WikiLeaks largest classified military leak

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
this one belongs in Interference! :D

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.
 
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?
 
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. :shrug:
 
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
 
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.
 
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... ;)
 
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.
 
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 :D
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
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.

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
 
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...
 
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:

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.

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.

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.
 
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!
 
Um, you might want to read my post again...:huh:

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?
 
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.

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.
 
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... :D
 
I'm confused as to what damage was done by the Watergate exposure, besides Richard Nixons credibility and image...

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.
 
oh dear...

i'm afraid i have to bow out of this funny little conversation adam4bono... :D

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?:wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom