Wikileaks is an enemy of the United States

[A Laughing Baby]

A large number of them read like very clinical gossip blogs.

 

[brenn]

I think this is awesome. I am of the opinion that governments should be permitted to keep as few secrets as possible. If a foreign country (in this case Saudi Arabia), is pressuring our government to spend our tax dollars and risk American lives for its security, we have a right to know.

What are you, about 12? Any normal adult should see the foolishness of arguing, "I pay for this mission, therefore I have a right to make it fail (and get people killed) in order to satisfy my idle curiosity." We have a right to see what is public - we also elect people to handle the many things that cannot be made public at the present.

Should uninvolved private citizens have had a right to see (before the fact) all of the information about when and where we were going to conduct the D-Day invasion of Europe? How about, more comparably, what we knew about German officers who were plotting to assassinate Hitler? Maybe an advance leak of information about Jimmy Doolittle moving a bunch of bombers toward Japan on an aircraft carrier.

The only article I've read so far about the content of the latest leak indicated that it gave details that could undermine diplomatic relations with various countries and which have very likely set into motion a search in Iran for family members and people who helped an American citizen get out of the country when they refused to let him leave a while back. These things are classified for a reason - in the real world, outside the shelter of various universities, things like that cause people who did good and helpful things to be tortured and murdered. I'd prefer Julian Assange was the one on the receiving end of that.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Quite likely, if out of simple bitchiness.

In reading some of the revelations in these leaks, one thing that occurs to me is the sheer stupidity of some of these people. That individuals with graduate degrees and training as diplomats can't seem to figure out something as simple as confidentiality and plausible deniability is utterly depressing. These people had to know that if it were in someone's interest, regardless of whether it was in their better interest or not, they'd let it all hang out. Knowing this, they still put information into these messages that was better shared over a Martini and some bad local cuisine in some out of the way corner bistro in a rat-hole town far away from the capital.

Now, with these revelations, we not only look arrogant, but like a bunch of dummies, too. You have to wonder, sometimes, how some people get their jobs, or even how they keep them.

Probably because those specific job prospects are probably not merit based, but social connection based. Lots of idiots have great social connections.

 

[Roadtoad]

A large number of them read like very clinical gossip blogs.

I'm waiting for someone to make some rude remarks regarding Angela Merkel's appearance, particularly in a bikini.

 

[BeAChooser]

It's not really too much of a stretch in my opinion to assume that they already have released enough to potentially get them killed.

But there is a big difference between the outrage expressed by internet denizens like you and I over bits of information that don't really shock or surprise even us, and a policy of elimination instituted by the leaders of governments who might consider some particular bit of information, were it to get out, a significant PERSONAL threat to them. That information might be used to blackmail those leaders into looking the other way about the rest.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think part of the aim is to make it known to the people who don't follow the issue already.

ETA: Take, for example, the Collateral Murder video. Basically everyone who followed the war knew we were killing civilians and had lax conduct in terms of IDing combatants, but actual hard proof of it brought it to the front of public discourse for a brief period. It was handwaved away, of course, but now it's widely known that it happened.

That's the point I was trying to make, but you said it better.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I'm waiting for someone to make some rude remarks regarding Angela Merkel's appearance, particularly in a bikini.

I'm personally waiting on a cable regarding Sarkozy and Berlusconi that reads, in its entirety:

"The two, while being admirable and powerful politicians, are most notable for having extremely attractive wives."

 

[A Laughing Baby]

But there is a big difference between the outrage expressed by internet denizens like you and I over bits of information that don't really shock or surprise even us, and a policy of elimination instituted by the leaders of governments who might consider some particular bit of information, were it to get out, a significant PERSONAL threat to them. That information might be used to blackmail those leaders into looking the other way about the rest.

That's a fair point, but to consider or discuss it, we'd be getting into hardcore hypothetical territory, and I'm not really too interested in speculating as to that sort of thing. The fact is that Assange is alive, and that dozens of pundits have loudly wished in public for his death.

I'm almost certain that his (admittedly douchey) public persona, his celebrity, is keeping him alive. If he were to just...die, then it would be abundantly clear what had happened. Same with a disappearance. The best bet an angered government would have would be to discredit him, as any other course of action would lend credibility to Wikileaks, not weaken it. I think that is the reason many people doubted the rape charges when they were brought about.

 

[Tony]

What are you, about 12? Any normal adult should see the foolishness of arguing, "I pay for this mission, therefore I have a right to make it fail (and get people killed) in order to satisfy my idle curiosity." We have a right to see what is public - we also elect people to handle the many things that cannot be made public at the present.

