The Wiki Leaks

Westside Steve · November 29, 2010

So I'm curious.

For those who championed the "whistle blowers" as defenders of our "right to know" when they were damaging the US war effort under the Bush administration...

Where would you put these guys on the scale between hero and traitor?

WSS

DieHardBrownsFan · November 29, 2010

I hope the private who downloaded all this stuff spends the rest of his life in prison. The jerk in charge of Wiki should be prosecuted also. And, the people who let a private have access to information without a need to know should all be court martialedk/prosecuted.

VaporTrail · November 29, 2010

Wikileaks is fine by me. How can THEY be in the wrong? They're not the ones leaking the information, they're a safe haven for anyone, private, governmental, or military to report shit that isn't right.

Is this going to damage our image on the world stage? Probably. Maybe our dealings shouldn't be so shady. They're putting backroom politics and business on our front page. I can't fault them for that.

And if this does actually make us less safe, then can we really blame wikileaks? All they're doing is showing the actions our government won't admit to. If something our government said in secret makes you and I unsafe, so be it. Take responsibility for your actions. I don't feel that ignorance is bliss. I'd prefer to know.

Westside Steve · November 29, 2010

Wikileaks is fine by me. How can THEY be in the wrong? They're not the ones leaking the information, they're a safe haven for anyone, private, governmental, or military to report shit that isn't right.

Is this going to damage our image on the world stage? Probably. Maybe our dealings shouldn't be so shady. They're putting backroom politics and business on our front page. I can't fault them for that.

And if this does actually make us less safe, then can we really blame wikileaks? All they're doing is showing the actions our government won't admit to. If something our government said in secret makes you and I unsafe, so be it. Take responsibility for your actions. I don't feel that ignorance is bliss. I'd prefer to know.

So you'd be OK with disclosing any military or governmental secrets?

Why or why not?

WSS

VaporTrail · November 29, 2010

Tricky question, but I'll try.

Leaking military technology secrets is a no-no. I see it differently than what else is being leaked, which are actions our military and government are responsible for. I'd prefer transparency for the latter. If we're getting into shit that's pissing other world powers off, then maybe our nose shouldn't be in that shit. If it is in that shit, and this shit does make us unsafe, then the government should be doing a better job of protecting this secret.

What scares me the most, though, is that some people are trying to label wikileaks as a terrorist organization. All they're doing is making the public aware of the truth. If they get labeled as terrorists for exposing the truth, then THAT government is far more frightening than the enemies they claim are endangering them.

Mr. T · November 29, 2010

Hells Bells! If we can make enough americans pissed off then we can have another knee jerk reaction and start censorship!

<H3 style="COLOR: #900; CLEAR: left; FONT-SIZE: 28px">Stop the Internet Blacklist!</H3>Just the other day, President Obama urged other countries to stop censoring the Internet. But now the United States Congress is trying to censor the Internet here at home. A new bill being debated this week would have the Attorney General create an Internet blacklist of sites that US Internet providers would be required to block. (The first vote is scheduled Thursday, November 18!)

This is the kind of heavy-handed censorship you'd expect from a dictatorship, where one man can decide what web sites you're not allowed to visit. But the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to pass the bill quickly -- and Senators say they haven't heard much in the way of objections! That's why we need you to sign our urgent petition to Congress demanding they oppose the Internet blacklist.

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/?source=fb

dogma · November 29, 2010

I've never been a fan of grandstanding the release of government information. I remember the Pentagon papers causing a reaction, but those days were different and that war was completely bogus.

I disagreed with entering Iraq and to be honest I'll admit I'm partisan against conservatives and the release about anything involving that war would be more OK with me back then when that administration was in office, since it's really their war. But even if that would have been the case it would have bothered me for a couple of reasons. The illegal things revealed and the fact that someone can apparently easily do so.

I think any illegal action makes the country look bad, regardless of who the administration is, and it's worse when it seems we have no security to keep this information in house.

heckofajobbrownie · November 29, 2010

I don't think there's too much in there that we already didn't know, or at least suspect. And I really don't see how this compares to releasing the evidence of possible/probable/certain illegal conduct on the part of the administration, so it's two different things. If they were exposing something like that, I'm all for it.

