Did Wikileaks commit any form of espionage? No. They were handed the documents by a piece of shit PFC.Turquoise wrote:
An essay is entirely different from leaking sensitive documents. Espionage against the government (especially in the context of an ongoing war) is aiding terrorism at the very least. If it cannot be considered terrorism outright, it should be regarded as aiding terror groups.Poseidon wrote:
That's a very vague term. If someone writes an essay about the variety of bad press items (Abu Gharib, multiple civilian shooting events, etc) that were committed by US Troops and terrorists use it as an excuse to go behead some infidels, is the essay writer a terrorist too?Turquoise wrote:
See John's post. Aiding terror groups makes you an accessory to terrorism. That's what leaking sensitive documents from our military is doing.
You might as well be handing terror groups money when you do that sort of thing, so to me, it's basically the same level of criminality.
What they're doing is illegal and wrong, but I don't really think you can (or should) classify it as terrorism.
Nope. Apples and oranges. If a journalist was writing about operational details and published them it would be aiding our enemies. It's why journalists are politely asked not to include places, dates etc until well after the fact. During the Gulf War journalists were given access to war plans by Schwarzkopf but only because they were fake and he knew Saddam was watching CNN/Sky etc. It was disinformation. If some journalist had stumbled upon the real war plans and had published them he would've been aiding the enemy and worthy of a trial.Poseidon wrote:
That's a very vague term. If someone writes an essay about the variety of bad press items (Abu Gharib, multiple civilian shooting events, etc) that were committed by US Troops and terrorists use it as an excuse to go behead some infidels, is the essay writer a terrorist too?Turquoise wrote:
See John's post. Aiding terror groups makes you an accessory to terrorism. That's what leaking sensitive documents from our military is doing.Poseidon wrote:
...who exactly are they terrorizing by releasing the documents?
They're assholes. Not terrorists.
You might as well be handing terror groups money when you do that sort of thing, so to me, it's basically the same level of criminality.
What they're doing is illegal and wrong, but I don't really think you can (or should) classify it as terrorism.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
He isn't "charged" with anything. Those claims were dropped, he never was charged. Ridiculous to use it here.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the country that truly has death warrants on journalists is Mexico, but that's another discussion.Ticia wrote:
At least we had people on the streets making noise, you have a death warrant on a journalist.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if that's your argument, then the entire Coalition of the Willing engaged in murder. That's an indictment against a large portion of the developed world. Good luck prosecuting it...
Currently, we haven't done anything to Assange, although the Swedish government apparently is pursuing sex crime charges against him.
We had protesters against the Iraq War too, but fat lot of good that did.
There was that thing with Geraldo in Iraq, when he started showing the battleplans for an operation before it took place.
If someone gave me sensitive information from the military and I released it to the public, I would be essentially committing treason. I would most likely be tried for it as well. The only reason Assange isn't being tried like that is because he isn't an American citizen. Manning is most likely going to be tried for treason, however, among many other things.Poseidon wrote:
Did Wikileaks commit any form of espionage? No. They were handed the documents by a piece of shit PFC.Turquoise wrote:
An essay is entirely different from leaking sensitive documents. Espionage against the government (especially in the context of an ongoing war) is aiding terrorism at the very least. If it cannot be considered terrorism outright, it should be regarded as aiding terror groups.Poseidon wrote:
That's a very vague term. If someone writes an essay about the variety of bad press items (Abu Gharib, multiple civilian shooting events, etc) that were committed by US Troops and terrorists use it as an excuse to go behead some infidels, is the essay writer a terrorist too?
What they're doing is illegal and wrong, but I don't really think you can (or should) classify it as terrorism.
However, again... Assange knew what he was doing. Plenty of established media sources self-censor when they come across sensitive information.
No, they weren't dropped. He's currently wanted by Interpol for sexually assaulting two women in Sweden.Ticia wrote:
He isn't "charged" with anything. Those claims were dropped, he never was charged. Ridiculous to use it here.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the country that truly has death warrants on journalists is Mexico, but that's another discussion.Ticia wrote:
At least we had people on the streets making noise, you have a death warrant on a journalist.
Currently, we haven't done anything to Assange, although the Swedish government apparently is pursuing sex crime charges against him.
