WikiLeaks largest classified military leak - Page 26 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-17-2010, 06:08 PM   #376
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I'm waiting. Looking for a post by someone in this forum, as you claimed above.
__________________

__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 06:08 PM   #377
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,247
Local Time: 03:21 PM
well, here's the latest on the allegations against Assange... messy really...

Quote:
10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange
Unseen police documents provide the first complete account of the allegations against the WikiLeaks founder
10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange | Media | The Guardian
__________________

__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 06:14 PM   #378
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,247
Local Time: 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
Well, then why is it "private"?
we were talking about private information about ourselves and our families weren't we - you keep saying it's the same thing as the classified information, but i say your comparison is irrelevant, because our own private information is of no interest, or possibly value, to anyone but ourselves, unlike classified information...

your jedi mind tricks won't work on me
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 06:14 PM   #379
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 38,312
Local Time: 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
I'm waiting. Looking for a post by someone in this forum, as you claimed above.
Um, you might want to read my post again...

Now I'm understanding why you're not getting some of this.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 06:14 PM   #380
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 03:21 PM
Quote:
WikiLeaks cable reveals Berlusconi's efforts to duck Bono tongue-lashing
Cute story, but what grave secret injustice did the righteous whistleblowers expose by leaking this cable? Or the mildly interesting but politically irrelevant tidbit that the Dalai Lama, a man with zero influence over emissions policy, reckons global warming a more urgent cause than Tibetan autonomy? Or the wholly unsurprising gossip that Rahul Gandhi considers Hindu extremists (a key base for his party's major opposition, not incidentally) a more serious threat to his country than Muslim extremists? ...etc.

Again, I support real whistleblowing, civil disobedience for point-specific moral ends. But if the Geneva Conventions (not just US law) regarding diplomatic relations are to be subverted this extensively, I expect convincing ethical justifications for every step, not hackneyed pseudophilosophical bullshit about 'throttling total conspiratorial power' as some one-size-fits-all justification for appointing oneself the arbiter of transparency.

It is also possible to find the DoJ's casting about for charges against Assange dangerous, and the circumstances of Bradley Manning's detention indefensible, without supporting WikiLeaks' indiscriminate behavior and Assange's juvenile 'manifesto' in support of it.


* ETA - that should read Vienna Conventions not Geneva Conventions, my bad.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 06:20 PM   #381
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,247
Local Time: 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Cute story, but what grave secret injustice did the righteous whistleblowers expose by leaking this cable? Or the mildly interesting but politically irrelevant tidbit that the Dalai Lama, a man with zero influence over emissions policy, reckons global warming a more urgent cause than Tibetan autonomy? Or the wholly unsurprising gossip that Rahul Gandhi considers Hindu extremists (a key base for his party's major opposition, not incidentally) a more serious threat to his country than Muslim extremists? ...etc.

Again, I support real whistleblowing, civil disobedience for point-specific moral ends. But if the Geneva Conventions (not just US law) regarding diplomatic relations are to be subverted this extensively, I expect convincing ethical justifications for every step, not hackneyed pseudophilosophical bullshit about 'throttling total conspiratorial power' as some one-size-fits-all justification for appointing oneself the arbiter of transparency.

It is also possible to find the DoJ's casting about for charges against Assange dangerous, and the circumstances of Bradley Manning's detention indefensible, without supporting WikiLeaks' indiscriminate behavior and Assange's juvenile 'manifesto' in support of it.
yep, there is also a fair bit of crap and drudgery being released, i have to agree...

and like i've said before, much of the info isn't surprising... there's an awful lot of stuff we've been aware of already... but it does confirm some things i guess...

but maybe in this case, they just wanted to show Berlusconi up a bit, i don't know...
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 06:22 PM   #382
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 18,695
Local Time: 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
So Wikileaks only published information about "unethical and outright illegal political actions"? Is something unethical or illegal if Wikileaks claims it to be? What about the impact to the US military, US State department, citizens performing dangerous work for the US government? How could it be right to take that information and expose it to terrorist involved in mass murder of people around the world?
No, they posted other stuff beyond that, too, and certainly there is merit in debating whether or not everything that was posted deserved to be shared (did I really need to know what such and such world leader personally thought of another world leader?).

But there has been stuff that's been posted that could prove to be beneficial to us, that would help us instead of hurt us, and stuff that could soon be posted that we should know about. If, for instance, we get more information about all the crap involved in pushing for the Iraq War, I'd consider that very beneficial, we deserve to know just how much BS got shoveled at us to allow that war to go on. Not knowing that kind of information has put many people's lives in danger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
The Taliban and Al Quada benefit the most from the dumping of hundreds of thousands of private, classified information. The United States keeps certain information classified for a reason. The most important being keeping it out of the hands of people who intend to do the country and its citizens harm. Wikileaks just helped to make that information available to such people.
Actually, not necessarily. We're getting proof, for instance, that not everyone in the Middle East is behind what some of the crazy leaders/groups are supporting (countries going nuclear, attacks against us and other nations, etc.). That can potentially weaken the power of the terrorists, once they know that all their claims have been proven to be total lies, and can benefit us, because now we see more potential allies in our midst, who might be able to help us in whatever crap is going on over there.

And the Taliban and al-Qaeda are a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. If WikiLeaks didn't expose the information, they'd have likely found out about at least some of it in some other way. You don't think they keep tabs on our moves already? You honestly think they're naive enough to not know what we've been doing or will do? That's how you work in a war, you try and figure out the other side's secrets and try and stay one step ahead of them.

And once again, while some of the blame does indeed rest on the shoulders of those who exposed sensitive information, the government also deserves blame, too, for letting this information that's supposedly so sacred get out there so easily. There's some definite incompetence on the part of our government, as well as the governments of other countries, for not keeping tighter locks on this information. We're living in a technological age where pretty much ANYTHING out there is up for exposure, so for people to be so shocked that something like this would happen eventually strikes me kind of funny. It was only a matter of time, people.

