|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Wikileaks: What do we think ?
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, wikileaks have done it - they have released 250000 internal not-so-diplomatic emails from the US government.
Do you think this is merely embarrassing or is it dangerous ? What do we think the impact will be ?
Interestingly, commentators are saying well "we knew they thought x,y,z but they would never say it in public" - so is it the case that we merely are being told what we already knew if we thought about it for more than 5 minutes ?
[ 05. January 2015, 23:43: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
To my mind, wikileaks shows the need for much greater public openness. It is only the dark decisions, the corrupt decisions, those of dubious legality, which the powerful seek to hide.
Of course they will hide behind the idea of "national security" or "diplomatic sensitivity", but I'd turn the argument they use against us back on them: if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to be afraid of. Greater public openness leads to more honest, and therefore better, government. It stops stupid decisions.
The guy who runs wikileaks should get a Nobel peace prize.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Interestingly, commentators are saying well "we knew they thought x,y,z but they would never say it in public" - so is it the case that we merely are being told what we already knew if we thought about it for more than 5 minutes ?
Well a quick look at the Guardian's website so far tells me that Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb; Iran's neighbours want any bomb-making programme to be stopped, destroyed if necessary; the Russian government is corrupt; the Italian Prime Minister is corrupt; the US spies on UN members; Mrs Thatcher wasn't keen on the ANC; Gordon Brown is bonkers.
So, nothing new, really.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Of course they will hide behind the idea of "national security" or "diplomatic sensitivity", but I'd turn the argument they use against us back on them: if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to be afraid of. Greater public openness leads to more honest, and therefore better, government. It stops stupid decisions.
I agree with the sentiment, however, I believe there are practical difficulties. One of those practical difficulties is that sometimes, soldiers have kids. Sometimes, politicians have kids too! And sometimes, both soldiers and politicians have elderly and disabled relatives. And some of those people can be, well, a bit vulnerable.
Which perhaps wouldn't be a problem, if we didn't have a media that seems particularly keen on stoking vigilante action. But if you don't like having that sort of media, we're back to the question of media censorship again - and therefore also state secrets.
Another problem relates to decisions of "dubious legality". Supposing for a moment that the legality of the decision needs to be tested in a court of law, with a trial by jury; how do you suppose it will be possible to find an unbiased jury when the details of the decision have already been made globally available by WikiLeaks?
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
They're making a Pfc intelligence officer the fall guy. With the amount of information that was leaked there is no way he could have had access to all that info and leaked it without help from higher up the food chain.
Personally,I think if they find who was responsible they should be tried for treason. Some of the comments about our allies will hurt us in the future. Comments about those who don't care for us will not be coming to the negotiating table - granted they may not have even if this info wasn't released, but it's a guarantee now. Also, aside from families that were mentioned, it puts former intelligence officers citizens in those countries who helped us in grave danger. Wikileaks really doesn't give damn who is hurt.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I don't think this is about transparency. What has wikileaks released that is earth shattering? If any government always openly revealed the type of stuff wikileaks revealed, diplomacy would be next to impossible.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I don't agree that governments need no secrecy - though I do think that they sometimes use it to avoid accountability. Certainly diplomats need to be able to make honest assessments - even if they would be impolite to state publicly.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Radical Whig wrote: quote:
To my mind, wikileaks shows the need for much greater public openness. It is only the dark decisions, the corrupt decisions, those of dubious legality, which the powerful seek to hide.
Of course they will hide behind the idea of "national security" or "diplomatic sensitivity", but I'd turn the argument they use against us back on them: if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to be afraid of.
I agree in general.
But that's only half the story. Any serious consideration is going to need to look at both the up- and the down-side.
I'd like to think I try to get my information from as wide a range of sources as I can. I tend to distrust single-source information. I would hope that democratic governments do something similar. So how am I to weigh this oncoming blizzard of information, stripped as it will be from its context? Am I just going to tune into my favoured source of instapunditry who can stitch it all together in a way that conforms to my accepted form of bigotry - er, prejudice? If not, then what?
