Wikileaks. Any comments?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Democracy Now had a debate on today between two open government advocates who have polar views on Wikileaks. One side said they made a few mistakes but the overall good outweighs the bad, and the other side said the harmful disclosures outweigh the good.

Is WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange a Hero? Glenn Greenwald Debates Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News


Another much more disturbing report was discussed at the end of the debate:

University students are being warned about WikiLeaks. An email from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, that we read in headlines, reads—I want to do it again—quote, "Hi students,

"We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.

"The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

"Regards, Office of Career Services."

If you want a future job in government, don't open the Wikileaks page! Big Brother is watching your Internet activity.

Employees of the State Dept. were apparently told the same thing. Don't open the Wikileaks webpage, at home or at work, if you want to keep your job.

a memo that’s been sent to employees at USAID. This is to thousands of employees, about reading the recently released WikiLeaks documents, and it comes from the Department of State. They have also warned their own employees. This memo reads, quote, "Any classified information that may have been unlawfully disclosed and released on the Wikileaks web site was not 'declassified' by an appopriate authority and therefore requires continued classification and protection as such from government personnel... Accessing the Wikileaks web site from any computer may be viewed as a violation of the SF-312 agreement... Any discussions concerning the legitimacy of any documents or whether or not they are classified must be conducted within controlled access areas (overseas) or within restricted areas (USAID/Washington)... The documents should not be viewed, downloaded, or stored on your USAID unclassified network computer or home computer; they should not be printed or retransmitted in any fashion."

That was the memo that went out to thousands of employees at USAID. The State Department has warned all their employees, you are not to access WikiLeaks, not only at the State Department, which they’ve blocked, by the way, WikiLeaks, but even on your home computers. Even if you’ve written a cable yourself, one

Now that is creepy.

In addition, the government is putting pressure on the NYTs. (Remember when Bush wanted to charge them with criminal 'free speech'?) And the government successfully put pressure on Amazon, which I guess had the Wikileaks server, to shut Wikileaks down. They moved to another site in Sweden.

So now are we going the way of China with controlled access to the Net?

Or will it be a moot point because the Net is soon to be controlled by big corporate monopolies anyway? The FCC may just eliminate Net Neutrality. But that's something that needs to be in a different thread: FCC Chief Backs Usage-Based Broadband Pricing



As for the sexual assault charge against Assange, WOW, if this is true, talk about obvious harassment:
Arrest Warrant for "Sex Crimes" Against Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange For Sex Without a Condom NOT Non-Consensual Rape Using Force



I haven't read this thread so my apologies to anyone who already posted any of this.

 

[BeAChooser]

Wow, you really, really have no idea what you're talking about.

LOL! No, I think this thread has made it eminently clear to all that YOU have no idea what you are talking about. Speaking of which, did you find the source on which you based your claim that they found the RPGs in the van? Did you find your source on which you based your claim that only "hostile acts" are a valid reason to engage? Hmmmmmmm?

They hid the video despite Reuter's FOIA request

LOL! A video which shows what? Exactly what the military report on the matter said?

You are truly a hero.

LOL! Well thank you. I feel that way for correcting all the anti-American misinformation you've tried to foster on this thread.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
[a sequence of non-answerse and niggling distinctions without any relevance]

If a car speeding towards troops filled with people holding guns doesn't justify deadly force. And a guys standing on an over-pass with something that could be a grenade (what does the "G" in "RPG" stand for, by the way) clearly in a position to throw it at the convoy doesn't justify deadly force. And someone who ACTUALLY SHOOTS and American soldier cannot be fired upon if the risk of collateral damage is too high, it's fairly obvious what conclusion we can draw.

LOL! Yes, it is fairly obvious what conclusion we can draw about you from this thread. That you are a liar, for one.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Where do you get the claim that they thought the RPG was aimed at the helicopter. … snip …

Because the guy in the video says, "he's going to fire at us," or something similar. Have you watched the video?

Yes, I have. And "he's going to fire at us" is not what is said. Here is ALL that was said:

He's got an RPG!

All right, we got a guy with an RPG.

I'm gonna fire.

Okay.

No hold on. Let's come around.

Behind buildings right now from our point of view. … Okay, we're gonna come around.

Hotel Two-Six: have eyes on individual with RPG. Getting ready to fire. We won't …

Yeah, we had a guy shooting … and now he's behind the building.

[profanity]

Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the Brad. Uh, 'bout, there, one o'clock. Haven't seen anything since then.

[profanity], once you get on 'em just open 'em up.

