• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wikileaks is an enemy of the United States

Thunder said:
possession of stolen classified documents is a crime.
Click to expand...

So we should arrest the CIA, then? I mean, we can be fairly certain that they're in the possession of at least some stolen classified documents, and we certainly wouldn't want a double standard or anything, would we?
 
deepatrax said:
When a military unit is preparing an operation against a Taliban stronghold, how should this information be sent out to the public and more importantly, to the Taliban who are about to be ambushed?
Click to expand...

Sure, after the operation has completed.

Does the Taliban have a right to know?
Click to expand...

Is the Taliban part of the USA public?
 
Perhaps deepatrax would like the USA to be more like China. They have lots of secrets that they keep from the public.
 
deepatrax said:
Politicians ELECTED by the American People are acting in the best interest of the American people...which can sometimes anger leaders and citizens of our allies and enemies.

oh no!! say it ain't so!!

I don't care if it was a document describing a dinner between Hillary and Obama discussing their favorite wine. If it's a CLASSIFIED document, it should remain so.
Click to expand...

So Nixon (a politician ELECTED by the American People) would have been justified in ordering the assassination of Woodward and Bernstein?
 
Unabogie said:
So people think he should just be murdered for publishing documents? So, undermining the US Government using nothing but information is a capital crime? Can we also execute Rush, Beck, Hannity, Murdoch, and Palin too?

Just checking who's eligible for this kind of murder, and who isn't? I'm new to this.
Click to expand...

Yes - and should be. - first sentence only and given the documents he has already published. Many people are higher on my version of this, but he is up there.
Of course, I am against embedded reporters and accurate data being given reporters by the military on real activities in any war-zone or in non-war zones but directly related to the war activity/strategy/tactics. The old phrase "Loose lips sink ships." was not a pointless slogan. And enemies should pay a high price for any data they get - more death and destruction than the data ever could cost them.
 
deepatrax said:
threaten our National Security...
Click to expand...

These are diplomatic communiques. There are no doubts plenty in them that is embarrassing to the US now that they're published and certainly some things that will damage US interests and diplomatic effort, but there should not be anything in them that's a direct threat to National Security.
 
Assange is a very naughty boy. I am totally against what he is doing, but to call for his murder is beyond the pale.
 
Heres another solution. Come up with a way that our intelligence services can be better at what they do than an Australian computer programmer. You know, stuff like keeping secret stuff secret.

Until then, if you must kill people for what they know, how about you start with the Americans that must be supplying him with the leaks in the first place. At least they have broken the law.
 
egslim said:
It seems you and me will have to agree to disagree about what constitutes a "bad" act.
Click to expand...
Quoting myself here.

A Dutch website reports the documents show Al Qaeda still receives financial support from Saudi Arabia.

About a month ago the "U.S. State Department notified Congress of its intention to make the biggest arms sale in American history - an estimated $60.5 billion purchase by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

In my opinion it's a "bad" act to sell over $60 billion of military hardware to a country that's the source of continued financial support to Al Qaeda, others may disagree - that's ok.
But this is the kind of information the American electorate needs to be aware of, to be able to make an informed vote.
 
Unabogie said:
Which crime did he commit, personally? You realize that if he had broken laws, he'd have been charged with something by now, don't you? He hasn't broken any laws. Anyone who wants him murdered is saying that a law abiding citizen should be murdered for publishing information deemed private by governments.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes I am - for the US at least (I live here, I'm prejudiced in that sense, so sue me).:):)
 
Ausmerican said:
Until then, if you must kill people for what they know, how about you start with the Americans that must be supplying him with the leaks in the first place. At least they have broken the law.
Click to expand...

Bradley Manning, the most likely source of the leak, was arrested in May this year.
 
fuelair said:
Yes, yes I am - for the US at least (I live here, I'm prejudiced in that sense, so sue me).:):)
Click to expand...

Then you don't believe in freedom, and you'd rather cede your self-government to secrecy and murder by a select few without your consent.

Count me out, I love my country too much to turn it into such a grotesque monster.
 
Thunder said:
Thunderdome. Mr. Assange and the head of the CIA.

two men enter...one man leaves.
Click to expand...

Assange is 39 years old.
Leon Panetta is a 72 year old lawyer that was never a CIA agent and served two years in the army before Assange was born.
Would you be okay with it when Assange won?

Sheesh Thunderdome was a total suckfest as a movie, let alone as a way to handle international disputes.
 
Ausmerican said:
So Nixon (a politician ELECTED by the American People) would have been justified in ordering the assassination of Woodward and Bernstein?
Click to expand...

Considering that was discussed at one point in the Nixon White House, that's rather disturbing.

Sorry, folks, but one of the reasons for the 1st Amendment was to PREVENT the whole business of false secrecy. Yes, when there is movement of American Military Forces being planned, that information should be kept secret. I don't want the enemy knowing what we're planning and when. I want them to find out just before we do, when American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines hand them their collective ass on a silver platter, provided the action achieves a valid military objective.

At the same time, I'm reminded that we weren't supposed to find out about My Lai, or Abu Ghraib. Hugh Thompson's military career ended because he took direct action against Rusty Calley and his band of miscreant killers, and the men and women who reported the photos they got from those participating in the Abu Ghraib stupidity have gotten the same.

Nor were we supposed to find out about Nixon's move towards the secret bombings in Cambodia and Laos, expanding our already losing effort in Southeast Asia.

We weren't supposed to find out about how Lyndon Johnson bullied people into submission during his "reign," nor were we supposed to find out about Clinton literally planning how to lie to people (and a Federal Judge) about getting Hoovered in the Oval Office. (I'd have had more respect for the man if he'd simply said, "My Fellow Americans: I got laid and it was GOOD! Good night.")

If the only thing bad about Wikileaks is that it embarrasses the hell out of people behaving badly, then I can't support "stopping" them one way or another. It's The Smoking Gun pumped up, toned, tanned, and gunning for the thugs. Because, quite frankly, much of what I'm reading suggests we should damned well have known what was going into the decisions made, and why.
 
By the way, should the murder of Assange be classified as well? This would be a marvelous precedent. The CIA classifies information, which is then leaked to a journalist. That journalist is then murdered by the CIA and that information is classified. The next journalist learns of this murder and is them himself murdered. And that murder is classified. This is a fine way to run a democracy, I'm sure you'll all agree! We could have a system in which people just disappear as the government sees fits, with no one the wiser! It's so crazy it just might work!
 
So far the US seems to come out looking OK - I mean they resisted bombing Iran, whilst others were urging them to do so.

The US assessment on politicians through the world is not ground-breaking either - commentators throughout the free press have made the same assumptions and it is not as if readers/civilians of those countries are going to be surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom