WikiLeaks largest classified military leak - Page 24 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-17-2010, 01:13 AM   #346
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North Shore City
Posts: 41,227
Local Time: 07:11 PM
you had to expect that answer, diemen.
__________________

__________________
coolian2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 01:16 AM   #347
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
Your question to me was irrelevant. First, it's not on me to confirm anything or not, second you ignore the context. My statement was, for the third time, that the accusation of wikileaks, and Assange more specifically, have no regard for the lives of people is false due to the fact that they are taking steps to prevent potentially dangerous information from being released. If indeed it happens that these steps prove not sufficient, then that is certainly of relevance, and would be reason for wikileaks, as well as the media involved, to overthink their policies of publication.
The issue of whether or not any life has been endangered is certainly far more relevant than defending wikileaks on whether they have attempted to take any so called precautions to prevent someone from being injured. How would you like it if wikileaks published any and all private information about you, your family, friends etc?

Publishing classified US military information is at best helping the Taliban and Al Quada, so why do it?
__________________

__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 01:23 AM   #348
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
the united states should be funding those wars. they were entirely bush administration led.
The operation in Afghanistan has been a NATO operation since it started.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 01:28 AM   #349
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
3.4 million US Citizens had access to this material, it's hardly super top secret. If anyone had wanted to get access to it really badly, they'd have been able to find someone unscrupulous enough to give them it. In fact I'd imagine most of other countries intelligence forces already knew everything that's been posted. If anything the main crux of this whole story, is the complete and utter lack of information security in the US federal and military communication.

If Wikileaks point was to put the US military in danger then I doubt they'd have redacted as much has they have.
I doubt that many people had access to even minimally classified material. I don't think anyone ever said that it was super top secret, but the fact that there are people working for the US government in foreign countries that may now be exposed, or that the location of certain US instilations or movements or procedures in transporting people, supplies, etc has now been made available to the Taliban and Al Quada is not a laughing matter.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 02:47 AM   #350
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,427
Local Time: 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
I doubt that many people had access to even minimally classified material. I don't think anyone ever said that it was super top secret, but the fact that there are people working for the US government in foreign countries that may now be exposed, or that the location of certain US instilations or movements or procedures in transporting people, supplies, etc has now been made available to the Taliban and Al Quada is not a laughing matter.
Although the US hasn't yet started officially keeping track, FAS thinks there were around 2.5 million people with security clearances for confidential material as of 2009. It's not 3.4 million, but does that really help anyone sleep easier at night?

From the recent Washington Post series Top Secret America, we know that an estimated 854,000 people have top secret clearances. (The articles mention that's 1.5 times the population of Washington D.C.)

Graph time:



Wiki-sourced, so there's some wiggle room on the numbers, but 31% is an awful large unknown. Probably the crew of our secret moon base/Stargate program.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 03:11 AM   #351
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,262
Local Time: 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
It's more about the ongoing misrepresentation in the media of the accusers' claims, and being dismissive of the women making the claims. Maybe that's not the type of thing that adam4bono was talking about, but it's what sprung to my mind because I had just read about it.

Here's a link to a site discussing it, with a link to also watch the video of Moore on Assange.

Michael Moore Calls Assange Rape Case "Hooey"

On Moore's website, he says: "Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." "

Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange | MichaelMoore.com

So ... what? Never, ever believe the women who are accusing Assange of rape? Great.

I don't know if Assange is guilty. But there's no need to belittle the women making the accusations or be dismissive of them. But I suppose the topic of rape culture and rape apologists is an entirely different topic for an entirely different thread.

Anyway. I know most people in here are more interested in talking about WikiLeaks rather than the accusations, so I'll shut up. (For now. )
cori, from what i've seen in the Brit press - i will read MM's comments later (i'm meant to be working right now), although i hear he offered to stand surety for Assange's bail this week - i don't think the general view is about being dismissive of rape victims' claims as that would be unethical and irresponsible, but think people are concerned about the "honeytrap" side of things and the lack of evidence provided in this particular case; it is claimed that if he is extradited to Sweden to be interviewed re. these allegations, he will then be in a jurisdiction where it will be easier for him to be extradited to the US if indictment charges are brought... which is basically why some think it is a stitch-up...
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 06:32 AM   #352
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,460
Local Time: 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
The issue of whether or not any life has been endangered is certainly far more relevant than defending wikileaks on whether they have attempted to take any so called precautions to prevent someone from being injured. How would you like it if wikileaks published any and all private information about you, your family, friends etc?

Publishing classified US military information is at best helping the Taliban and Al Quada, so why do it?
Your attempts at making it more compelling because making it more personal seem to get more desperate. Wikileaks is not publishing that kind of info at all, so what's the point?

