Wikileaks. Any comments?

[BeAChooser]

Explain to me how this:

Quote:
(1) You must feel a direct threat to you or your team.
(2) You must clearly see a threat.
(3) That threat must be identified.
(4) The team leader must concur that there is an identified threat.
(5) The team leader must feel that the situation is one of life or death.
(6) There must be minimal or no collateral risk.
(7) Only then can the team leader clear the engagement.

Rules out "hostile act."

It doesn't. Never suggested it did. Can you bring yourself to acknowledge that doesn't rule out "hostile intent" so you should have also been mentioning that rather than stating that the ROE "requires" a "hostile act"? Call this another test.

You're essentially having trouble with first year law school concepts. A few posts later you said an "act" wasn't necessary, "hostile intent" would be satisfactory. I never argued with that.

You're having trouble with first year English and first year logic. You stated that the rules of engagement "require" a "hostile act". That is not the same thing as saying the rules of engagement require a "hostile act or hostile intent", which is actually what the ROE states. So by stating the former, you were indeed arguing with the latter. Surely they teach such linguistic subtleties in first year law school. I thought lawyers were supposed to be so *precise* in their use of language and logic. I guess not.

Now I'm done going around and around with you, TW. I'll waste no more time on this. If you want to continue digging your hole, be my guest. I think my job is done.

 

[BobTheCoward]

presenting of an account of events (leakage) and facts (leaked documents) = ?

You are really stretching. That isn't presenting the account of events, he is the accounted event.

 

[zooterkin]

Not true. Patriots ask questions and demand answers and speak up when there is wrong doing.

Patriotism has nothing to do with it, since Assange is not American.

 

[TraneWreck]

It doesn't. Never suggested it did. Can you bring yourself to acknowledge that doesn't rule out "hostile intent" so you should have also been mentioning that rather than stating that the ROE "requires" a "hostile act"? Call this another test.

That makes no sense. You claim that somehow me mentioning "hostile act," the NATO standard, was contradicted by your post. They were simply different terms for vague standards.

You're having trouble with first year English and first year logic. You stated that the rules of engagement "require" a "hostile act". That is not the same thing as saying the rules of engagement require a "hostile act or hostile intent", which is actually what the ROE states. So by stating the former, you were indeed arguing with the latter. Surely they teach such linguistic subtleties in first year law school. I thought lawyers were supposed to be so *precise* in their use of language and logic. I guess not.

They do according to NATO. After I said that you claimed "hostile intent" was the standard. I have not argued with that. It was one of the few things you provided a source for.

Thus, I don't understand what you're upset about.

Now I'm done going around and around with you, TW. I'll waste no more time on this. If you want to continue digging your hole, be my guest. I think my job is done.

The degree to which venom and paranoia make your positions incomprehensible is consistently stunning.

A statute that used the phrase "direct threat" would be modified by case law. WIthin the military, situations perform the same function:

Factual scenario X was a direct threat, factual scenario Y was not.

You've simply tossed out words without bothering to provide anything resembling a test, and in your haste to rationalize the brutal attack, you've essentially argued that the American military can basically kill anyone in Iraq who happens to be near someone who is holding something that looks like a weapon.

And again, there are two options.

1) You're wrong (most likely).
2) You're right, and we're committing war crimes on a daily basis.

 

[Toontown]

You've simply tossed out words without bothering to provide anything resembling a test, and in your haste to rationalize the brutal attack, you've essentially argued that the American military can basically kill anyone in Iraq who happens to be near someone who is holding something that looks like a weapon.

You want a test? I'll give you a test.

I contend that your interpretation of the RoE cannot possibly be correct, because it leads inevitably to an absurdity if followed, that being an insurgent victory.

Hypothetically, under your interpretation of the RoE, you can have the US military - because under your RoE the US military will be utterly defenseless and paralyzed. I'll take a few hundred insurgents. And I will mop up on your ass. I will kick your dog ass so bad they won't just relieve you of command, they will drum your ass out. They'll be cutting insignia off your ass, to the accompaniment of a drum roll. Then they will march your ass to the nearest exit, and point a finger in the direction you must walk.

Why? Because your idiotic RoE won't allow your troops to fire on my insurgents, because half of my insurgents will be unarmed, by design. I will simply instruct them to move about in tight groups, with the unarmed ones on the outside. I will also instruct the armed ones to disguise their weapons, so they cannot easily be identified as weapons from a distance. Now what are you going to do, Genghis Khan? You're helpless, by your own device. You have repeatedly stated that the RoE forbids firing on insurgents if it will put unarmed people at risk. Well, every stinking time you fire on my insurgents, you will be hitting unarmed people. My unarmed people. But my armed insurgents can fire on your boys as much as they like. Because you have forbidden your troops from returning fire if they might hit unarmed people.

Congratulations, genius. You've succeeded in devising a foolproof formula for losing a war.

I, on the other hand, have just reduced your idiotic interpretation of the RoE to an absurdity.

You lose. Now gimme all yer money. And all yer clothes.

And again, there are two options.

1) You're wrong (most likely).
2) You're right, and we're committing war crimes on a daily basis.