But they're not. Personally, I love knowing what goes on behind the scenes and the closed doors. But the problem with the Wikileaks is that it's more along the lines of gossip. They're not revealing anything important to the public. They're not ferreting out wrongdoing. They're just saying, "Hey, we have access to all these private conversations between important people. Wanna hear them?" It's not what journalism is. It's what Gawker is.

Also, governments and diplomats need to be able to assure the people that they're talking to that their conversations will be kept private, and this will call that privacy into question. And that's what we're going to be apologizing for over the next few weeks - not for anything that was revealed in the leaks. Most of that we already knew.

Two unlike things, my man. Two unlike things.

And by the way, you have to start seeing how the Bush administration damaged the war effort with some of their policy decisions. The fact that those policy decisions were made public, like with the Abu Ghraib pictures or the accounts of prisoner abuse/torture in other areas, or with the incompetence of the war effort and the occupation, doesn't shift the blame for those decisions on to the people who discovered them, or the people who tried to stop the administration from shooting themselves in the foot.

But on with your unending quest to seek out liberal hypocrisy, even where it doesn't exist.

VaporTrail · November 30, 2010

But the difference now is that a bunch of these things are confirmed, and not suspected, and that can change the political landscape (maybe?).

I read that there was a bunch of warmongering going on by our allies, the foremost example I can think of is the Saudis urging us to bomb Iran while publicly calling for negotiations.

calfoxwc · November 30, 2010

There are thousands of pages. Heck, it's silly to state that we already know all that stuff.

The IDEA, is that bits and pieces of not highly classified information can easily add up

to information that can be very, very important.

But, sometimes I wonder how many billions of docs have been classified because

Captain soandso left his flying orders on the mailroom counter for twenty seconds as he forgot

and went out the door...

A secret bit of info is, for example, the maintenance schedule on the B-52 engines.

Seems to be silly. But add stuff up, and serious conclusions could be made by the enemy.

Or rate of failure of bearings in a tank's drive mechanism. Add it up, and it can give the enemy

very, very important intel.

The Wikileaks crap seems to be released to alienate our country from other countries, in terms of

trust, and to damage working relationships, and diplomacy.

heckofajobbrownie · November 30, 2010

I actually agree with that a bit, Cal. I can't see what other purpose these leaks have than to make it harder for us to do our jobs, or to cause embarrassment. There's no grand purpose here. There's very little public benefit that I can see. It's more like a brand of voyeurism.

Take another of the leaks from before - the footage taken from the Apache helicopter in Iraq, where we ended up killing and wounding a bunch of innocent people. That's the type of stuff I think there's a benefit to showing to the public because it's something they'll never see otherwise. It adds to the debate about what we're doing there, and what the costs are. There's a purpose.

I don't see that kind of importance in this week's leaks.

calfoxwc · November 30, 2010

And the killing of innocent people... that is food for propaganda by the terrorists...

but it is genuine, and I didn't mind that being released at all.

I have -heard-... that nearly 100 Afghanis, who have cooperated with American forces... were named in the recent leaks...

that should pretty much guarantee their murders by terrorists...

and put a gigantic block on further cooperation.

That's very destructive. That's a lot of innocents who will now have their families' lives in jeapardy. Not good at all.

Paxton · November 30, 2010

Death to WikiLeaks!

VaporTrail · November 30, 2010

I actually agree with that a bit, Cal. I can't see what other purpose these leaks have than to make it harder for us to do our jobs, or to cause embarrassment. There's no grand purpose here. There's very little public benefit that I can see. It's more like a brand of voyeurism.

Take another of the leaks from before - the footage taken from the Apache helicopter in Iraq, where we ended up killing and wounding a bunch of innocent people. That's the type of stuff I think there's a benefit to showing to the public because it's something they'll never see otherwise. It adds to the debate about what we're doing there, and what the costs are. There's a purpose.

I don't see that kind of importance in this week's leaks.

When that video was looked at again, one of the guys that the camera crew was hanging out with had an RPG-7

The pilots were in the right. How are they supposed to know that the people rescuing them aren't insurgents? They couldn't tell there were kids in the car.