We had protesters against the Iraq War too, but fat lot of good that did.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The investigation is still pending, and apparently, even the U.K. has taken an interest in it.Ticia wrote:
He isn't "charged" with anything. Those claims were dropped, he never was charged. Ridiculous to use it here.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the country that truly has death warrants on journalists is Mexico, but that's another discussion.Ticia wrote:
At least we had people on the streets making noise, you have a death warrant on a journalist.
Currently, we haven't done anything to Assange, although the Swedish government apparently is pursuing sex crime charges against him.
We had protesters against the Iraq War too, but fat lot of good that did.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12 … tml?hpt=T2
Red notice is not an warrant.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, they weren't dropped. He's currently wanted by Interpol for sexually assaulting two women in Sweden.Ticia wrote:
He isn't "charged" with anything. Those claims were dropped, he never was charged. Ridiculous to use it here.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the country that truly has death warrants on journalists is Mexico, but that's another discussion.
Currently, we haven't done anything to Assange, although the Swedish government apparently is pursuing sex crime charges against him.
We had protesters against the Iraq War too, but fat lot of good that did.
And he got kicked the fuck out of the country.M.O.A.B wrote:
There was that thing with Geraldo in Iraq, when he started showing the battleplans for an operation before it took place.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
YupJohnG@lt wrote:
And he got kicked the fuck out of the country.M.O.A.B wrote:
There was that thing with Geraldo in Iraq, when he started showing the battleplans for an operation before it took place.
So did all these guys.Kmar wrote:
Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain and the UAE had similar thoughts.AussieReaper wrote:
It's reassuring to note how concerned the Middle East region really is with Iran and it's nuclear ambitions. I was a little shocked though that the Saudis wanted a military strike on Iran.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Who said "flawless"? You're sounding a little condescending. That means "talking down to people" btw.Ticia wrote:
So if the only problem was trusting the wrong guy and he is now out of the picture why did the State Department had the need to shut down Siprnet temporarily and is now fixing any deficiencies in the system and altering the access rules?FEOS wrote:
Manning was an intel troop. He had access to far more than SIPRNET. SIPRNET is a pretty far-spread network that's used for day-to-day operations for the military and other US government branches. Not a "huge risk" by any stretch, as the highest classification on there is SECRET, and every person in the DoD and DoS has a SECRET clearance (for the most part).
Since it was flawless from the beginning, why bother?
State pulled their access to SIPR because they didn't want everyone else having access to their diplomatic traffic after this. That's a prudent move. They should put in rules-based access to enforce "need to know" for things that are that sensitive. Your basic planner and intel troop doesn't need to have access to that kind of stuff. But others do, so the access needs to still be there for certain people.
Now to the next bit, which should be fun...
Perhaps if you dropped your own condescending tone with all things in this thread and took an objective approach, we could have a decent debate. But you can't be objective. You're convinced America is wrong and only America is wrong here. And you're simply wrong...out of a position of complete, utter ignorance of the topic. But you feel very strongly about your opinion...I'll give you that.Ticia wrote:
First drop the condescending tone, then maybe I'll take the time to read what you wrote here. Are we clear?FEOS wrote:
Again, learn a bit what diplomacy is for and how it actually works.
Those cables were providing blunt assessments, via secure diplomatic channels, regarding various aspects of world leaders and their approaches to various issues--directly and indirectly relevant as well as irrelevant to US interests in the region and abroad. Go to any country's State Dept equivalent and you'll see the same kind of traffic (probably about the US), focused on that country's interests. You're from Portugal, right? Portugal's Foreign Ministry (or whatever it's called) has identical embarrassing traffic...I guarantee it. Of course, the US has some other traffic that some will not have due to its status as sole superpower. I'm sure Russia, the UK, and China have similar "embarrassing" traffic...and are glad they don't have some 20-year old fuckwit Lady Gaga fan who's enamored with Julian Assange working for them right now.
See, diplomacy is an instrument of national power. It is wielded to achieve national security objectives, just as military power, economic power, and informational power are--most effectively in concert with the other three. Those national security objectives are for the country in question, not for some other country, so the frank diplomatic cables going back and forth in (what they believe to be) secure channels are slanted in that regard--toward understood national objectives/interests. They aren't concerned about wounding some other country's inner fucking child because they aren't ever supposed to be disclosed and they are focused on one's own country's national interests...and nothing else.
