Wikileaks Shenanigans

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

The latest updates to Barack Obama's Facebook news feed. - By Christopher Beam and Chris Wilson - Slate Magazine

LOL:

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I think citizens of a country should be entitled to knowing what their representatives (all branches and divisions) are doing in regarding foreign and domestic affairs. If some Russian wants our info, fuck him. But I sure as hell would like to know what we are doing overseas and I can't gain access to that. It's wrong.

Wow, I think we might have met the most naive human on Earth.

No American would possibly give away state secrets to a hostile country, that would never happen. Nobody intent on hurting the US would ever attain fake ID either. That's as crazy as thinking they would come to the US, enroll in pilots school, and then fly commercial airliners into buildings; I mean that is just silly and would never happen.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by thekremlin

Does anyone consider this a bold statement?

Bold and rather foolish.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Fruitacious B

He's Australian, so the whole treason thing won't really work.

We need to focus our anger away from the Wikileaks guy, all he did was post info given to him, not really a problem in my mind. Poor judgement, yes, but he didn't do the actual crime.

Bradley Manning is the US military personal who stole the first set of Wikileaks secrets, and almost certainly is the one who stole the second bunch as well.

He is the one that should be tried for treason and executed.

[SinisterKid]

Warrant: NC Sailor Looked To Sell Military Secrets : NPR

Well this little tidbit is timely, and fits well into the discussion. F3lix, this guy has a clearance, and it only took a whopping $3,500 to get him to cough up some classified.

I bet you're one of those people who says "Half of America shouldn't even vote!" Yet you would like all sensitive information pertaining to your countries' foreign policy to be accessible to the same public...

After reading this article you might argue "Diplomatic policy is different than classified military information." However, foreign diplomatic policy is essentially preventative maintenance; establishing solid, mutually beneficial relationships with other states so as not to piss each other off. And all this ties in directly to defense.

*And let me clarify, I too am a person who often says "Half of American shouldn't even vote!" However, for the same reasons, I also believe the majority of Americans shouldn't be within a mile of classified information or diplomatic cables for that matter.

[SinisterKid]

BBC News - Wikileaks: site list reveals US sensitivities

First, this is shit that has no place in the public eye, but thanks to Assange - Beebs, you are correct, primary responsibility falls on ol' boy Manning - our nation's gravest concerns are now hanging on the clothes line. Second, numerous previous posters have questioned the United States' role abroad, claimed it is time for us to stop "policing" the world, and said we need to quit "putting our nose in other people's business." It is unFATHOMABLE to me that the US's intentions abroad could be questioned by its own citizens after reading the above article. The United States is demonstrating a quality that it lacked prior to 9/11; foresight. Pretty sure everyone criticized the lack of agency interoperability, the obliviousness to clear signs of a threat, etc., etc. Thinking outside the box and, as the author put it, asymmetrically, the country we all can call home is now preparing itself for some abstract - but very real - dire situations. The Irans, North Koreas, Venezuelas and Pakistans out there aren't considering things like this. The role Western powers play in the world's relative safety is so under-appreciated its sickening.

[ninjaface]

I read the article from your link and one similar to it. Here are a couple parts that stick out in my mind.

BBC News - Wikileaks: site list reveals US sensitivities

In their own defence [sic], those working with Wikileaks have pointed out that they deliberately removed details of names and locations from the secret list.

BBC News - List of facilities 'vital to US security' leaked

The critical question is whether this really is a listing of potential targets that might be of use to a terrorist, our correspondent says. The cable contains a simple listing. In many cases towns are noted as the location but not actual street addresses, although this is unlikely to stop anyone with access to the internet from locating them. There are also no details of security measures at any of the listed sites. What the list might do is to prompt potential attackers to look at a broader range of targets, especially given that the US authorities classify them as being so important.

They should have omitted the entire list from the leaks. Some people might suggest its not that big of a deal because with enough research anyone can find out the importance of each of the sites mentioned. There might be some truth to that statement, but its no reason to hand over such information on a silver platter.

[Mr. Blonde]

Call me wishy washy but a lot of what is going on in this thread on the Repug/Beebs/SinisterKid line of reasoning is starting to change my opinion on Wikileaks.

[Fruitacious B]

I'm in the middle of the road and have been for awhile. While I understand fears for our national security, I also hate the amount of secrecy and information that is withheld from the public.

And yes, before someone jumps me with the whole "that secret information is national security" argument, I'm of the opinion that most of the information that's withheld wouldn't be an issue of national security had it been public from the get-go. So many people like to lean on what our "founding fathers" would have done, and I doubt they would be as inclined as our current society to just blindly accept the actions of a government that has to cover all of its tracks. It just seems less...free, I suppose.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Fruitacious B

And yes, before someone jumps me with the whole "that secret information is national security" argument, I'm of the opinion that most of the information that's withheld wouldn't be an issue of national security had it been public from the get-go. S

This is more where i'm leaning as well. I don't think everything should be public info, of course not, but I also don't agree with the all-too-common government tactic of keeping everything secret, either.