And what about my sources? It seems to me that beyond the more obvious risk of my informants not wanting to tell me anything if they risk being embarrassed by being misquoted (let's assume that embrrassment by being accurately quoted is fair game) then there exists a more subtle risk. The risk of me increasingly only consulting sources that are safe, - the unexceptional, the anodyne. Increasingly, discourse will become monovalent for fear of being discovered. This path may (note, may) point towards not diversity, but the socially approved. That may initially seem counter-intuitive, but just think about it for a moment.
I'm only trying to lay out potential pitfalls. I am in favour of greater transparency myself, but let's not fool ourselves by pretending it won't bring new pitfalls. Everything does in its way.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Perhaps random releases of documents would help to keep things on the up-and-up. There would be a possibility of confidential things being released, but knowledge that this could potentially happen might force people away from underhanded tactics of diplomacy (or lack thereof). It's a shame that it takes renegade tactics to point out that any government might be doing things it's not proud of.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Or, people stop writting down honestly what they are doing, information is then not properly shared - leading to a higher ratio of cock-up to effect than we've been used to.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
My initial reaction is that I'm a bit more worried about this set of releases than the last one. I can see the capacity for some genuine damage this time around to the ability to get things done, by fragile relationships between some countries being completely broken down.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
If I have a concern, it is regarding the responsibiity, or otherwise, of wikileaks. As somebody has remarked, wikileaks appears to be unconcerned who gets hurt as long as they can leak potentially sensitive information to the world's media. I'm sure that's fine for wikileaks; not so good for those who do get hurt, and some will.
So to whom are wikileaks responsible? To whom do they give account? And, please, don't anybody say, "The People". That is an evasion. Who are "The People"? And in what way can any organisation such as wikileaks be accountable to them? Wikileaks has the potential to be a completely maverick outfit with no responsibility to anybody for anything.
Equally, they may prove to be a profound force for good. I don't know but, being a suspicious git by nature, I am wary.
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I agree with Darllenwr. Wikileaks looks increasingly as if it's attention-whoring rather than whistle-blowing. It's also a nice distraction from Assange's arrest warrant.
When Pete Broadbent's Facebook gaffe was discussed here, many people argued for a distinction between private comments and ones in the public domain. I think it's completly naive to think such a distinction can somehow not apply to diplomatic relations, naive too to think social relations of any nature don't require levels of discretion.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm all for full and accountable open, transparent government, governance, civil rights, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, complete separation of church and state, proportional representation, minority protection, tolerance, pluralism in China, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, Syria, Egypt, Indonesia even up to Israeli standards would be awesome.
Until we are no longer at war by other means with these powers (i.e. in diplomatic relationships with them) then Wikileaks is treason.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
It's all very exciting isn't it, but let's not assume that all the countries that don't have anything published here aren't actually all at it in the same way.
So, are they just "anti American" ? Have they been actively searching for such leaks, or has it just fallen into their lap? Are they searching for similar material from other western countries?
How about some nice juicy leaks from the Saudis, Iranians, the Chinese etc etc. There must be some subversives in all those places busting to get some embarassing material out.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Don't know but most of this was leaked by one person at one time to the organization.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
So to whom are wikileaks responsible? To whom do they give account? And, please, don't anybody say, "The People". That is an evasion. Who are "The People"? And in what way can any organisation such as wikileaks be accountable to them? Wikileaks has the potential to be a completely maverick outfit with no responsibility to anybody for anything.
From what I can tell, Assange is not accountable to anyone, really. He houses servers all over the world where they are protected by various state whistle-blower and freedom of information laws, and is not above taking refuge in Cuba or Russia in order to avoid charges of espionage.
From what I've read from third-party sources (New York Times and the Guardian), not much is new information. I haven't seen anything that is worth damaging foreign relations. You do this kind of thing to stop wars, not because "well, I've got the documents and I've got a server".
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
I see on The Guardian that they've got page after page about this, so I guess this is important.
When I read what was said, though, I was simply 'meh'. Nothing new was learned. In some cases they think like I do, and probably other people as well.
Maybe I'll get worked up about this another time.
Anyway, I'm all for transparency, but I fear for US diplomats.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This is probably a tangent, but this organisation and those involved in it, rather than being noble witnesses and servants of the truth, gives the impression of being driven by smug, self satisfied self-righteousness.
Oh aren't we clever, and isn't the rest of the world obstructive and obscurantist.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Until we are no longer at war by other means with these powers (i.e. in diplomatic relationships with them) then Wikileaks is treason.
