Wikileaks is an enemy of the United States

[TraneWreck]

He gives no context, no analysis, he just leaves it there out in the open for everyone to see. I'd call that a dump. It can be a dump and still be motivated by an agenda.

Yes, and his method is quite crude.

You said:

Wikileaks just dumps information for every Dick and Jane to see.

He has a purpose. I read your sentence to say that he was dumping for the sake of dumping. If that's not your position, then I'll drop that point.

You can't expect perfect results. They did with what they had.

Haha, how about we aim for "barely competent." We cannot even identify the people with whom we're sitting at the negotiation table, much less the actual "bad guys." We're mostly killing farmers and low-level operatives.

Peance and Freeance, indeed.

We knew he had them at one point, and he had to be removed.

Please, this is nonsense. We knew that we destroyed them in the first Gulf War and the subsequent inspections.

If it was simply a matter of "knowing he had them," why out Valerie Plame? Why retaliate for having a false statement exposed as such if it was just an honest mistake?

Secrecy existed before. You know anything about the Cold War?

It's very different now than it was during the Cold War. That's not to say there was no secrecy, but 9-11 was a catalyst for quite a bit of change.

Unsupported personal opinion. You would prefer a 2010 with the Husseins in full control of their country?

We can go over this on another thread if you want. It's important to recall that 1/6th of the Iraqi population has been displaced with millions seeking refuge in Iran. More than 100,000 died as a direct result of violence and hundreds of thousands more as a result of that violence. Saddam had no ability to cause that amount of chaos in his neutered state. That doesn't make him a good guy, he was a monster, but perspective is important.

And the public is equipped to wage through all the info and to make sense of it? It can act on it and prevent the bad people from getting access to it?

You could say that about anything. We have a representative democracy. If you want a "daddy" that makes all the tough decisions for you, I suggest a some other political system.

Are Americans qualified to make decisions about the deficit? Are they qualified to make decisions about Social Security? Clearly not. So what? That doesn't mean the budget should be secret.

Again, you think every Dick and Jane on the street is better equipped to deal with the intelligence?

In all honesty they can't do much worse than giving millions of dollars to an impostor after 9 years and trillions of dollars spent on a war.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Wikileaks seems to be nothing more than a media outlet for whistle-blowers. Should we arrest all of the other media outlets that have published leaked materials as well?

 

[egslim]

In all honesty they can't do much worse than giving millions of dollars to an impostor after 9 years and trillions of dollars spent on a war.

Not strictly related, but you might find this piece interesting:

Meeting with the Chinese ambassador, our own envoy “mentioned that Kyrgyz officials had told her that China had offered a $3 billion financial package to close Manas Air Base and asked for the Ambassador’s reaction to such an allegation.”

Ambassador Zhang was “visibly flustered,” and even “temporarily lost the ability to speak Russian and began spluttering in Chinese to the silent aide diligently taking notes right behind him.” Our ambassador continues:

“Composing himself, Zhang inquired if maybe the Kyrgyz had meant the trade turnover between the two countries, which he claimed was about $3 billion a year. When disabused of that notion, Zhang went on at length to explain that China could not afford a $3 billion loan and aid package. ‘It would take $3 from every Chinese person” to pay for it. If our people found out, there’d be a revolution,’ he said. ‘We have 200 million people unemployed” because of the downturn in exports, he said, and millions of disabled and others who need help from the government.’”

Bolding mine.

But it gets better. The Chinese ambassador had a much better grasp of the situation.

“Zhang asked the Ambassador whether the U.S. would negotiate to keep the Base open. The Ambassador answered that the U.S. side was evaluating its options. Zhang then offered his ‘personal advice.’ ‘This is all about money,’ he said. He understood from the Kyrgyz that they needed $150 million. [Gfoeller] explained that the U.S. does provide $150 million in assistance to Kyrgyzstan each year, including numerous assistance programs. Zhang suggested that the U.S. should scrap its assistance programs. ‘Just give them $150 million in cash’ per year, and ‘you will have the Base forever.’ Very uncharacteristically, the silent young aide then jumped in: ‘Or maybe you should give them $5 billion and buy both us and the Russians out.’ The aide then withered under the Ambassador’s horrified stare.”

 

[A Laughing Baby]

risking the national security of the USA and of other countries is not worth it, if the pay out is simply revealing embarrasing communiques.

Wikileaks has become a tabloid.

"dude....did you hear about Qhaddafi's big-boobed nurse???"

You do realize this is not really anything new, right? They used to release the initiation rituals of college fraternities and were really proud of a video that showed the Thai prince(?) having a huge birthday party for his dog, which caused a lot of political embarrassment for him. It's not really doing much to discredit them to say that they've "become a tabloid." They've always released this sort of thing. Like...from day one.

 

[Alan]

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the leaking of classified documents via the WikiLeaks website is "illegal".