All right.

I see your element, uh, got about four Humvees, uh, out along …

You're clear.

All right, firing.

There is nothing remotely similar to "he's going to fire at us".

In fact, the observers only talk about Humvees and a Brad (in front of the guy they thought had the RPG). You do know what a Brad is, don't you?

All the above leads me to wonder ... did you actually watch the video? Or did you lie about that too? Hear that sound? That's your credibility being flushed, TraneWreck. Congratulations.

 

[TraneWreck]

LOL! No, I think this thread has made it eminently clear to all that YOU have no idea what you are talking about. Speaking of which, did you find the source on which you based your claim that they found the RPGs in the van? Did you find your source on which you based your claim that only "hostile acts" are a valid reason to engage? Hmmmmmmm?

I've dealt with the ROE in detail. You have been wrong on every step.

I said the RPG's COULD have come from the van, it was blasted around pretty good, but that's irrelevant since the order to fire was given before anyone identified an RPG.

I know it's tough, but try to keep up.

LOL! A video which shows what? Exactly what the military report on the matter said?

WHich shows no hostile act, no hostile intent, shows no effort to participate in any gun battles, and shows no American remotely threatened.

LOL! Well thank you. I feel that way for correcting all the anti-American misinformation you've tried to foster on this thread.

If only there were more brave Americans like you, willing to cheerlead a war they will never participate in while courageously taking quizes on the internet. I don't know why you haven't been given a metal of honor yet. It's a travesty.

LOL! Yes, it is fairly obvious what conclusion we can draw about you from this thread. That you are a liar, for one.

Please. I actually read the material you linked to. It makes a compelling case that the ROE's did not justify deadly force in that situation. Thanks for providing the evidence that demolished your silly arguments.

Yes, I have. And "he's going to fire at us" is not what is said. Here is ALL that was said:

Hilarious. That's what we call a distinction without a difference. Notice what I wrote:

"Because the guy in the video says, "he's going to fire at us," or something similar"

I would say the quote you provided is "something similar." "He's got an RPG...I'm going to fire."

In fact, the observers only talk about Humvees and a Brad (in front of the guy they thought had the RPG). You do know what a Brad is, don't you?

All the above leads me to wonder ... did you actually watch the video? Or did you lie about that too? Hear that sound? That's your credibility being flushed, TraneWreck. Congratulations.

You don't want to add a "LOL" to that? Without it, the statement lacks your patented "vapid-douche" spice.

 

[Toontown]

I am aware of the frustration involved in trying to explain combat to a flock of chickens. That's why I usually just start chasing them. As the panic-stricken flock scatters in all directions, I follow the one that is headed for a cul-de-sac. I capture that one, grab it's feet, hold the flapping creature up triumphantly to the others, and say, "See what happens when you fail to properly defend yourself in combat?"

But the chickens still don't get it. They're chickens. They just think, "AWK! Thank Rooster! It doesn't want to wring our necks. It just wants to grab us and hold us up by our feet." Which, of course, is completely orthogonal to the attempted lesson. And so, once again, the chickens will have failed to understand anything.

The upside is, it's easier to catch one the next time I want baked chicken for dinner. They think I only want to grab one and hold it up by it's feet.

All in all, I'm glad BeAChooser is doing the chicken-chasing today. And I'm glad military rules of engagement aren't being made up by spoiled, self-absorbed, radicalized civilians...

...er...I mean...

Screw it. Just beam me up, Scotty.

 

[BeAChooser]

I've dealt with the ROE in detail. You have been wrong on every step.

LIAR. You said the rules of engagement "required 'hostile acts'". You ignored intent repeatedly.

I said the RPG's COULD have come from the van

LIAR. You said "they found the RPG's in the van that pulled up later."

WHich shows no hostile act, no hostile intent, shows no effort to participate in any gun battles, and shows no American remotely threatened.

LIAR. But you keep on digging that grave for your credibility.

If only there were more brave Americans like you, willing to cheerlead a war they will never participate

You know nothing about me TraneWreck. NOTHING. But we know you are a liar, because you've proven that repeatedly on this thread.

I would say the quote you provided is "something similar." "He's got an RPG...I'm going to fire."

So you think "he's going to fire at us" is similar to "He's got an RPG…I'm going to fire."? Now THAT is "hilarious".

And it's the sound of more of your credibility going down the drain.

Yes, indeed, this thread is a keeper. LOL!

 

[babycondor]

BeAChooser: "...you are a liar..."

TraneWreck: "...the statement lacks your patented 'vapid-douche' spice."