And cal, as for calling the Afghanis that are cooperating with us innocent. Sure, to us they're harmless, even friends. But just remember, we are the enemy of the Taliban, and they are the enemy to us. If someone here was found to be cooperating with bin Laden, innocent would be the last word we'd use to describe him. The people that did this were aware of the risks and are just as much to blame as our government and the Taliban for whatever backlash comes of this.

heckofajobbrownie · November 30, 2010

The point of the film wasn't whether the pilots had authority to shoot. It's what inevitably happens when you fight a war like that - lots of innocent people get killed. Thousands of them, in fact. And what that means.

heckofajobbrownie · December 1, 2010

We already know the answer to this, Cal, but I would ask you: if the Wikileaks revelations bother you "in terms of trust, and to damage working relationships, and diplomacy" then why didn't it bother you when members of the Bush administration outed a covert CIA agent, which damaged trust, working relationships, and affected current intelligence work related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs?

Why was one bad and the other fine? Shouldn't they have both been kept under wraps?

calfoxwc · December 1, 2010

1. Richard Armitage finally admitted that HE "outed" Plame.

2. You are cowardly changing the subject again. If you want to talk about Plame and Wilson,

get up the courage to START YOUR OWN THREAD on the subject, and STOP HIJACKING

OTHER POSTERS' THREAD.

3. Richard Amitage stayed quiet during the election. Did you know he had been a member of

the Clinton admin? Really? As it is, a former member of the CLINTON admin, did the "outing"

while in the Bush admin. But, let the political damage be done until it ran it's course. Then,

he admitted he did the outing. It was to discredit the Bush admin, much to the Clinton lefts' delight.

4. Start your OWN THREAD, coward, and reply to this post.

5. http://old.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200507181123.asp

calfoxwc · December 1, 2010

Oh, and while you are terrified and don't have the nads to START YOUR OWN FREAKIN THREAD,

... Wilson went to Niger, at the repeated maneuvering to get him permission and clearance, to

come back and discredit the Bush admin.

That's plain and simple. And Armitage, having been a member of the CLINTON admin, intentionally

let the fur fly against Bush and Cheney, all that time... while it was HE who "outed" Plame.

Can't you ever stay on topic?

Damn, you're pitiful. Attention deficit, maybe? Or what?

Armitage left Bush and Cheney hang out to dry.

Of course, I could bring up members of the Obamao regime who are communists.. which

I guess to you ... makes Obamao a communist?

so, Bush and Cheney are "outers" because Armitage was part of them, and he did?

And Karl Rove is guilty by association, too? No, Heck. He never was. As soon as Armitage

confessed, the entire matter was dropped like a hot rock by you leftist progressives.

And Armitage was not only ignored in any prosecution, he was even ignored in a film about the "outing" of Plame.

Please, stop hijacking threads. And stop trying to bring up the past, to protect the present extreme failure of

a president. It doesn't work.

Here, read this, and answer in a new thread of your own making. If you can get up the nerve.

*****************

By Brad Wilmouth | May 30, 2008 | 09:48

On Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor, after discussing Scott McClellan's views on invading Iraq with FNC contributor Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly turned the discussion to McClellan's comments on Rove's role in the CIA leak probe. Rove complained that while the media were obsessed with him during the investigation, Richard Armitage, who was the actual leaker, was virtually ignored, and argued that if Armitage had publicly admitted earlier that he had leaked Valerie Plame's identity, "this would have all gone away. You'll notice when it came out that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak, the media rapidly lost attention." Rove also accused Joe Wilson of making untrue claims about his trip to Niger.

After playing a clip of McClellan from his Today show interview in which he complained that Rove and Scooter Libby had claimed they were not involved in the leak, Rove contended that it was Armitage who leaked Plame's identity: "The identity of Valerie Plame was leaked to Robert Novak by Richard Armitage. What I told Scott was I didn't know her name, didn't reveal her name, didn't reveal, didn't know what she did at the CIA, and that I wasn't the source for the leak." (Transcript follows)

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/people/richard-...e#ixzz16spzBBcc

calfoxwc · December 1, 2010

BTW, I just kicked your ass again for hijacking the subject of a thread again.

START....YOUR.....OWN.....THREAD......IF.....YOU.....WANT.....TO......DISCUSS...

...A......

