Wikileaks US Diplomatic Cable Leak Discussion

[ZenOps]

North Korea does not smuggle weapons, they openly sell them to middle east countries.

There is no secret there, the only thing secret is the amount paid, and the size and capacity of the weapons.

Which is a heck of a lot better than the relationship Canada has with the US, we can't even buy their top of the line fighters - we get their pre-fab for mass production overpriced tasteless F-35 strawberries!

If I were a Canadian looking to buy military goods solely on quantity, quality and availability and politics were not an issue. I'd probably be going to North Korea's market to pickup a shotgun, submarine or ICBM.

Heaven knows you can't buy an HDTV made in the US, you pretty much have to go to (south) Korea for that.

[mx73someday]

Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use before posting again, or risk getting banned).

[CUG]

Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use before posting again, or risk getting banned).

[JAYMEZ]

Stop with the personal attacks , keep it on topic.

[DayGlow]

well that just dropped the entertainment value of this thread ten-fold. At least it still has ZenOps.

[googe]

What law has he broken exactly? The press publishes confidential stuff all the time. No one cried when the pentagon papers were published.

Seems like a case of shooting the messenger.

Legal analysis, including former espionage prosecutors, say he probably can't be charged with anything:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...1?pageNumber=2

Joseph DiGenova, a former U.S. Attorney in Washington who prosecuted high-profile espionage cases, said federal authorities would face "pretty tough" legal obstacles if they tried to bring a prosecution against Assange.

But he said officials like Holder had to make threats of prosecution, even if they lack legal substance, to "send a signal" to other would-be leakers.

You know who has been criminal though:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01...nd-the-el.html

When Wikileaks released thousands of classified US diplomatic cables this week, a familiar criticism was repeated by the project's foes: these leaks could harm innocent people. There's no evidence of that yet, but within the documents there is evidence the American government has harmed innocent people.

One of them is Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, and a victim of so-called "extraordinary rendition." He was a car salesman in Germany, a father of six. The CIA kidnapped him by mistake (his name sounds and looks identical to that of an actual terror suspect), and sent off to receive months of torture in Afghanistan.

When the CIA realized he was innocent, he was flown to Albania and dumped on a back road without so much as an apology.

El-Masri's futile efforts at receiving justice in the U.S. are well-known, but the cables published this week by Wikileaks include revelations the U.S. also warned German authorities not to allow a local investigation into his kidnapping and abuse.

The nearest he's gotten to justice is an arrest warrant for 13 CIA agents issued by prosecutors in Spain, which they entered on forged passports.

Somehow WL are the bad guys?? There is no way covering that stuff up is helping anybody. Can you imagine being kidnapped and tortured for months because you had the same name as someone, then getting dumped on a road?

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by googe There is no way covering that stuff up is helping anybody. Can you imagine being kidnapped and tortured for months because you had the same name as someone, then getting dumped on a road? [/B]

Anonymity (by being in a position of authority, re: government) allows that authority to be abused. Transparency forces authority to abide by its citizens.

Also, bad INTELLIGENCE! BAD!

[Toma]

Originally posted by googe
What law has he broken exactly? The press publishes confidential stuff all the time. No one cried when the pentagon papers were published.

Seems like a case of shooting the messenger.

Legal analysis, including former espionage prosecutors, say he probably can't be charged with anything:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...1?pageNumber=2




You know who has been criminal though:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01...nd-the-el.html


Somehow WL are the bad guys?? There is no way covering that stuff up is helping anybody. Can you imagine being kidnapped and tortured for months because you had the same name as someone, then getting dumped on a road?

[mx73someday]

So you aren't allowed to ask someone about their childhood? I never made any personal attack, I merely asked a question.

[CUG]

Originally posted by mx73someday
So you aren't allowed to ask someone about their childhood? I never made any personal attack, I merely asked a question.

I wasn't offended at all dude. I hope you at least saw my response. I see the point you're getting at, it was just an.....odd example that commanded an even more odd response.


HiTempGuy, I tend to disagree with that statement. If the citizens they serve are ignorant of procedure and the larger picture of a situation, what purpose is there to enraging your public? A solution was affected. It's like a mechanic getting super technical about clearances in an engine rebuild with a soccer mom.

Originally posted by googe
What law has he broken exactly? The press publishes confidential stuff all the time. No one cried when the pentagon papers were published.

You know who has been criminal though:

Somehow WL are the bad guys?? There is no way covering that stuff up is helping anybody. Can you imagine being kidnapped and tortured for months because you had the same name as someone, then getting dumped on a road?

That type of stuff is why I'm not wholly against it either. That could have happened to any one of us.

[dawerks]

This is democracy. This is freedom.

People that are against Wikileaks, we love you too! Because in a democracy with REAL freedom, we will respect your right to voice your opinion.

No matter how ignorant or stupid it is. coughCUGcough

[Zephyr]

[5.0]

^
that's hilarious, can't blame him for saying what he feels!

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by dawerks
This is democracy. This is freedom.

People that are against Wikileaks, we love you too! Because in a democracy with REAL freedom, we will respect your right to voice your opinion.