Amusing, but not in the spirit of the Forum, and veering well off the original topic of the thread.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I am aware of the frustration involved in trying to explain combat to a flock of chickens.

You wouldn't be the first internet tough guy on this forum exposed as chicken hawk posting from mom's basement. Just saying...

 

[TraneWreck]

LIAR. You said the rules of engagement "required 'hostile acts'". You ignored intent repeatedly.

I consistently asked people to provide descriptions of the ROE's. When that was done, I immediately dealt with intent. I looked at your links, went through them in detail, and never once denied anything.

This is just childish idiocy.

LIAR. You said "they found the RPG's in the van that pulled up later."

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I can only apologize for that. They found the RPGs after the van was destoyed. The visual evidence that the people were holding RPGs is poor. The fact that they were found after the incident proves very little as the source was not confirmed.

There are still two problems with this:

1) The order to attack was granted before anyone ID's an RPG.
2) Holding an RPG is not alone sufficient for ROEs, as your links convincingly proved.

LIAR. But you keep on digging that grave for your credibility.

Show me the part of the video where any American is in danger.

You know nothing about me TraneWreck. NOTHING. But we know you are a liar, because you've proven that repeatedly on this thread.

Believe me, I know more than I would evey want to know about you just from reading your insane posts.

So you think "he's going to fire at us" is similar to "He's got an RPG…I'm going to fire."? Now THAT is "hilarious".

This is stupid, even for you. Again, watch the whole video:

15:28 Yeah Two-Six. One-Eight I just also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG cropping round the corner getting ready to fire on your location.

This was the part I was referring to. Because I didn't have it memorized, I simply analyzed the part you selected. It was stupid of me to think you would argue in good faith. I won't make that mistake again.

Now, we can keep this discussion going. But save the childish "LOL's" and "LIARS." You're arguments are pathetic, so you try to taunt. It's really quite infantile.

And it's the sound of more of your credibility going down the drain.

Yes, indeed, this thread is a keeper. LOL!

Impressive lack of self-awareness.

 

[TraneWreck]

I am aware of the frustration involved in trying to explain combat to a flock of chickens. That's why I usually just start chasing them. As the panic-stricken flock scatters in all directions, I follow the one that is headed for a cul-de-sac. I capture that one, grab it's feet, hold the flapping creature up triumphantly to the others, and say, "See what happens when you fail to properly defend yourself in combat?"

[...]

Screw it. Just beam me up, Scotty.

As I've said before, there are two options:

1) These guys messed up. That would be tragic.

2) This is common procedure and we only know about it because a Reuters employee died.

2 would be far worse.

 

[Toontown]

You wouldn't be the first internet tough guy on this forum exposed as chicken hawk posting from mom's basement. Just saying...

And I haven't been exposed as an internet tough guy exposed as a chicken hawk posting from mom's basement.

Nor will I be foolish enough to provide my military records to a bunch of internet radicals to prove otherwise.

Nor is it even relevant. I was just bemoaning the frustration involved in trying to explain anything to a flock of chickens. Since any coherence that might have existed in the thread has long since gone to the dogs.

 

[TraneWreck]

And I haven't been exposed as an internet tough guy exposed as a chicken hawk posting from mom's basement.

Nor will I be foolish enough to provide my military records to a bunch of internet radicals to prove otherwise.

Nor is it even relevant. I was just bemoaning the frustration involved in trying to explain anything to a flock of chickens. Since any coherence that might have existed in the thread has long since gone to the dogs.

Since the wars have begun, I've had probably 30 clients that have served.

Some of them tell me what a mistake it was, what idiots our generals are.

Some of them tell me we need to spend more money.

SOme of them tell me the people loved them.

Some of them talk about the police they trained then later got into gun battles with.

Some of them brag about all the people they killed, laughing about it.

Some of them can barely talk about what happened and break down when they think about what they had to do.

Some of them think some of their fellow soldiers are criminals and sociopaths.

Some of them will defend every action, no matter what.

Have had these discussions under the protection of attorney-client privilage, I have no doubt some of them told me the unvarnished truth. I have no doubt that some of them lied their ass off.

So, I'm not very impressed by smug, contentless condescension. Either you have an argument to make, points to back your position, or you're just full of it.

I have no idea what you did over there, if you did anything, but I do know that the mere fact that someone serves is not enough to prove the truth of every statement made.

My clients disagree with each other. Which servicemember's opinion should I trust so completely that I no longer need to learn anything else?