And again, you are False-Dichotomy-Boy. There is a third possibility.

3) YOU are wrong, and it's not really a war crime to win a war.


Anyone who has a brain had better hope it's (3). Or Chucky will get you. Or Adolf Ahmadinejad will get you. And if they don't, I will.

Easy pickins.

 

[lionking]

Wikileaks is a media outlet the USA doesn't like and would like to close down or censor. Funny that when China wants to close down, or at least censor, google, the USA screams blue murder.

 

[egslim]

Wikileaks didn't investigate ANY of the documents in the cables they released.

Wrong.
From www.wikileaks.nl/about

We assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted document through a very detailed examination a procedure. Is it real? What elements prove it is real? Who would have the motive to fake such a document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism techniques as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically we will do a forensic analysis of the document, determine the cost of forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the apparent authoring organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the document. We may also seek external verification of the document For example, for our release of the Collateral Murder video, we sent a team of journalists to Iraq to interview the victims and observers of the helicopter attack.

That's investigation.

One reason why wikileaks works with major newspapers is because those help supply the manpower to perform these investigations.

 

[BeAChooser]

You are right Toontown. If this thread is an example of his ability to handle logic and English, one can only pity his clients.

See you around.

 

[a_unique_person]

■ Government authorities around the world worked overtime to determine if Mr Assange could be charged with a crime related to the leaks.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-has-betrayed-me-assange-20101204-18ks8.html

If it's that hard to find a crime to charge him with, is it going to look any good if they do come up with anything after so long. As for Huckabee calling for him to be charged with being a traitor...............

 

[qayak]

Patriotism has nothing to do with it, since Assange is not American.

Other people besides Americans can be patriotic. Seems to me a lot of Wikileaks' documentation has to do with the corruption in Afghanistan and how it is known by, and goes to, the very top. As Australia is a member of NATO, with people fighting and dying in Afghanistan, Assange would fit the bill of "patriot" as well as any American would if they did the same.

NATO =/= American

 

[qayak]

As for Huckabee calling for him to be charged with being a traitor...............

It's worse in Canada where one university political professor has called for Assage to be assasinated.

http://beta.ca.news.yahoo.com/wikil...agan-charged-over-flippant-assassination.html

Flanagan mused on a CBC political talk show panel that U.S. President Barack Obama should consider assassinating Assange.

"I think Assange should be assassinated, actually," Flanagan said.

"I think Obama should put out a contract or maybe use a drone or something."

The University of Calgary professor has since apologized for the remarks, saying he wasn't seriously suggesting Assange should be killed.

Could you imagine how the **** would hit the fan if he "flippantly" called for the assasination of Obama by the Wikileaks founder? But the other way, it's okay.

 

[qayak]

Wikileaks is a media outlet the USA doesn't like and would like to close down or censor. Funny that when China wants to close down, or at least censor, google, the USA screams blue murder.

Exactly . . . and it pisses people off that they can't just walk into Australia and arrest Assage.

 

[WildCat]

Considering the way he's being hunted down - people calling for him to be killed (after due process or not even that), government pressure to bring down his website, being placed on Interpol's "most wanted"-list on suspicion of rape ( a) a crime that does not usually land people on that list, and b) the charges were first dropped months ago as unsubstantiated.) I'm ok with him taking an "insurance-policy".

Yeah, I'm sure this will keep the freepers and other internet nutjobs from calling for his death.

I also believe in the tooth fairy.

 

[WildCat]

There is obviously a way for security organizations to communicate with each other that doesn't necessitate, for example, lying to the American public about what Karzai is doing in Afghanistan, so on the whole, I support the leaking, but it doesn't come without risk. I simply think the risk insane secrecy presents (the Iraq war could not have happened without it), trumps the danger.

What was the lie about Karzai? Are you going to claim everyone said he was honest as they come and the Afghan government corruption-free? I'm pretty sure Afghanistan was rated one of the most corrupt places on the planet, long before this latest batch from wikileaks.

If you didn't know this, you weren't paying attention.

 

[TraneWreck]

You want a test? I'll give you a test.

[...]

You lose. Now gimme all yer money. And all yer clothes.

Ah, thank you. Now it is clear that you really have nothing resembling an argument. You're just a war cheerleader.

First, do you really have such little respect for our armed forces that you think denying them the ability to randomly slaughter anyone they think is holding something that looks like a gun will lead to an insurgent victory? Without the ability to kill children in vans, the insurgents will boot us out of there in no time.

But this brings up a more interesting point: what the hell do you think we're doing over there? What is our mission?

If you read and listen to Petraeus, we're engaged in a counterinsurgency mission where the expression of force is often counterproductive.