Although hard data is hard to come by, it seems like a large proportion of those working on/for Wikileaks are not American citizens. Certainly Julian Assange, the public face of Wikileaks, is not American. And yet Martin maintains that he's a traitor to a country he's not a citizen of.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Although hard data is hard to come by, it seems like a large proportion of those working on/for Wikileaks are not American citizens. Certainly Julian Assange, the public face of Wikileaks, is not American. And yet Martin maintains that he's a traitor to a country he's not a citizen of.
Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
As always, the questions that such activities raise are:
1. Why is it being done? What is leaking this stuff meant to accomplish? Let's get practical: how many ordinary citizens, however desirous of "hard information," are going to plow through thousands of pages of yaff seeking it?
2. Who is benefiting from the leaks? Who is making money, gaining political, military, diplomatic, or other advantage, influencing what kinds of outcomes?
3. Who is DISadvantaged in the same ways?
Someone above mentioned "attention whoring," and I wonder whether Assange is unbalanced in some way.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
1. Why is it being done? What is leaking this stuff meant to accomplish? Let's get practical: how many ordinary citizens, however desirous of "hard information," are going to plow through thousands of pages of yaff seeking it?
We don't need to. The media do that for us. If we choose to accept their one-sided conclusions [and we usually do], then so be it. They chunk the information into usable parts, and then people can choose whether they want to delve deeper into the source material or not.
quote:
2. Who is benefiting from the leaks? Who is making money, gaining political, military, diplomatic, or other advantage, influencing what kinds of outcomes?
It could simply be a way to influence future votes by embarrassing past or current politicians and/or parties.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The guy who runs wikileaks should get a Nobel peace prize.
Maybe after they drop the rape charges.
I'm quite torn on wikileaks. I can imagine much good (or justice, at least) coming from revealing the dirty secrets. I can also imagine it being used as a method for disseminating half-truths or outright right lies. I also wonder if there aren't some secrets that really need to stay as such for the greater good.
--Update--
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-21/world/sweden.wikileaks.charge_1_julian-assange-molestation-charge-arrest-warrant?_s=PM:WOR LD
One can't help but suspect that these are trumped up BS charges.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Although hard data is hard to come by, it seems like a large proportion of those working on/for Wikileaks are not American citizens. Certainly Julian Assange, the public face of Wikileaks, is not American. And yet Martin maintains that he's a traitor to a country he's not a citizen of.
Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.
Actually, given they gave access to three million people - it doesn't seem that it would be that hard for someone with IT skills.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.
From a legal standpoint, the first amendment largely prevents the U.S. government from prosecuting journalists or private individuals for revealing classified information. The only people who can be prosecuted for that are government officials who have a positive duty to safeguard the information in question.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Treason is defined in the US Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads:
quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
Although I'm not a lawyer, I don't think leaking documents meets that legal standard. Perhaps one of the ships lawyers could render an opinion?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.
Why? None of this was top secret information. If it were the nuclear launch codes, yeah, you'd have a legitimate argument. But "other Arab countries want us to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons" is more along the lines of "no shit, Sherlock".
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.
Why? None of this was top secret information. If it were the nuclear launch codes, yeah, you'd have a legitimate argument. But "other Arab countries want us to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons" is more along the lines of "no shit, Sherlock".
It was classified info and much of it was clearly marked Secret and for U.S. eyes only. There were names listed, some of whom were citizens of foreign countries working with us as well as the sharing of classified intelligence with other nations. Wikileaks has published other secret documents this individual leaked. Everything this individual has done constitutes treason as his actions have deliberately leaked information that were for cleared individuals only and in so doing harmed the U.S. and put individual lives in harms way.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
The reason this individual had access to all of this information while working in Iraq - a war zone in war time, was that after 9/11 the government wanted those working in war zones to have the best info and opened up much of the secret databases to them. The military is now trying to balance the need for those in war zones to have the info and trying to lock down security. Some of the basics should have been done before now - i.e. either NO personal CDs or flash drives allowed or disabling the ability to copy documents to a CD or flash drive.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Although hard data is hard to come by, it seems like a large proportion of those working on/for Wikileaks are not American citizens. Certainly Julian Assange, the public face of Wikileaks, is not American. And yet Martin maintains that he's a traitor to a country he's not a citizen of.
Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.
Actually, given they gave access to three million people - it doesn't seem that it would be that hard for someone with IT skills.
Having worked within that system, I guarantee that one person could have done this. Easily. Heck, my roomate when I was stationed in Korea could have done so.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I'm quite torn on wikileaks. I can imagine much good (or justice, at least) coming from revealing the dirty secrets.
That's the hope certainly. Maybe if governments need to fear their dealings becoming open knowledge, they will deal more honorably.
Or maybe not. Hence my indecision on this. I lean towards good thing though.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.
Why? None of this was top secret information. If it were the nuclear launch codes, yeah, you'd have a legitimate argument. But "other Arab countries want us to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons" is more along the lines of "no shit, Sherlock".
It was classified info and much of it was clearly marked Secret and for U.S. eyes only. There were names listed, some of whom were citizens of foreign countries working with us as well as the sharing of classified intelligence with other nations. Wikileaks has published other secret documents this individual leaked. Everything this individual has done constitutes treason as his actions have deliberately leaked information that were for cleared individuals only and in so doing harmed the U.S. and put individual lives in harms way.
Bullshit.
Treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The case that he made an overt act giving aid and comfort to the enemies would be impossible to show (He gave documents to somebody who had the option of releasing them if they wished, etc...). Two witnesses to such an overt act would be apparently impossible (unless they can swear in computer logs now). He probably won't confess.
The private's actions were certainly illegal under the UCMJ and likely illegal under several sections of US Code, but they don't amount to treason.
For Assange and Wikileaks, they certainly aren't.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
This has nothing to do with getting government's to act honorably. So far, I haven't read that wikileaks released anything that does something other than make diplomacy more difficult. Why is that a good thing? It's not. The leaking of documents by wikileaks and the subsequent publication of the information with commentary by the world media serves no real purpose other than to benefit the wikileaks founder's ego.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The leaking of documents by wikileaks and the subsequent publication of the information with commentary by the world media serves no real purpose other than to benefit the wikileaks founder's ego.
Are you limiting your statements to this release only (about no purpose)? Since they're certainly not true of Wikileaks in general.
Feel free to justify your ego statement with something more than assertion.
Assange may be a smarmy guy, but this whole deal certainly is making his life a lot harder for a mere ego boost.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
What does this round of leaks accomplish? You say he's smarmy. I certainly think he's doing it for an ego boost. People do all sorts of crazy things for an adrenaline rush. What kind of adrenaline rush can one person get from grabbing world wide headlines by frequently annoying the most powerful nation in the world and getting away with it?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What does this round of leaks accomplish? You say he's smarmy. I certainly think he's doing it for an ego boost. People do all sorts of crazy things for an adrenaline rush. What kind of adrenaline rush can one person get from grabbing world wide headlines by frequently annoying the most powerful nation in the world and getting away with it?
In other words, you have nothing.
What does it accomplish? For a broad, general start, people know what their government is doing. That's a huge thing to me, since I don't trust it much when it tells me itself.
For a more specific and very timely thing, it may help to rein in North Korea since some mentions were made of reunification plans where China was involved with the US and SKorea (i.e. this may help them to realize that China isn't the ally they seem to think they are).
Might Assange and the other Wikileaks founders/board members get an ego kick out of shitting in the US's Wheaties? Certainly. But Wikileaks wasn't started with the US even in mind, and their mission and history strongly atttest to that.
Feel free to bring more than suspicion to your arguments.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
What would constitute proof of a motive other than the ability to read a person's mind and record it?
You see this guy as a hero. I see him as an attention seeking asshole. No way to prove either. I suppose we can agree to disagree.
The New York Times admits there will be consequences to publishing the leaks and that it will strain relations with certain nations. You think that's a good thing? You want relations with other nations and heads of state strained? I'm sure that will make cooperation among the nations of the world much more likely. But...at least you feel better knowing more and the New York Times gets a good story. Surely, causing bad blood between the nations of the world during a worldwide recession is a small price to pay for that.
Your point about China and North Korea is naive. China doesn't care much about public opinion. They were willing to massacre 5,000 of their own young people. You think some leaked documents are going to impact how they do business? Besides, China, to say nothing of North Korea, manages to control and manipulate information in China far better than Western nations.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Greater public openness leads to more honest, and therefore better, government. It stops stupid decisions.