 

[Childlike Empress]

a bunch of internet radicals

 

[Toontown]

As I've said before, there are two options:

1) These guys messed up. That would be tragic.

2) This is common procedure and we only know about it because a Reuters employee died.

2 would be far worse.

And I think it's been sufficiently demonstrated that much of what you've "said before" is questionable. And that's putting the best possible face on it.

 

[TraneWreck]

And I think it's been sufficiently demonstrated that much of what you've "said before" is questionable. And that's putting the best possible face on it.

Right, you just can't take up that argument. You'd rather imply that you have something to say than actually say something.

No one is impressed. Make a point, if you have one.

 

[Toontown]

Since the wars have begun, I've had probably 30 clients that have served.

And yet you still argue without respite that those chopper pilots acted wrongly. My opinion of your possible future rationality has just taken a nose dive.

Some of them tell me what a mistake it was, what idiots our generals are.

Some of them tell me we need to spend more money.

SOme of them tell me the people loved them.

Some of them talk about the police they trained then later got into gun battles with.

Some of them brag about all the people they killed, laughing about it.

Some of them can barely talk about what happened and break down when they think about what they had to do.

Some of them think some of their fellow soldiers are criminals and sociopaths.

Some of them will defend every action, no matter what.

Have had these discussions under the protection of attorney-client privilage, I have no doubt some of them told me the unvarnished truth. I have no doubt that some of them lied their ass off.

I can only imagine the legalistic injustices which have been heaped upon the troops in this pseudo-legalistic litigio-war.

Did you know who was telling the truth and who was lying? If not, you have nothing but a lot of conflicting information which you are apparently unable to make heads or tails of.

It's a big world. Iraq is a big country. The recreation of Iraq is a big operation. It's been going on a long time. A lot of people have seen their small parts of the operation from various personal viewpoints.

And nothing you've said has the slightest bearing on your presumed abilty to do a better job of assessing those pilots decisions than those who carry the burden of command, rather than the burden of berating people on the internet all day long.

Which raises the question of the diligence of your service to your "clients", who, at this point, I can only pity.

So, I'm not very impressed by smug, contentless condescension.

Oh, the irony.

Either you have an argument to make, points to back your position, or you're just full of it.

I may be full of it, but what I said about those chickens, with the underlying allusions to their human counterparts, is right on.

I have no idea what you did over there, if you did anything...

That's right, you have no idea what I did "over there", or even where "over there" was. And you wouldn't believe me if I told you. And even if you believed me, past experience predicts that you would still try to discredit me.

but I do know that the mere fact that someone serves is not enough to prove the truth of every statement made...

Who's asking you? I say what I say. You like it or don't lke it. You believe it or don't believe it. Your responsibility in the matter ends there. Once again, it is not all about (YOU).

My clients disagree with each other. Which servicemember's opinion should I trust so completely that I no longer need to learn anything else?

I can't tell you who to trust. However, based on what I've read so far, I can, with a high level of confidence, advise you not to trust yourself.

 

[Toontown]

Right, you just can't take up that argument. You'd rather imply that you have something to say than actually say something.

No one is impressed. Make a point, if you have one.

Not in the mood for another neverending bicker session at this time.

Why don't you go back to badgering BeAChooser? Weren't you enjoying that?

 

[TraneWreck]

And yet you still argue without respite that those chopper pilots acted wrongly. My opinion of your possible future rationality has just taken a nose dive.

Did you watch the part where they keep shooting the dead body? Or when they yell at the guy crawling around on the ground, "pick up a weapon, pick up a weapon?" Or when they start laughing after the vehicle drives over one of the corpses they created?

I know a lot of servicemembers. They would not behave that way.

Your post hoc rationalizations without bothering to offer anything resembling a cogent argument isn't impressive.

I can only imagine the legalistic injustices which have been heaped upon the troops in this pseudo-legalistic litigio-war.

I would settle for you offering one.

And if you're whining that the servicemembers are restricted in their ability to fight the war, you should remember that since every other explanation for our involvement in Iraq turned out to be a lie or simply false, we're there to spread democracy and freedom. Searching for pretexts and post hoc rationalizations for killing is not the way to do this.

Incidentally, it's no coincidence it's been a failure.

Did you know who was telling the truth and who was lying? If not, you have nothing but a lot of conflicting information which you are apparently unable to make heads or tails of.

If you notice, I was very clear about that in what I already wrote.

It's a big world. Iraq is a big country. The recreation of Iraq is a big operation. It's been going on a long time. A lot of people have seen their small parts of the operation from various personal viewpoints.