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...ng-illegally-says-gillard-20101202-18hb9.html

 

[TraneWreck]

Not strictly related, but you might find this piece interesting:

Meeting with the Chinese ambassador, our own envoy “mentioned that Kyrgyz officials had told her that China had offered a $3 billion financial package to close Manas Air Base and asked for the Ambassador’s reaction to such an allegation.”

Ambassador Zhang was “visibly flustered,” and even “temporarily lost the ability to speak Russian and began spluttering in Chinese to the silent aide diligently taking notes right behind him.” Our ambassador continues:

“Composing himself, Zhang inquired if maybe the Kyrgyz had meant the trade turnover between the two countries, which he claimed was about $3 billion a year. When disabused of that notion, Zhang went on at length to explain that China could not afford a $3 billion loan and aid package. ‘It would take $3 from every Chinese person” to pay for it. If our people found out, there’d be a revolution,’ he said. ‘We have 200 million people unemployed” because of the downturn in exports, he said, and millions of disabled and others who need help from the government.’”

Bolding mine.

But it gets better. The Chinese ambassador had a much better grasp of the situation.

“Zhang asked the Ambassador whether the U.S. would negotiate to keep the Base open. The Ambassador answered that the U.S. side was evaluating its options. Zhang then offered his ‘personal advice.’ ‘This is all about money,’ he said. He understood from the Kyrgyz that they needed $150 million. [Gfoeller] explained that the U.S. does provide $150 million in assistance to Kyrgyzstan each year, including numerous assistance programs. Zhang suggested that the U.S. should scrap its assistance programs. ‘Just give them $150 million in cash’ per year, and ‘you will have the Base forever.’ Very uncharacteristically, the silent young aide then jumped in: ‘Or maybe you should give them $5 billion and buy both us and the Russians out.’ The aide then withered under the Ambassador’s horrified stare.”

Yes, these are the people that we must trust implicitly and have no right to analyze what they're doing.

It seems that "confidential" now means, "no one is allowed to know how bad I am at my job."

 

[deepatrax]

Which of these things do the WikiLeaks supporters believe should be released to the public:

1. The minutes of President Obama's NSA briefings
2. The communications between our Afghan allies and US troops
3. The interviews with the two women who are accusing Assange of rape
4. The contents of the President's "football" briefcase
5. The names/addresses of all overseas CIA agents
6. Julian Assange's email communications over the past year
7. The cables between Pakistan and our State Dept
8. The current locations of all US Nuclear submarines
9. The planned troop movements of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan

And who should make the determination as to what gets made public:

1. You
2. Julian Assange
3. PFC Bradley Manning
4. President Obama

 

[lionking]

Wikileaks seems to be nothing more than a media outlet for whistle-blowers. Should we arrest all of the other media outlets that have published leaked materials as well?

Exactly.

As someone has already pointed out here, these documents are not the most highly classified and I have read that over a million people have clearance to see them. The real surprise is that they have not been leaked sooner.

And I still haven't seen any threat to life resulting from these documents.

 

[deepatrax]

Exactly.

As someone has already pointed out here, these documents are not the most highly classified and I have read that over a million people have clearance to see them. The real surprise is that they have not been leaked sooner.

And I still haven't seen any threat to life resulting from these documents.

So do you believe that it's ok for secret documents which detail NON-ILLEGAL activities to be released even if it does risk our National Security and relationship with allies?

 

[Ausmerican]

So do you believe that it's ok for secret documents which detail NON-ILLEGAL activities to be released even if it does risk our National Security and relationship with allies?

Do you believe that assaulting that straw man is necessary? Because that is nothing like what lionking said.

 

[deepatrax]

Do you believe that assaulting that straw man is necessary? Because that is nothing like what lionking said.

I never said he said it...

I simply asked a question.

In fact, it's a question to anyone who wants to answer.

The latest round of leaks detail many non-illegal but secret activities...and yet some are applauding the leaks as "the people have a right to know!"

why is this?

I have no right to know the secret non-illegal communications between Saudi Arabia and the State Department...do you?

 

[egslim]

Yes, these are the people that we must trust implicitly and have no right to analyze what they're doing.

It seems that "confidential" now means, "no one is allowed to know how bad I am at my job."

Exactly.

This whole ferocious response to the leaks is not because of any harm done to diplomacy, democracy or national interests - as Robert Gates predicts, the consequences of this leak will be fairly modest.

The real motivation is because the leaks damage something that's infinitely more important to the people involved.

Bruised egos.

 

[Leif Roar]

The real motivation is because the leaks damage something that's infinitely more important to the people involved.

Bruised egos.

I don't think it's so much bruised egos as that USA has to be seen to take this leak seriously to limit the damage done to their integrity: if foreign (or even their own) diplomats no longer feel they can trust a US promise of confidentiality because of leaks, they'll be less willing to speak candidly and bluntly.