Though firmness by security forces is often necessary to establish a secure environment, a government that exceeds accepted local norms and abuses its people or is tyrannical generates resistance to its rule. People who have been maltreated or have had close friends or relatives killed by the government, particularly by its security forces, may strike back at their attackers. Security force abuses and the social upheaval caused by collateral damage from combat can be major escalating factors for insurgencies.

llegitimate actions are those involving the use of power without authority—whether committed by government officials, security forces, or counterinsurgents. Such actions include unjustified or excessive use of force, unlawful detention, torture, and punishment without trial. Efforts to build a legitimate government though illegitimate actions are self-defeating, even against insurgents who conceal themselves amid noncombatants and flout the law. Moreover, participation in COIN operations by U.S. forces must follow United States law, including domestic laws, treaties to which the United States is party, and certain HN laws. (See appendix D.) Any human rights abuses or legal violations committed by U.S. forces quickly become known throughout the local populace and eventually around the world. Illegitimate actions undermine both long- and short-term COIN efforts.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

The rules of engagement are always essential, but what dirty-no-good-hippy Patraeus is telling you, is that the use of force in counterinsurgency has to be closely monitored. Collateral damage, of the sort we saw in that video, will destroy the ability to battle back the insurgency. They just created a means to recruit, turn the population against America.

So you're wrong on a number of levels. First, "winning" is not a catch-all excuse to kill anyone we want, and second, you're prescription for "winning" contradicts directly with the expressed operating procedure of the Lieutenant General and Commander of operations.

And again, you are False-Dichotomy-Boy. There is a third possibility.

3) YOU are wrong, and it's not really a war crime to win a war.

I guess Hitler's mistake was just losing, then.

Anyone who has a brain had better hope it's (3). Or Chucky will get you. Or Adolf Ahmadinejad will get you. And if they don't, I will.

Easy pickins.

This post of yours has been illustrative. You're just paranoid. That explains a lot.

No one over there threatens us. They got lucky once. Now we lock cockpit doors. They'll probably set off a bomb sometime, somewhere, but that's a risk we run living in a free society.

Notice that freedom bombs falling in Afghanistan didn't stop the guy from Connecticut from trying to blow up Times Square.

You're just engaging in coward's theater.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ief---promises-publish-files-UFOs-aliens.html

Now my life is at risk, says WikiLeaks chief ... and he promises to publish files on UFOs and aliens

 

[TraneWreck]

What was the lie about Karzai? Are you going to claim everyone said he was honest as tehy come and the Afghan government corruption-free? I'm pretty sure Afghanistan was rated one of the most corrupt places on the planet, long before this latest batch from wikileaks.

If you didn't know this, you weren't paying attention.

Like I said, we knew a lot of it. Read the Wikileaks on it. He's a paranoid conspiracy theorist with a drug dealing brother whose crimes Karzai fascilitates.

But Karzai is himself extremely problematic. According to cables released by Wikileaks, and summarized by the Guardian, Karzai is prone to paranoid conspiracy theories, believes that the US is animated by sinister motives such as breaking up Pakistan and undermining Afghanistan, and is erratic and corrupt. He blithely just released 5 notorious drug runners captured by the US and turned over to him. He accused the US of funding the presidential campaign of his rival, Abdallah Abdallah, in the fall of 2009.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/12/the-karzai-problem-in-afghanistan-wikileaks.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.3753e0f35fd1c4979022e2347d47d6a9.a21

He's not just an insane, corrupt, fool, he's actively working against the United States on a number of levels.

There are links to the cables in the post above.

Should the military be allowed to lie to us about this? You don't think having a guy like that running Afghanistan makes our goal of security and democracy a pipe dream?

 

[WildCat]

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.

Except in this case the guy actually did have an RPG.

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

I've watched it. What makes you think that the gunner and the pilot were looking at the same person? Do you think that all they could see is what was in the video?

You embed with the insurgents, you might get killed. Not the fault of the helicopter crew.

Here's a photo (from this page:http://www.williambowles.info/gispecial/2006/1006/271006/gi_4J27_271006.html) from Reuters showing Iraqi insurgents in Ramadi. Do you think the Reuters photographer just stumbled across them and started taking pictures? Or does their demeanor suggest they knew the photographer and were posing for these pics?
Does the presence of the photographer make these guys off-limits for attack if a US helicopter came across them?

There are many such Reuters photos of insurgents in Iraq. To deny that they were embedded with them strains belief.

 

[BeAChooser]

Sorry folks, I just can't resist.

Without the ability to kill children in vans

Yes, what were children doing in that van, TW?

Collateral damage, of the sort we saw in that video, will destroy the ability to battle back the insurgency. They just created a means to recruit, turn the population against America.

No, what we saw occurring in that video from 2007 is precisely what turned the situation in Iraq around ... from one that was seemingly hopeless (according to democrats like Obama and the liberal mainstream media) to one where even Obama had to acknowlege that it worked and got to bask in the glory of that win just a few months ago.

 

[WildCat]

According to wiki: "Journalism is the practice of investigation and reporting of events, issues, and trends to a broad audience. Although there is much variation within journalism, the ideal is to inform the citizenry."

Journalism is an extremely broad field. Wikileaks does some investigation to check the quality of its sources, and they report events to a broad audience. According to the definition that makes them journalists.

But wikileaks is a new kind of journalism, because they publish information in almost raw form - which became realistic only with the advent of widespread broadband.

It's really irrelevant. Journalists have no more 1st Amendment or other Constitutional rights than anyone else.