danger,” says Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan. “The names still exist in the documents that are in possession of Wikileaks.”

BS. There are nearly a million people with access to classified data in the United States. Adding a handful of hackers is hardly a risk.
Posts: 6373 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WikiLeaks is, in my opinion, exactly the sort of genuine freedom-loving operation that every single human being who expresses any sort of grudging respect for the Tea Party should be lining up to support.

The primary purpose of the Tea Party is to make sure the baby boomers get their social security and medicaid (which to be fair they paid for). It's got zip to do with freedom, at least not for a gen Yer millenial or whatever you'd be.

I would have thought the GOP response would be more along the lines of "if you don't have anything to hide, why don't you want to let them search you?"

There is not a rolleyes smiley big enough for this.

First of all, Viking Longship, I'm calling you out. Your post is the exact sort of stupid that I used to see earlier in the year when I moved away from this site. It adds nothing to the conversation, casually attacks members of this board, is insulting, and really shows nothing but your own ignorance. You're a decent member of the forum with valuable contributions, so I was surprised to see it coming from you. What were you thinking? What do you think the response would be if I said "The Mormon Church is nothing more than an excuse for horny guys to have a socially acceptable outlet for obtaining multiple sexual partners"? It would be insulting to LDS members by reducing their thinking to one minor manner and, to make it more pathetic, would be incorrect on the face of it anyway given the LDS' move away from polygamy! That's no different than what you wrote. I don't know where you get your info from, but one of the primary methods of attack that the Dems used against the Tea Party candidates was to tell the baby boomers that the TP would take away their social security and medicaid benefits!

Do you think that taking a random aside to smear a political movement is constructive or in any way conducive to maintaining the type of debate Ornery was built on?

As for the other comments, it's also eyeroll-worthy. You're putting your own biases and thought processes onto others without fully thinking about it. There is apparently no room for nuance, a word that I hear oh so often that conservatives don't understand. Well, guess what? There is no contradiction between limited government, desire for transparency, and belief that Wikileaks is a criminal organization.

Should the public have access to files from the Witness Protection Program? Hey, we need to know how our government makes its decisions. It's the kind of information necessary to root out corruption. How else can it be ensured that US Marshals behave?

Oh wait, there's a difference there? There is some nuance involved in what should be made public? Hmmm.... And if you think that's an unfair comparison, it is exactly the same as the issue with the informants in the first leak. Just because this one leaker was intelligent enough to redact the names, what makes you think the next one will be?

Should the public have access to ongoing investigations by the FBI? Hey, these are sensitive materials, after all. Crime investigation is ripe for civil abuses. Surely everything the FBI is doing should be out in the public. We should know who their suspects are, who they're secretly surveying, the terrorist wannabes like the Portland bomber that are already in their trap, but can't be arrested yet because they might lead us to more terrorists. Public right to know! If the government wasn't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't have to hide it!

Oh wait, that's different, too? Actually, no, it's not. Several years ago, the treasonous New York Times leaked a classified (and perfectly legal and non-controversial) program the US was using to monitor terrorists, which kinda sorta relied on the program remaining secret. They actively dismantled an effective tool at protecting us, and their stated reason for it was to embarrass Bush. Is that a good reason to leak it? Is that in the public right to know?

Drake and the isolationists/leftists seems to think that these dumps make US foreign policy look bad, and make the case for US militarism look bad as well. Actually, as JWatts said, its quite the opposite. This latest dump has almost nothing that makes us look bad, other than some spying on personal lives and general confirmation that Obama's foreign policy is clueless. Instead, it shows that China is willing to work with us on unifying Korea. It shows multiple Arab states wanting us to militarily take out Iran's nuclear sites. It shows that the world is a dangerous place, that there are alliances among the rogue nations, that our enemies use human shields and spit in the face of honorable actions. Drake may think that this document dump makes the world a safer place and exposes how eeevvill the US is, but there's really no evidence of that.

And indeed, it could easily be the opposite.

Let's take a hypothetical example that wasn't leaked (yet). Suppose the documents showed that the Stuxnet virus was a CIA operation. For those that don't know, this virus is an extraordinarily sophisticated virus that appears to be designed for the sole purpose of dismantling Iran's nuclear weapons program. For all the possible approaches to dealing with the problem, this could quite possibly be the most peaceful approach. Sure, it's not nice, but it's a whole lot better than a military strike, or allowing Iran to obtain nuclear missiles and using that for military aggressiveness, for that matter. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was a CIA or Mossad or something operation. But I don't need to know that. More importantly, Iran doesn't need to know that. They can suspect all they want, but the plausible deniability is there.

And what happens if Assange blabs to the world that the CIA was behind it? Then Iran can deign righteous indignation. Who knows what will happen? Perhaps they'll invade Iraq to eliminate the Great Satan's occupation, destabilizing a fragile democracy and causing countless more lives. Perhaps we'd be drawn into a war that we were trying to avoid. All because we have a right to know.

Or maybe that wouldn't happen, who knows? Who knows how the crazed North Korean regime will react to knowing our secret talks regarding them? Perhaps they'll feel that their back is to the wall and launch a preemptive strike on Seoul. Who knows how the Arab countries will react to having the public know they were supporting the US a lot more than commonly believed? Perhaps Al Qaeda can use that to destabilize some countries and put them in civil wars and/or terrorist havens. Who knows how delicate trade negotiations, security negotiations, or anything else will react to knowing how our state dept works? Perhaps it will weaken our ability to conduct proper negotiations and therefore hurt the US economy. Its possible. It's also possible that these leaks might do more good than harm. Who knows? Not Assange, that's for sure. Not Drake either. Or TommySama, TomDavidson, 0Megabyte, or anyone else who thinks these leaks are a good thing.

You're playing with fire here. Some things are meant to remain secrets. Military secrets are fine. State secrets are fine. Frank analyses of our enemies and our allies are fine. And all of that relies on keeping things secret. All of that relies on keeping a straight face and providing plausible deniability. As nice as it is to know what's going on behind the curtain, sometimes, we just don't need to know.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They actively dismantled an effective tool at protecting us, and their stated reason for it was to embarrass Bush.
I would like you to find the citation in which they say their goal was to embarrass the president.

quote:
You're playing with fire here. Some things are meant to remain secrets.
I disagree. I can think of few things more corrosive to liberty than secrecy, and am not such a coward that I'm willing to exchange the former for potential security -- especially when I know that secrecy is being used to conceal atrocity and protect the powerful.
Posts: 19666 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Who knows? Not Assange, that's for sure. Not Drake either. Or TommySama, TomDavidson, 0Megabyte, or anyone else who thinks these leaks are a good thing.

You're playing with fire here. Some things are meant to remain secrets. Military secrets are fine. State secrets are fine. Frank analyses of our enemies and our allies are fine.

Well, that's your take on state secrets. I think that they are dangerous for our liberty. For instance, there are people in our government who want to label organizations as terrorist because they might hurt national security. How do we know? Well, because they told us so. But masta don't want us folk askin too many questions.

You wouldn't have eaten the fruit, would you have?

Posts: 6373 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1