Nice theory (seriously). Frequently doesn't work in practice.
Here in Canada we have an Access to Information Regime. Far too many years ago, all of us public servants were told that everything -- our datebooks, the notes made of telephone conversations, the doodles on our deskpads -- was Accessible and should not be destroyed. So people stopped writing memos and stopped writing notes about what happened in meetings and stopped noting their phone calls, for fear of what might happen if someone decided to try to get Access. Minutes of meetings became simple records of decisions, without any reference to the discussion and therefore, no reference to why the decision was made or to the considerations that led to it.
And remember, this was all public servants -- Deputy Ministers right down to the lowest level clerks who, basically, made the coffee and transferred phone calls to the right person, or who swept the floors in some hands-on operations.
Result -- total opaqueness. No-one could be held accountable for anything.
Earlier than this, I worked for a realtively sensitive department of government, which relied heavily on receiving information from corporations. The corporations had no trouble supplying the information, but wanted to be sure their competitors could not get access to it. Under Access to Information, all the information had to be accessible. result - end of information flow to the government, and significantly poorer policy development.
I'm all for greater accountability and openness...until it starts to interfere with government's ability to do its job.
Many of these leaks seem to me to be pretty certain to interfere with reasonable relations between states -- they say it won't, but it will -- because no one will ever again trust the US or its diplomats. And while I have issues with the US and its diplomats, a total absence of trust is manifestly unfair. Many of the leaks seem to me pretty certain to lead to deaths among soldiers and their local allies. While I totally oppose the war in Iraq, and have questions about the Afghan war, it's totally wrong that soldiers in the field and locals trying to help should pay that kind of price for information that leads no where in terms of better policy, greater accountability, and a sense of responsibility among politicians and civil servants.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You see this guy as a hero.
Hyperbole much? As I said, I don't even know if I think this was a good thing for them to do.
quote:
I'm sure that will make cooperation among the nations of the world much more likely.
Or perhaps we will engage in more trustworthy dealings because we think people are watching, and our government might become a bit more trustworthy. Likely? No. Possible? Sure.
quote:
Your point about China and North Korea is naive.
Perhaps naive if you totally fail to get what my point was. The point was that NK seeing China dealing behind their back in a manner planning for their demise might lead the NK gov't to exercise a bit of restraint. Not that this will change China any (I honestly have nfc how you read that into what I wrote).
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Wait, North Korea sinks a South Korean sub and shells a South Korean island. China refuses to condemn them. China does nothing to rein in North Korea. You think because the North Koreans read a leak about China possibly turning on them they will stop doing what they are doing? I suppose they can believe that leak or what China is actually doing. The North Koreans can know the Chinese don't really like them and wish they would go away. I bet they knew that before wikileaks.
I don't get this concept about behaving honorably. OK...some US diplomats have some problems with Angela Merkel. Is the world knowing they have problems with Angela Merkel going to help improve relations between the United States and Germany? Is it really helpful for diplomats of any nation not being able to speak candidly among themselves about their enemies and allies without the whole world knowing really a good thing? I can't imagine how it is a good thing.
What else? The Saudis and Egyptians don't want the Iranians to have nuclear weapons. They want the US to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon and don't see negotiating with the Iranians as worthwhile. If Iran gets weapons, other nations in the Middle East will want nuclear weapons and the NPT will be over. Seems logical to me.
So, with this information about what the government is doing, what do you want your government to do? Here is what we know. Nobody trusts the Iranians. Those nations in the Middle East we call our allies want us to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons. If we can't, they will use their considerable wealth to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. What's the answer?
Are the Iranians shocked that none of their neighbors except possibly Syria want them having nuclear weapons? Are we surprised the Sunni nations will get nuclear weapons if the Iranians do? They'll deny they want them. They'll deny trying to get them. We will know they are lying the whole time. So what?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I'm just wondering - why does everybody assume that the content of those leaks is true? How where they fact-checked then, precisely? If I was in the secret service, I would consider Wikileaks to be a prime opportunity for disinformation at the global scale. For very little price (say calling Angela Merkel "risk averse and rarely creative" - which is what she was being elected for), you will get the public to swallow a lot of stuff. Wikileaks needs leaks to justify its existence. Nobody is in a better position to supply purpose-designed "realistic leaks" than the secret services.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Essentially because of the sheer volume, and because no national government is bothering to try to deny their authenticity (not just the US administration). On top of that, professional journalists have spent months going through the data - which suggests that what is published must be internally consistent and plausible to have passed muster.