That said, it's not Wikileaks job to protect USA's promises of confidentiality: USA's problem isn't that Wikileaks choose to release classified documents to the public. It's that USA failed to keep the documents secret in the first place.

 

[egslim]

I don't think it's so much bruised egos as that USA has to be seen to take this leak seriously to limit the damage done to their integrity: if foreign (or even their own) diplomats no longer feel they can trust a US promise of confidentiality because of leaks, they'll be less willing to speak candidly and bluntly.

Intelligence agencies have a long tradition of eavesdropping on supposedly private conversations between officials, and low-level diplomatic codes aren't known for their strong security.

These people should have realized, and probably did, that anything said in such "private" conversations was likely to end up in the hands of some foreign intelligence agency. And it probably did, long before wikileaks got their hands on it. It would very much surprise me if any government obtained important information they did not already have from cablegate.

The only difference is now the public knows as well. And that means damage is done to people who divulged information they did not mind foreign governments to know, but did not want the public to find out about. In other words: breaches of ethics, law or treaties. I have no problem with that.

 

[lionking]

That said, it's not Wikileaks job to protect USA's promises of confidentiality: USA's problem isn't that Wikileaks choose to release classified documents to the public. It's that USA failed to keep the documents secret in the first place.

Spot on. The pursuit of Wikileaks is the best example of shooting the messenger I've seen in quite some time.

 

[marksman]

This isn't a case of shooting the "messenger". The contents of the latest leaks haven't been particularly damaging to national security. Just mildly embarrassing.

This is a case of prosecuting the fence for stolen property and the fence (or defenders of the fence) shouting, "Why are you prosecuting me? It's not my fault a thief broke into your house and took your things and then gave to me so I could sell them, knowing they were your stolen property!"

But we do prosecute fences, regardless of whether we can also locate the original thief. And if the fences are located in a country other than the one in which the property is stolen, the country in which the fence is located will prosecute them for violation of that country's laws.

What we don't do is execute the fence and calls for Assuage's execution are outrageous and rightly condemned. Calls for his prosecution, however, appear to be eminently reasonable.

 

[egslim]

This is a case of prosecuting the fence for stolen property and the fence (or defenders of the fence) shouting, "Why are you prosecuting me? It's not my fault a thief broke into your house and took your things and then gave to me so I could sell them, knowing they were your stolen property!"

Except information is not property, so property laws do not apply.

And if you're going to prosecute Assange for passing information, then you have to prosecute the editors of the Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde and the other newspapers as well. They're passing exactly the same information. (And doing it for a profit, unlike wikileaks.)

 

[sol invictus]

This is a case of prosecuting the fence for stolen property and the fence (or defenders of the fence) shouting, "Why are you prosecuting me? It's not my fault a thief broke into your house and took your things and then gave to me so I could sell them, knowing they were your stolen property!"

Have you read any of the wikileaks documents, or reports around them? Have you bought a paper or loaded the webpage of the NYT, the Guardian, El Pais, or nearly any other newspaper in the last week?

If so, you are or were in possession of exactly the same type of "stolen property" as Assange. Have you turned yourself in to the police?

 

[marksman]

Except information is not property, so property laws do not apply.

It's an analogy to counter the argument that the only person responsible for the breach is the thief.

And if you're going to prosecute Assange for passing information, then you have to prosecute the editors of the Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde and the other newspapers as well. They're passing exactly the same information. (And doing it for a profit, unlike wikileaks.)

Profit motive is not an element of any applicable crime of which I am aware. I do know that Australia feels that Assuage may have violated Australian law though Wikileaks' actions, so is being investigated.

It is my understanding that readers of newspapers reprinting the info are not liable under the current state of the law. I could be wrong, and if I am, I would expect them to be prosecuted.

Sol_invictus,

If you can show me the law that I violated when I read the New York Times (I'm in New York State, so any federal, New York State, or New York City law will be sufficient), I will contact the appropriate authorities and find out if I need to retain counsel. I would expect everybody else to do the same.

 

[TraneWreck]

This isn't a case of shooting the "messenger". The contents of the latest leaks haven't been particularly damaging to national security. Just mildly embarrassing.

This is a case of prosecuting the fence for stolen property and the fence (or defenders of the fence) shouting, "Why are you prosecuting me? It's not my fault a thief broke into your house and took your things and then gave to me so I could sell them, knowing they were your stolen property!"

But we do prosecute fences, regardless of whether we can also locate the original thief. And if the fences are located in a country other than the one in which the property is stolen, the country in which the fence is located will prosecute them for violation of that country's laws.

What we don't do is execute the fence and calls for Assuage's execution are outrageous and rightly condemned. Calls for his prosecution, however, appear to be eminently reasonable.

Fencing isn't protected by the First Amendment. Publications and source confidentiality are.