I don't disagree that there is indeed information that should be kept secret for protection of the people and situations involved (as well as because it's simply not all that newsworthy). But there is also a time when you need to expose things, too. I guess if anything good has come from this it's that now we're being forced to figure out just where that line should fall.

Oh, and that story about Berlusconi and Bono is funny and sad at the same time. Yes, that's the only reason you should give aid, to avoid being berated by a rock musician. Not simply out of the goodness of your heart, no. Shouldn't be that surprising, though, based on what I've heard about Berlusconi, a lot of people think he's a creep anyway, so...

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 06:33 PM   #383
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,338
Local Time: 10:21 AM
Quote:
The damage caused by this specific crime pales in comparison to the damage caused to the nation by exposing it.
I'm confused as to what damage was done by the Watergate exposure, besides Richard Nixons credibility and image...
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 08:12 PM   #384
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,427
Local Time: 07:21 AM
Quote:
Ahhhh, so that makes it ok for Wikileaks to publish sensitive information effecting the national security of the United States?

If I got all the private records about you and your family from someone else, would that make it ok for me to publish it online?
Blah blah blah. There are three words I'm interested in from your original claim:

Quote:
Quote:
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.
Who "stole" it? Well, Bradley Manning leaked it based on first-hand exposure to authentic US documents showing what he believed to be wrongdoing and state abuses. That's a basically accepted whistleblowing concept, based on ACTUAL information, not "mere presumption".

Others can (and have, in this very thread) objected to the alternately trivial or potentially damaging nature of some of these releases, but that's a specific complaint more about the "public interest" judgement of newspapers writing stories and Wikileaks, than Manning's role.

Quote:
Well, its an important distinction you failed to mention. Otherwise, people assume that all 2.5 million people have access to anything that is classified, and that is far from being the case.
Quote:
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.)
It was that obvious to literate adults. The general level of information Manning leaked is apparently around the classified/secret level, meaning we can reliably peg a range of 1-2.5 million people who could have seen some of these documents.

And the point of the problem with post 9/11 information pooling is that the US tried to make it so all those 2.5 million people COULD see it.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 12:11 PM   #385
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama cass View Post
because our own private information is of no interest, or possibly value, to anyone but ourselves, unlike classified information...
Obviously, private, classified information related to US national security is far more important, and should definitely remain private and classified and not exposed.

I don't think and individuals private information should be exposed either, but exposing such information would indeed be the lesser evil in this case.

Also, if and individuals own private information were of no interest or value to anyone, there would be no reason to keep it private!
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 12:14 PM   #386
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Um, you might want to read my post again...

Now I'm understanding why you're not getting some of this.
You claimed there were people in THIS forum who had posted that the earth was flat. I simply asked for you to link to it. That means I'm looking for a link in THIS forum, not some other website that does not involve this forum. If someone in this forum had a conversation in a prior thread, in which they stated the earth was flat, provide the link. Understand?
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 12:40 PM   #387
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Blah blah blah. There are three words I'm interested in from your original claim:



Who "stole" it? Well, Bradley Manning leaked it based on first-hand exposure to authentic US documents showing what he believed to be wrongdoing and state abuses. That's a basically accepted whistleblowing concept, based on ACTUAL information, not "mere presumption".

.
Well, I seriously doubt your hero looked at all 250,000 documents before he copied them illegally. Its not up to Bradley Manning to determine what US national security information can be made available to the public.

The fact that he was the initial person who "stole it" is irrelevant. Wikileaks has no right to publish the information. Its private classified information.

With your logic, if Bradley Manning had stolen the launch codes for ICBM's in North Dakota, it would be ok for Wikileaks to publish them. After all as you say, wikileaks did not steal the launch codes, Bradley Manning did.

Quote:
It was that obvious to literate adults. The general level of information Manning leaked is apparently around the classified/secret level, meaning we can reliably peg a range of 1-2.5 million people who could have seen some of these documents.

And the point of the problem with post 9/11 information pooling is that the US tried to make it so all those 2.5 million people COULD see it.
Once again, there is not one level of access to classified material. The fact that Bradley Manning successfully accessed and copied over 250,000 documents does not mean his security clearence was originally designed to allow him to view all such documents. There are technical problems with the system which may have allowed this.

Yes, there are 2.5 million people who have some access to classified material. But there are several dozen levels of security clearances.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 12:44 PM   #388
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,247
Local Time: 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
Obviously, private, classified information related to US national security is far more important, and should definitely remain private and classified and not exposed.

I don't think and individuals private information should be exposed either, but exposing such information would indeed be the lesser evil in this case.

Also, if and individuals own private information were of no interest or value to anyone, there would be no reason to keep it private!
oh dear...

i'm afraid i have to bow out of this funny little conversation adam4bono...
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 12:47 PM   #389
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
I'm confused as to what damage was done by the Watergate exposure, besides Richard Nixons credibility and image...
Quote:
Breaking into the democratic party offices is one thing (during an election in which the President was going to win in a massive landslide anyways), removing an elected leader of a vital country during times of crises in South East Asia and the rest of the world is indeed another.
Its interesting to note that the North Vietnames after Linebacker II in December 1972 never launched another major offensive against South Vietnam until Nixon had left(been removed essentially) office.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 12:50 PM   #390
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama cass View Post
oh dear...

i'm afraid i have to bow out of this funny little conversation adam4bono...
Well, before you do that, why don't you post all your private information about yourself in this thread. After all, since no one cares about it, you don't have anything to worry about, right?
__________________

__________________
adam4bono 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 09:21 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