WikiLeaks largest classified military leak

[anitram]

Originally Posted by adam4bono

The damage caused by this specific crime pales in comparison to the damage caused to the nation by exposing it.

Only to somebody like you who apparently ascribes zero importance to the rule of law and the concept that the rule of law should extend equally to us and those who would rule us.

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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,

I never said that breaking the law was ok, just that in this case, the harm done in reporting the crime turned out to be greater than harm from the crime itself.

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

A President got caught engaged in minor criminal activity. If it had went unnoticed as it so often has throughout this nations history, nothing terrible would of happened given the nature of the crime. 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.

The whole Clinton impeachment exercise was another waste of time as well. Better for the country if no one had found out any details about that either.

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by BVS

I have a hard believing anyone truly believes this...

Isn't this place called "Free Your Mind"? Yes, its a minority or alternative view vs. what would be considered mainstream.

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by mobvok

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.

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?

A truly authoritarian mindset.

Whats authoritarian about simply making an assessment about the harm caused by two different actions? Is it impossible that the exposure of a minor criminal offense could be more harmful than the minor criminal offense itself?

Yes, I was already aware of that distinction.

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.

[mama cass]

this one belongs in Interference!

WikiLeaks cable reveals Berlusconi's efforts to duck Bono tongue-lashing
Italian prime minister considered increasing budget for foreign assistance just to avoid losing face to U2 frontman

Amelia Hill
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 December 2010 21.30 GMT

A WikiLeaks cable reveals how Silvio Berlusconi, seen here at a press conference for the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, decided to maintain levels of aid to Africa to avoid a showdown with Bono. Photograph: Pier Paolo Cito/AP

Silvio Berlusconi considered increasing Italy's foreign aid budget during the country's 2009 G8 presidency to avoid a "tongue-lashing" from Irish rock hero Bono, according to a confidential US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.

In the leaked memo, William Meara, the economic adviser at the American embassy in Rome, reports that despite budget cuts and "with its 2009 G8 presidency looming", the newly installed, centre-right government "may decide to maintain funding levels [to Africa] simply to avoid an embarrassing tongue-lashing from Bono et al".

The relationship between the two men had been publicly strained since 2006, when Bono accused Berlusconi of "exploiting" his image in the runup to the country's elections.

The U2 frontman had appeared in a brochure sent to Italian homes in which it was claimed that Bono, who has long worked to eradicate world poverty, was "grateful" for Italy's actions to help the world's poor.

In an open letter, Bono said he felt a "bit exploited" by the claim. He pointed out that Italy would have to more than double its aid by 2010 to meet a personal commitment Berlusconi had made to the singer to cancel the debts of poor countries to Italy.

The confidential 2008 cable reveals how badly Berlusconi wanted to avoid losing face. It details a meeting between Meara and Fabrizio Nava, director of the office of sub-Saharan Africa assistance for the Italian government.

It reveals that after Meara "brought up criticism voiced by NGOs such as Bono's Debt AIDS Trade Africa and Action Aid Italy that Italy's aid apparatus is out-of-date and overly focused on infrastructure projects", Nava said he expected African assistance would be a focus during Italy's G8 presidency.

He promised Meara that Berlusconi had decided to maintain African assistance levels – even increasing the budget allocation for foreign assistance slightly, to €4.1bn, or 0.27% of GDP. Between €140-200m went to Africa for bilateral and multilateral humanitarian assistance.

As it turned out, Berlusconi's later attempts to avoid a further high-profile and embarrassing confrontation with the singer, as revealed in the leaked memo, were doomed.

In 2009, the year in which it hosted a G8 summit in the earthquake-hit city of L'Aquila, Italy's overseas development aid to sub-Saharan Africa fell by €238m.

The shortfall caused Bono and Bob Geldof to launch an irreverent online game last June in which a cartoon character of Berlusconi is hurled into the air by a hammer thrower. "We all love a bit of fun," the site explains. "But there's a serious point to the game – since promising to increase aid to Africa in 2005 PM Berlusconi has actually cut it.

"One man alone has done nothing. In fact Berlusconi is doing even less now than he was five years ago. Mr Berlusconi should be thrown out by the G8," it added.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by adam4bono

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?

once again... that is completely irrelevant...

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by anitram

Only to somebody like you who apparently ascribes zero importance to the rule of law and the concept that the rule of law should extend equally to us and those who would rule us.

I'm only making an assessment about the harm caused by each event in this specific case. I think it would have been better for the country if no one had found out about watergate. I feel the same way about the Clinton thing as well. I don't know where you get the idea that I ascribe zero importance to the rule of law?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by adam4bono

Isn't this place called "Free Your Mind"? Yes, its a minority or alternative view vs. what would be considered mainstream.

Yes and there are still those that believe the world is flat... and when they come in and express that belief I'll tell them the same thing.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by adam4bono

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?

Depends on what kind of records they were. If they were records of somebody doing something horrific, then I think the public should know that information.

But besides that, there's a wee bit of a difference between posting information about one's personal life and posting information about unethical, if not outright illegal political actions that have a drastic effect on all involved.

And yes, this place is called "Free Your Mind". You're entitled to share any viewpoint you wish. But you also should be prepared that some will find it incredulous or call you out on it, too. Such is life.

Angela

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by mama cass

once again... that is completely irrelevant...

It involves information, that is private. How is it irrelevant? Why would it be ok to expose sensitive national security information about the United States, but not ok to expose an individuals private information? In the first case, hundreds maybe thousands of lives could be impacted, in the second case your only talking about one person potentially being impacted by the exposure.

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by BVS

Yes and there are still those that believe the world is flat... and when they come in and express that belief I'll tell them the same thing.

Really? Can you provide a link?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by adam4bono

Really? Can you provide a link?

Sure

An Error Has Occurred!

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by adam4bono

It involves information, that is private. How is it irrelevant? Why would it be ok to expose sensitive national security information about the United States, but not ok to expose an individuals private information? In the first case, hundreds maybe thousands of lives could be impacted, in the second case your only talking about one person potentially being impacted by the exposure.

irrelevant because it is of no interest to others whatsoever??

facebook is bad enough...

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Depends on what kind of records they were. If they were records of somebody doing something horrific, then I think the public should know that information.

But besides that, there's a wee bit of a difference between posting information about one's personal life and posting information about unethical, if not outright illegal political actions that have a drastic effect on all involved.

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?

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.

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by mama cass

irrelevant because it is of no interest to others whatsoever??

facebook is bad enough...

Well, then why is it "private"?

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by BVS

Sure

An Error Has Occurred!

I'm waiting. Looking for a post by someone in this forum, as you claimed above.

[mama cass]

well, here's the latest on the allegations against Assange... messy really...

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]

Originally Posted by adam4bono

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

[BVS]

Originally Posted by adam4bono

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.

[yolland]

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.