No matter how ignorant or stupid it is. coughCUGcough

Yeah because it's such a wonderful idea to leak diplomatic messages! I mean we really need to know this information to be "free" and "democratic". So when can wikileaks leak information about our nuclear plants and our military hardware? I mean think of how FREE we will be then!

I swear I want to live in the fluffly idealized little world these people live in. The one where revealing all your information to parties which don't have your own best interests at heart results in you not getting bent over. Oh wait we don't live in that world and Amnesty international is already pissed at wikileaks for releasing the names of people who have been helping them in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh well let's support putting peoples lives in danger because information wants to be FREE!

[Freeskier]

Originally posted by CUG
I disagree that it's a straw man argument. Freeskier said governments should operate with transparency and "integrity". What appears misunderstood with that idea is that a government is charged with the task of preserving and securing the quality of life for its citizens, or in a lot of cases, themselves. Either way, this type of transparency (suggesting wikileaks is pure nobility) doesn't contribute to the well-being of... well, anyone.

Originally posted by mazdavirgin

Right so should we also publish all the capabilities of our military? Our analyzed vulnerabilities as a country? What about the names of informants who we have embedded in other countries? Maybe we should also publish all our documentation on how to assemble nuclear weapons or our ballistic missile technology? I mean information wants to be free right?!

No where did I say that a gov operating with accountability to it's citizens should reveal military secrets or be completely transparent in all of its operations. I dont think anyone believes that's possible...


But I do think there is a lot wrong with the way the states are run in the name of "national security" and a little bit of integrity and accountability could go a long way to fixing that.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Freeskier
No where did I say that a gov operating with accountability to it's citizens should reveal military secrets or be completely transparent in all of its operations. I dont think anyone believes that's possible...


But I do think there is a lot wrong with the way the states are run in the name of "national security" and a little bit of integrity and accountability could go a long way to fixing that.

While that might be true I am completely confused at how many people are cheering on the release of documents that are putting informants lives at risk. Transparency at the risk of destabilizing political relationships is asinine. Who is benefited by knowing that most Arab countries consider Iran to be a loose canon?

Who exactly is benefiting from the release of the name of Iranian informants? What about the names of all those Aghan informants who the Taliban has now sworn to kill? How exactly can you support an organization that is making it harder for our Canadian forces to gain intelligence about the Taliban?

I mean I am pretty sure there are quite a few people who are watching this all play out and not feeling so hot about talking to our government when their name might end up being plastered all over Wikileaks.

I would just like to highlight your friendly wikileaks anarchists belief.

Mr Assange insisted that any risk to informants' lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing the information.

[Freeskier]

Yeah, I agree with you as well.

I think we just need a decent balance (in all facets of society). I don't think the wikileaks releases are necessarily a good thing, especially not when they endanger the lives of people directly. But likewise I don't believe that governments should be able to operate in complete secrecy under the guise of national security. It's the same with that native thread that people are discussing. Obviously 250k is way too much...but does that mean we should give them nothing?? No, obviously that won't work. A happy medium is what we need. Enough transparency to keep the government in line, and enough secrecy to operate effectively.

[googe]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


While that might be true I am completely confused at how many people are cheering on the release of documents that are putting informants lives at risk. Transparency at the risk of destabilizing political relationships is asinine. Who is benefited by knowing that most Arab countries consider Iran to be a loose canon?

Who exactly is benefiting from the release of the name of Iranian informants? What about the names of all those Aghan informants who the Taliban has now sworn to kill? How exactly can you support an organization that is making it harder for our Canadian forces to gain intelligence about the Taliban?

I mean I am pretty sure there are quite a few people who are watching this all play out and not feeling so hot about talking to our government when their name might end up being plastered all over Wikileaks.

I would just like to highlight your friendly wikileaks anarchists belief.

This isn't happening, no one has been put at risk. Names of informants are redacted. If you have an example otherwise, please share. That was just rhetoric employed by the obviously pissed government. We are still waiting to find out what informants were hurt.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/2...-releases.html

We have already proven that people were hurt by not releasing this info though. So far, anyone worried about protecting people would have to agree that whistleblowing was the correct choice.

From CNN:

An initial comparison of a few documents redacted by WikiLeaks to the same documents released by the Department of Defense shows that WikiLeaks removed more information from the documents than the Pentagon.

CNN accessed the Department of Defense versions from the official U.S. Central Command website, where it posts items that have been released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Theoretical arguments about how it "could potentially" harm someone, when that has yet to happen versus actual cover-ups of real people being kidnapped, tortured, and dumped on a road, is just nonsensical.

[DayGlow]

You don't need a name of a source to put them at risk. If the leak is discussing sensitive information that only a few people have access/knowledge of at the time of the document is made it's easy to deduce where the info comes from.

[CUG]

Originally posted by Freeskier




No where did I say that a gov operating with accountability to it's citizens should reveal military secrets or be completely transparent in all of its operations. I dont think anyone believes that's possible...

Wtf? That's the only argument I've been making, and you've been trying to hack at it the whole time. So yes, you guys are saying we should reveal our secrets and operations. It's "transparency".

Again, welcome to reality gentlemen, it's not all "rainbows".

Googe, Freeskier, Dawerks, what's the basis of your arguments here? Are you guys arguing from the basis of the fallacy that we're oppressing the whole world?