Faking on this scale seems unlikely.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Faking on this scale seems unlikely.
Who said anything about faking it all? Why abuse this golden opportunity for global FUD with something that is so easy to discover? I can think of multiple ways of compromising Wikileaks, and none of them would be detectable by some fools on a bulletin board (or in the press for that matter). Give the secret services some credit, there must be some non-morons in their ranks... (I'm not sure that anyone in the secret services was brilliant enough to invent Wikileaks, though even that is possible. If so, ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) . Seriously, that would be a genius piece of applied crowd psychology. But I'm sure that there is enough opportunistic intelligence and ability in the secret services to work Wikileaks once it's out there...)
[ 29. November 2010, 08:31: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
If I was in the secret service, I would consider Wikileaks to be a prime opportunity for disinformation at the global scale.
Having waded through lots of literature on intelligence gathering at one point, I'd be incredibly surprised if this isn't happening. And if it isn't, the relevant agencies are seriously stoo-pid.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Bullshit.
Treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The case that he made an overt act giving aid and comfort to the enemies would be impossible to show (He gave documents to somebody who had the option of releasing them if they wished, etc...). Two witnesses to such an overt act would be apparently impossible (unless they can swear in computer logs now). He probably won't confess.
The private's actions were certainly illegal under the UCMJ and likely illegal under several sections of US Code, but they don't amount to treason.
This isn't the only info this guy leaked. Some was war zone intelligence - and given that we are still at war in both countries it can be said he aided and abetted the enemy. The fact that he couldn't be sure Wikileaks would publish is immaterial as that info should never have been delivered to anyone without a proper security clearance and especially to anyone not a U.S. citizen. As to witnesses - there should be logs of his computer activity - that someone should have paid attention to at the time - and the fact that he's bragged extensively about what he did. There'd be no problem convicting him, though we seem to have had a problem with charging anyone with treason since the Rosenberg fiasco. Still, I hope this guy pays dearly.
People are only focusing on this release - there have been at least 2 other occasions of massive document releases and God only knows what Wikileaks still has in reserve.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
If I was in the secret service, I would consider Wikileaks to be a prime opportunity for disinformation at the global scale.
Having waded through lots of literature on intelligence gathering at one point, I'd be incredibly surprised if this isn't happening. And if it isn't, the relevant agencies are seriously stoo-pid.
I think the level of notoriety of Wikileaks *now* would lead to this becoming a possibility. Prior to Manning's leaks, I doubt it. Trying to game another country via fake State Dept. leaks would be a very risky way to do it though. More likely to leak foreign documents which we have come to possess and attribute them to a leaker w/in their gov't (though depending on access levels, this creates a huge risk of losing sources).
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
This isn't the only info this guy leaked. Some was war zone intelligence - and given that we are still at war in both countries it can be said he aided and abetted the enemy. The fact that he couldn't be sure Wikileaks would publish is immaterial as that info should never have been delivered to anyone without a proper security clearance and especially to anyone not a U.S. citizen. As to witnesses - there should be logs of his computer activity - that someone should have paid attention to at the time - and the fact that he's bragged extensively about what he did. There'd be no problem convicting him, though we seem to have had a problem with charging anyone with treason since the Rosenberg fiasco. Still, I hope this guy pays dearly.
People are only focusing on this release - there have been at least 2 other occasions of massive document releases and God only knows what Wikileaks still has in reserve.
The handing off of classified info most certainly is a crime. Our being at war is irrelevant. It would be very hard to make a case for treason here. I'd more likely expect some thousands of UCMJ counts brought against Manning (one per document) or espionage charges against him.
Check out http://www.slate.com/id/2262801/ for some relevant precedent and history.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
Who cares. This is an opportunity for conspiritualists which is too good to miss. It's inevitable as soon as spooks and libations of information are involved.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Yet again, The Daily Mash is spot-on in its analysis.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