...DIFFERENT......SUBJECT.

calfoxwc · December 1, 2010

members of the Bush administration outed a covert CIA agent, which damaged trust, working relationships, and affected current intelligence work related to Iran's weapons of mass destruction programs? Nitwilly

****************************************************

In conclusion, Heck, I don't see any evidence of inernational mistrust, or damaging of working relationships with

other countries in the Plame "outing". She was a tiny little politically motivated player whose loss was like

losing a grain of stinkie sand from an endless beach.

And, one no account "intel agent" , for the most part, is not the same as tens of thousands of documents

mentioning countries all around the world, and mentioning a hundred Afghanis who are cooperating with Americans.

Did MousenadZ put you up to this really ignorant change of subject ?

heckofajobbrownie · December 1, 2010

Well, you don't see it, but that doesn't mean it's not true. It just means you don't see it. You don't see lots of things. Like your hypocrisy here. You defended outing a covert CIA agent because it involved members of the Bush administration - Rove, Libby, Armitage, and Fleischer. All of those men discussed her identity with reporters, and it blew her cover. You seem to remember only one of them.

So when they disclose something that harms trust, working relationships, and intelligence operations you were okay with it, and still are. When some guy named Julian Assange does it, it's a really bad thing.

You're half right. And everyone can see why.

calfoxwc · December 1, 2010

Only one of them could blow her cover. After that,

her cover is blown.

Kinda like your Shep-given rep for "knowing stuff".

You're wrong. There isn't any hypocrisy.

Plame was outed, and it did nothing to harm our intel efforts, our

respect around the world. zip. nada.

The Wiki leaks involve ENTIRE COUNTRIES all over the world.

You can see the difference, but like everyone else on the board can see,

you can't stay on topic, you won't start your own thread on any subject,

and you support a profoundly failed state socialist president.

You don't get it, seriously? sad.

VaporTrail · December 2, 2010

Getting back on topic...

This article pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101130/...democracy.shtml

As various politicians and bureaucrats freak out and get the wrong message from the latest Wikileaks document leak, the Economist has an excellent explanation of why the leak is actually a very good thing in preserving American democracy. Will it make some diplomats jobs harder? Absolutely. But diplomacy isn't supposed to be easy. And what the documents reveal is that the US has a history of doing things it's not supposed to do. The really key insight in the Economist piece is that there's a difference between elected officials and "the state" made up of career bureaucrats, who are not necessarily subject to democratic pressures -- allowing them to make moves where they are not, in fact, answerable to the American public. And that's a problem:

The United States is nominally a democracy, but it's sadly ridiculous to think this means very much. To get at the value of WikiLeaks, I think it's important to distinguish between the government--the temporary, elected authors of national policy--and the state--the permanent bureaucratic and military apparatus superficially but not fully controlled by the reigning government. The careerists scattered about the world in America's intelligence agencies, military, and consular offices largely operate behind a veil of secrecy executing policy which is itself largely secret. American citizens mostly have no idea what they are doing, or whether what they are doing is working out well. The actually-existing structure and strategy of the American empire remains a near-total mystery to those who foot the bill and whose children fight its wars. And that is the way the elite of America's unelected permanent state, perhaps the most powerful class of people on Earth, like it.

As Scott Shane, the New York Times' national security reporter, puts it: "American taxpayers, American citizens pay for all these diplomatic operations overseas and you know, it is not a bad thing when Americans actually have a better understanding of those negotiations".

...

I'd say providing that information certainly would have been a socially worthy activity, even if it came as part of a more-or-less indiscriminate dump of illegally obtained documents. I'm glad to see that the quality of discussion over possible US efforts to stymie Iran's nuclear ambitions has already become more sophisticated and, well, better-informed due to the information provided by WikiLeaks.

A better informed public is not a bad thing... except if your entire job is based on trying to keep people in the dark. Look at who's complaining the most about Wikileaks and you realize that it's the people who benefit from not being held accountable for their actions.

heckofajobbrownie · December 2, 2010

Of course they're two different things. But outing Plame did affect intelligence gathering operations. It's why the CIA referred the matter to the Justice Department. And it did affect the trust between the White House and the intelligence community. Nor did any of the people who outed her check to find out her status before they outed her.

You can't out covert CIA agents for political purposes. It doesn't matter what party does it.

You believe that when the Republicans do it it's okay. Obviously, if people in the Obama administration did this you'd be calling for their heads and accuse them of being enemies of America. Which I think you do already.

calfoxwc · December 2, 2010