This "aiding the enemy" argument often times is all too easily applied to keep everything secret. Like the article about the Espionage Act already pointed out, governments know that any war is brutal and best kept from the public eye, because support may quickly fade if people started to see the side-effects of any war.
The cables concerning the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq are no more recent than 2007, and containing information that does not help the Taliban nor al Quaeda to gain any valuable insights they haven't already had before.
On the other hand, a military that's kept under some amount of public scrutiny finds it less easy to commit war crimes or to go dirty.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 07:08 AM   #353
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Flyover country
Posts: 12,793
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
Definitely.
Wow.
__________________
My business! | My hobby!
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 11:36 AM   #354
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
Your attempts at making it more compelling because making it more personal seem to get more desperate. Wikileaks is not publishing that kind of info at all, so what's the point?
1. The Principle is the same.

2. National Security information is vastly more important and sensitive in the grand scheme of things than your private information. Although I don't think it would be right, I would not loose any sleep if Assange published your private information online.


Quote:
This "aiding the enemy" argument often times is all too easily applied to keep everything secret. Like the article about the Espionage Act already pointed out, governments know that any war is brutal and best kept from the public eye, because support may quickly fade if people started to see the side-effects of any war.
You think its right to steal sensitive, private, classified information about a war, based on the mere presumption of "war crimes"?

There are logical reasons why the US military keeps certain information private, classified. Its for the security of the people who are serving, friends and allies, and the security of the nation. Wikileaks has no right to expose something that involves the security of the citizens of the United States.

Quote:
The cables concerning the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq are no more recent than 2007, and containing information that does not help the Taliban nor al Quaeda to gain any valuable insights they haven't already had before.
On the other hand, a military that's kept under some amount of public scrutiny finds it less easy to commit war crimes or to go dirty
It wouldn't matter if it was information from before both wars started. It is classified and private. If the information is already available to the public at large why is Wikileaks releasing the information? The United States Military and United States State Department do not consider the leaks to be harmless as you claim.

Wikileaks are not experts in warfare and national security and are unlikely to have the ability to accurately determine what the Taliban and Al Quada could learn from such leaks in every case. That is why the information needs to remain classified. Safety and security first. Save the journalism porn for another topic that does not involve security and peoples lives.

The only war crime here if any is the potential aid that is being brought to terrorist organizations. The information is private, classified and wikileaks has no right to make it available to terrorist seeking to murder members of the military forces of the coalition, civilians members, and innocent women and children.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 11:40 AM   #355
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Wow.
The damage caused by this specific crime pales in comparison to the damage caused to the nation by exposing it.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 11:45 AM   #356
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Although the US hasn't yet started officially keeping track, FAS thinks there were around 2.5 million people with security clearances for confidential material as of 2009. It's not 3.4 million, but does that really help anyone sleep easier at night?

From the recent Washington Post series Top Secret America, we know that an estimated 854,000 people have top secret clearances. (The articles mention that's 1.5 times the population of Washington D.C.)

Graph time:



Wiki-sourced, so there's some wiggle room on the numbers, but 31% is an awful large unknown. Probably the crew of our secret moon base/Stargate program.
You have to realize that everyone that has access to classified information does not have equal access or the same access as everyone else. There are different levels of security clearance. At least that is how it is supposed to work. The more sensitive the information, the smaller the number of people who have access to it.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 11:55 AM   #357
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Flyover country
Posts: 12,793
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
The damage caused by this specific crime pales in comparison to the damage caused to the nation by exposing it.
I could not disagree more. Letting corrupt politicians believe that as long as they keep things secret they are immune from the law of the land is an incredibly dangerous idea, and our country was and is far better off having suffered whatever momentary loss of status it suffered in exchange for not completely abandoning the core principle that those who govern are expected to do so legally and must be held to account when they don't.
__________________
My business! | My hobby!
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 12:28 PM   #358
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,262
Local Time: 07:11 AM
here's a Newsnight interview with Julian Assange after being granted bail last night:

YouTube - Newsnight Interview of Julian Assange After Bail Dec 16th 2010
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 12:31 PM   #359
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 38,377
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
The damage caused by this specific crime pales in comparison to the damage caused to the nation by exposing it.
I have a hard believing anyone truly believes this...
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 02:27 PM   #360
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,427
Local Time: 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
You think its right to steal sensitive, private, classified information about a war, based on the mere presumption of "war crimes"?
You appear to be unfamiliar with the details and motivations of the various actors in this whole case. Bradley Manning is not a Wikileaks employee.

Quote:
The damage caused by this specific crime [Watergate] pales in comparison to the damage caused to the nation by exposing it.
A truly authoritarian mindset.

Quote:
You have to realize that everyone that has access to classified information does not have equal access or the same access as everyone else. There are different levels of security clearance. At least that is how it is supposed to work. The more sensitive the information, the smaller the number of people who have access to it.
Yes, I was already aware of that distinction.
__________________

__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com