Should uninvolved private citizens have had a right to see (before the fact) all of the information about when and where we were going to conduct the D-Day invasion of Europe? How about, more comparably, what we knew about German officers who were plotting to assassinate Hitler? Maybe an advance leak of information about Jimmy Doolittle moving a bunch of bombers toward Japan on an aircraft carrier.

The only article I've read so far about the content of the latest leak indicated that it gave details that could undermine diplomatic relations with various countries and which have very likely set into motion a search in Iran for family members and people who helped an American citizen get out of the country when they refused to let him leave a while back. These things are classified for a reason - in the real world, outside the shelter of various universities, things like that cause people who did good and helpful things to be tortured and murdered. I'd prefer Julian Assange was the one on the receiving end of that.

None of this blathering addresses anything I said.

 

[Roadtoad]

But there is a big difference between the outrage expressed by internet denizens like you and I over bits of information that don't really shock or surprise even us, and a policy of elimination instituted by the leaders of governments who might consider some particular bit of information, were it to get out, a significant PERSONAL threat to them. That information might be used to blackmail those leaders into looking the other way about the rest.

You DO realize, don't you, that by sanctioning the murder of anyone connected with Wikileaks, they've all but confirmed everything they've released, and forced Wikileaks to release even more damning information? Truthfully, BAC, assassination is for amateurs. There are so many things that are much worse than death.

 

[Alt+F4]

Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but why would the original source of the leaks, an Army private forfeit his life and probably spend the next 50 years in a Supermax to release information that so far is so far innocuous?

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but why would the original source of the leaks, an Army private forfeit his life and probably spend the next 50 years in a Supermax to release information that so far is so far innocuous?

I don't think he planned that to happen. In fact, I heard he got caught because he essentially bragged about it openly with others, who then reported him in.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but why would the original source of the leaks, an Army private forfeit his life and probably spend the next 50 years in a Supermax to release information that so far is so far innocuous?

I don't think it has all been innocuous. I think especially the first two batches was pretty damning to many people.

Even this batch discloses stuff that many wouldn't approve of. (The U.S. agreeing that Yemen would take credit for U.S. drone attacks, for example. That Saudi Arabia has been trying to get the U.S. to attack Iran, for another.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You DO realize, don't you, that by sanctioning the murder of anyone connected with Wikileaks, they've all but confirmed everything they've released, and forced Wikileaks to release even more damning information?

Well, they couldn't very well deny that the documents are legit and still condemn anyone for publishing them.

On the other hand, it seems like people are trying to argue that the fact that they aren't all classified documents (or that the content isn't all government secrets) somehow lends strength to the idea that those who did the leaking are enemies of the U.S. So go figure.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I don't think he planned that to happen. In fact, I heard he got caught because he essentially bragged about it openly with others, who then reported him in.

On top of that, the guy that "outed" him, Adrian Lamo, is a really, REALLY doubtful source, in my opinion. I sometimes wonder if Manning actually leaked it, or if he was just a patsy, because I doubt that someone would go to a confidential leaking third-party source, then openly brag about it to an anonymous person in a chat room and reveal their name.

Then again, stranger things have happened.

 

[Virus]

So?

People are claiming they need illegally leaked classified documents to know what's going on. That's false as I already knew most of the stuff that was leaked about Saudi Arabia. I didn't need the full text of classified diplomatic cables to know that.

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't think he planned that to happen. In fact, I heard he got caught because he essentially bragged about it openly with others, who then reported him in.

Yes, I believed he bragged about it to a reporter from Wired.

On a separate point, how does a 21 year-old private get to be an intelligence analyst and have so much access to all these documents?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Also should probably be pointed out that Manning is in all likelihood not being simply locked up and treated like a regular prisoner. I really doubt that his time in prison is going nicely. Doesn't matter what group you're a part of--no one treats a snitch well.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Yes, I believed he bragged about it to a reporter from Wired.

On a separate point, how does a 21 year-old private get to be an intelligence analyst and so much access to all these documents?

He didn't brag to a reporter from wired, he allegedly bragged to a tweaked-out, neurotic hacker named Adrian Lamo, who then bragged about THAT to wired.

 

[Alt+F4]

Also should probably be pointed out that Manning is in all likelihood not being simply locked up and treated like a regular prisoner. I really doubt that his time in prison is going nicely. Doesn't matter what group you're a part of--no one treats a snitch well.

I've read that he is in a prison in Kuwait and on suicide watch so you are probably right. As for him being a patsy, too soon to tell.