Some of you have said from the start that Assange should be more careful and discerning about what he releases (less trivial bullshit, less secrets that could hurt our nation without helping a greater good, more of actual true corruption that many people could get behind), and I guess that's the part i'm starting to warm up to.

[Mr. Blonde]

they got him.

[Pliedes]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

they got him.

"The elusive 39-year-old Australian was earlier detained by Scotland Yard officers after he voluntarily went to a police station in central London."

lol! yes, voluntarily walking into a police station is quite elusive.

[Mr. Blonde]

Well he's been hiding out in undisclosed areas for like, a really long time. I think that's more what they meant.

[f3lix]

I really wonder how much pressure the US put on Sweden to do this to him.

[Orgazmo]

We'll find out when it hits Wikileaks.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Call me wishy washy but a lot of what is going on in this thread on the Repug/Beebs/SinisterKid line of reasoning is starting to change my opinion on Wikileaks.

I think that the only particularly clear cut issue is that Manning, the guy who most likely is the US military personnel who stole this information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible, up to and including treason.

I take a softer view on Wikileaks, as they are printing info that was given to them rather than getting the info.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Fruitacious B

I'm in the middle of the road and have been for awhile. While I understand fears for our national security, I also hate the amount of secrecy and information that is withheld from the public.

And yes, before someone jumps me with the whole "that secret information is national security" argument, I'm of the opinion that most of the information that's withheld wouldn't be an issue of national security had it been public from the get-go. So many people like to lean on what our "founding fathers" would have done, and I doubt they would be as inclined as our current society to just blindly accept the actions of a government that has to cover all of its tracks. It just seems less...free, I suppose.

What about private communication between countries? Even if not relating to a threat, it is vital that different countries can communicate amongst themselves without fear of having discussions that are still in the very early stages, hence rough around the edges and possibly offensive to various third parties or even higher ranked officials in either country?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Beebs

I think that the only particularly clear cut issue is that Manning, the guy who most likely is the US military personnel who stole this information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible, up to and including treason.

I take a softer view on Wikileaks, as they are printing info that was given to them rather than getting the info.

I think I could agree with that, but i'm not sure what the precedent is with the sensitivity of the information he released (should he be convicted). For instance, if we've tried people for treason for selling state secrets of the same caliber in the past, then yeah, I don't really see much of a difference other than that he gave them up for free.

[Mr. Blonde]

RealClearWorld - Don't Shoot Messenger for Revealing Uncomfortable Truths | Julian Assange

Pretty solid article Assange sent out before he turned himself in.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I think I could agree with that, but i'm not sure what the precedent is with the sensitivity of the information he released (should he be convicted). For instance, if we've tried people for treason for selling state secrets of the same caliber in the past, then yeah, I don't really see much of a difference other than that he gave them up for free.

Fair point, I would be open to other charges other than treason.

[Fruitacious B]

Julian Assange's OKCupid profile.

"Do not write to me if you are timid. I am too busy. Write to me if you are brave."

[SinisterKid]

Originally Posted by Fruitacious B

Julian Assange's OKCupid profile.

"Do not write to me if you are timid. I am too busy. Write to me if you are brave."

Is this for real?

[Mr. Blonde]

I wouldn't doubt it.

WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange's lawyer said he has seen secret police documents that prove the whistle-blower is innocent of sex assault claims made against him by two women

Rape case aside, it's been said the US is going to charge him of spying. How is that going to work when there are myriad other news companies (which is what wikileaks is) that also posted leaked information?

[SinisterKid]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I wouldn't doubt it.

WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange's lawyer said he has seen secret police documents that prove the whistle-blower is innocent of sex assault claims made against him by two women

Rape case aside, it's been said the US is going to charge him of spying. How is that going to work when there are myriad other news companies (which is what wikileaks is) that also posted leaked information?

Not really sure, sounds like a weak charge. What's interesting though and often overlooked - or misunderstood - is that the source document leaked still maintains its classification as confidential, secret, top secret, etc., despite being publicized. My employer sent out mass emails last week requesting that, as employees, we not access the Wikileaks site, as that would essentially be accessing classified documents on work and/or personal computers. The reporting and summarizing of the leaks by news outlets is still game though.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by SinisterKid

Not really sure, sounds like a weak charge. What's interesting though and often overlooked - or misunderstood - is that the source document leaked still maintains its classification as confidential, secret, top secret, etc., despite being publicized. My employer sent out mass emails last week requesting that, as employees, we not access the Wikileaks site, as that would essentially be accessing classified documents on work and/or personal computers.

I heard about this with a lot of military branches.

The reporting and summarizing of the leaks by news outlets is still game though.

It's clearly not, though...the trial is going to be interesting, that's for sure.