Assange - leaks

[Saxman]

Thoughts on the whole WikiLeaks thing I posted at another site:

I'm sorry, but this is NOT information that should have been released. It's potentially dangerous to numerous individuals, and is damaging to more than just US interests. From what has been posted on various news reports, this has implications between MULTIPLE governing bodies world-wide.

Government cannot, nor SHOULD it, be completely transparent. It's far more accurate to say that government should be TRANSLUCENT. There are some matters and dealings that should NOT be public knowledge. The Cuban Missile Crisis was largely resolved by just that sort of back channel negotiation and bargaining that WikiLeaks would have exposed. If the details of the agreement that led to the Soviets withdrawing their missiles from Cuba had been known to the public at the time, the outcry would have almost CERTAINLY killed the deal outright and we would have continued teetering on the edge of fully nuclear World War III, if not tipped over the balance point entirely.

The withholding of sensitive information does not, nor does it ever, conflict with freedom of information. There are some things the public does NOT need to know. We are NOT entitled to every little dealing of the government, particularly when that knowledge compromises the SECURITY AND SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

To release such information just because one individual believes it should be freely available to everyone is defending NOTHING. It's irresponsible and the most extreme sort of arrogance.

[ozrocker]

I won't be surprised if the CIA (in background of course), and KGB work together on this target. Target? Yes that's what wiki chief is now IMO.
Of course it would be "an accident", and who would question? Many, most not out loud.


                                                                                         <S> Oz

[Melvin]

I won't be surprised if the CIA (in background of course), and KGB work together on this target. Target? Yes that's what wiki chief is now IMO.
Of course it would be "an accident", and who would question? Many, most not out loud.


                                                                                         <S> Oz

Our guys won't touch him. The higher ups have their hands tied to the point of impotence, I believe.

However, some patriot in the chain of command might know a guy in a foreign service that (perhaps for a few dollars) may find this character unlikeable enough to snuff out. I seriously doubt that anyone would miss him.

<S> Melvin

Edit: Actually quite a few people would miss him. (Can't go there for the politics.) Just think of the conspiracy theories that would start flying if this idiot slips and breaks his neck.

[Shuffler]

The US doesn't do the death penalty for traitors anymore. The powers that be are afraid they may upset the traitors in our country.

[Somerled]

Why exactly did a military guy have access to all these Department of State communications. I thought they had their own communication channels and he would not have access to them. Is there another source of the leaks?

[Somerled]

Comment i saw somewhere else: "Its like the entire federal government is going through the equivalent of the TSA full body scanner"

[RTHolmes]

good point - a PFC has unlimited access to unencrypted Secret communications. 

apparently about 2.5m people currently have legitimate access to this database ...

[Ten60]

The US doesn't do the death penalty for traitors anymore. The powers that be are afraid they may upset the traitors in our country.

+1

[68ZooM]

lol and the world loves us more and more everyday   

[Die Hard]

What would murdering Assange achieve? Wikileaks is a global organisation with hundreds if not thousands of journalists (I see some people still thinks he's an American and a "traitor"). Making him the "martyr of information freedom" achieves what? Proving them right perhaps? Should we also kill the editors of all the newspapers who publish this information like the Guardian in the UK?

Kill the source, not the messenger.

[Shuffler]

What would murdering Assange achieve? Wikileaks is a global organisation with hundreds if not thousands of journalists (I see some people still thinks he's an American and a "traitor"). Making him the "martyr of information freedom" achieves what? Proving them right perhaps? Should we also kill the editors of all the newspapers who publish this information like the Guardian in the UK?

Kill the source, not the messenger.

Did someone say murder?

 

[Ack-Ack]

another interesting story.....

Turkey is supporting terrorists in Iraq, while US is supporting what Turkey considers a terrorist organization (PPK?)

I suggest you check your facts a little bit more carefully.  The PPK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States, UN, EU and NATO.

Murat Karayilan, the military commander of the armed wing of the PPK, has even admitted that PPK forces attacked and killed several US troops in northern Iraq.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Why exactly did a military guy have access to all these Department of State communications. I thought they had their own communication channels and he would not have access to them. Is there another source of the leaks?

The "State Department" emails are different from the papers and documents leaked by the Pvt. currently being held in jail.  He didn't leak the State Deparment stuff, someone else has.

ack-ack

[AWwrgwy]

The problem as I see it is there is really no point in releasing the information other than "Look at me.  Look what I have".

He's not trying to right any wrongs, he just seems to be stirring the pot.

Everyone wants to be a Woodward and Bernstein.  Wikileaks isn't.


wrongway

[RTHolmes]

... but they are doing a woodstein, just in a much more scattergun way - amongst all the rubbish they have released direct evidence that the coalition's movers and shakers have been consistently lying about operations in afghanistan and iraq. lying to the same people that voted for them, the same people whose name they are waging these campaigns in and lying to the people who are paying for their interventionist adventures in terms of taxation and much more importantly in lost and broken lives.

whether you think this kind of foreign policy is a good or a bad idea is a judgement call, but we should at least be able to base our opinions on facts, not on lies.

exposing hypocrisy is one of the few genuinely usefuly functions journalism serves, and this qualifies in my book.