Again, this was my point. Status means nothing. The quality of the argument means everything.

And nothing you've said has the slightest bearing on your presumed abilty to do a better job of assessing those pilots decisions than those who carry the burden of command, rather than the burden of berating people on the internet all day long.

Then go ahead. Show me the part of the video where an American life was threatened or aggressive behavior was implied.

Which raises the question of the diligence of your service to your "clients", who, at this point, I can only pity.

Yet they keep paying me for my service. Are you calling our soldiers idiots? Why do you hate our servicemembers?

And what a sad attempt at a smear. You have nothing to say so after reiterating my words in a more confused manner, you just try to insult me. What a class act.

Oh, the irony.

You can call me condescending, fine, I can't help but be when talking to you. But I'm offering arguments, thus the irony is not present.

I would recommend looking up the meaning of the word before wrongly deploying its use again.

I may be full of it, but what I said about those chickens, with the underlying allusions to their human counterparts, is right on.

No, not even close. This is more argument by suggestion. You have no point, so you just rely on smug nonsense to do the work reasoned discussion should perform.

That's right, you have no idea what I did "over there", or even where "over there" was. And you wouldn't believe me if I told you. And even if you believed me, past experience predicts that you would still try to discredit me.

Nope. I don't. As I said before, and to which you agreed, it doesn't matter. You could be lying right now, you could be telling the truth, who knows?

What matters is the quality of argument you can advance. You haven't even bothered to advance an argument. So far you've just implied that you have some experience with battle and are therefore excused from having to explain your position. You're right, just cause.

Perhaps that intimidates some people, but as I said, I've worked closely with far too many servicemembers to simply defer every time someone makes vague allusions to military experience.

You may be wrong, you may be right, but it won't be because you served. I've had active duty soldiers call from Iraq and give me directly contradictory accounts about things that were happening over there. Who should I believe and how do I tell who is right?

Who's asking you? I say what I say. You like it or don't lke it. You believe it or don't believe it. Your responsibility in the matter ends there. Once again, it is not all about (YOU).

ou do realize you're on a discussion forum, don't you? We're all advancing our opinions.

This statement of yours makes no sense as a response to the sentence of mine you quoted. I'm pointing out that process for determining right or wrong does not depend on personalities, which appears to be the exact opposite of what you understood.

Obviously it's not about me. That's the point. It's not about you, it's not about anyone else, it's about the quality of the argument.

So far you haven't made an argument, you've just engaged in unhinged sanctimony.

I can't tell you who to trust. However, based on what I've read so far, I can, with a high level of confidence, advise you not to trust yourself.

Is this the best you can do? It's barely coherent.

Once again, you've wasted a lot of time trying to imply that you have a point. You could save yourself a lot of effort by just developing an argument.

 

[TraneWreck]

Not in the mood for another neverending bicker session at this time.

Why don't you go back to badgering BeAChooser? Weren't you enjoying that?

Interesting. This is following your pointless rant directed at me. It takes two to tango, homeboy.

Perhaps its time for the next dose.

 

[Toontown]

Interesting. You're responding to me to tell me to stop talking to you.

Perhaps its time for the next dose.

Something tells me it's not the first time someone has responded to you in that vein.

Why did you even start talking to me? I never addressed you.

And I never even mentioned my military service. And suddenly I'm being accused by some foreigner of lying about military service, followed by a crazed harangue by you about how irrelevent it would be even if true.

What is wrong with you people? Jeezus freaking christ. BeAChooser is right about one thing at least. This freako-thread is a keeper.

 

[TraneWreck]

Something tells me it's not the first time someone has responded to you in that vein.

Why did you even start talking to me? I never addressed you.

What do you think happens when you make posts in a discussion forum?

And I never even mentioned my military service. And suddenly I'm being accused by some foreigner of lying about military service, followed by a crazed harangue by you about how irrelevent it would be even if true.

Either you're in total denial or you don't realize how obnoxious your sanctimonious string of "chicken" posts were. Instead of dealing with facts or making an argument, you just implied that you knew something about battle.

"Here I am just making smarmy, condescending posts on a discussion forum and other people point that out, what the hell?"

I don't know whether that's true or not. I'm pointing out it's irrelevant, and that instead of rambling on based on childish, misdirected analogies, you should try to make a point.

Clearly that's a demand beyond your abilities.

What is wrong with you people? Jeezus freaking christ. BeAChooser is right about one thing at least. This freako-thread is a keeper.

When you are along with BAC about anything, you should worry.