Is that clear enough?
I simply tried to provide you with an objective, relevant lesson in what diplomacy is and how that can be applied to any country--how your "only America" argument is flawed. If you choose to see that as condescending, I can't do anything about your perception. That's your problem, not mine.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
correct feos. ticia always has once stance..US is wrong.
even though her country follows ours into every battle.
even though her country follows ours into every battle.
actually its seems to be lots of aussies on the forum. dogbert, aussieR, etc
meh. do not know why you bother tbh.
meh. do not know why you bother tbh.
Ticia is Portuguese.11 Bravo wrote:
actually its seems to be lots of aussies on the forum. dogbert, aussieR, etc
meh. do not know why you bother tbh.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
hmm spends time in the aussie spam gay thread. sorry for the misunderstanding.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ticia is Portuguese.11 Bravo wrote:
actually its seems to be lots of aussies on the forum. dogbert, aussieR, etc
meh. do not know why you bother tbh.
either way the point stands.
actually that makes tons of sense now.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-12-02 18:48:03)
I'd say the real problem is in one person being able to download en-masse hundreds of thousands of documents.Ticia wrote:
So if the only problem was trusting the wrong guy and he is now out of the picture why did the State Department had the need to shut down Siprnet temporarily and is now fixing any deficiencies in the system and altering the access rules?
Since it was flawless from the beginning, why bother?
Should be a simple fix.
You'll get used to FEOS.First drop the condescending tone, then maybe I'll take the time to read what you wrote here. Are we clear?
Fuck Israel
Not really. There was a push for max information sharing between agencies following 9/11, as a lack of information sharing was seen as one of the proximate causes of missing the hijackers. This is one of the side-effects of that. Smarter information sharing is what's needed, following the rule that has always been in place: need to know.Ticia wrote:
So you're agreeing that too many had access to this information therefore the chance of a breach was higher?FEOS wrote:
Who said "flawless"? You're sounding a little condescending. That means "talking down to people" btw.Ticia wrote:
So if the only problem was trusting the wrong guy and he is now out of the picture why did the State Department had the need to shut down Siprnet temporarily and is now fixing any deficiencies in the system and altering the access rules?
Since it was flawless from the beginning, why bother?
State pulled their access to SIPR because they didn't want everyone else having access to their diplomatic traffic after this. That's a prudent move. They should put in rules-based access to enforce "need to know" for things that are that sensitive. Your basic planner and intel troop doesn't need to have access to that kind of stuff. But others do, so the access needs to still be there for certain people.
Now to the next bit, which should be fun...?
All of the people with access to that level of information had been vetted. You always run the risk of one person who can do things like this, regardless of the population size or sensitivity of the information...and SECRET information isn't really all that big of a deal, tbh.
And again, the only reason this is about the US and not some other country is because Assange has a hard-on for the US and not some other country. It could just as easily have been Russia, China, the UK, or even Portugal. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Diplomacy is diplomacy. Diplomats are diplomats. They perform the same functions, regardless of where they are from. Had Assange released confidential diplomatic cables from Portugal, the Portuguese government would have been highly embarrassed at their content, as well.Ticia wrote:
I'm being as objective as one can be not my fault if the issue is about the US and not about any other country. Plus I've already mentioned why the US government is so easily singled out on my previous posts.
If you think I
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Wrong. The only reason this is about the US is because the leaks came from the US. Assange is only one of the nine heads of the wikileaks. This is a desperate attempt to turn it into something personal.FEOS wrote:
And again, the only reason this is about the US and not some other country is because Assange has a hard-on for the US and not some other country. It could just as easily have been Russia, China, the UK, or even Portugal. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Diplomacy is diplomacy. Diplomats are diplomats. They perform the same functions, regardless of where they are from. Had Assange released confidential diplomatic cables from Portugal, the Portuguese government would have been highly embarrassed at their content, as well.
And no one can say that diplomacy from other countries can be as embarrassing as some of the crap that has been released. What we can say for sure is that we all know a little more of how world diplomacy works, specially American.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Can you stop whining about Assange/ or whining America is only ever targeted, use Kmarion's thread for any personal issues about Assange or the US. This one is about the leaks themselves. I couldn't give two shits about Assange. Stop trying to derail the thread.
Anyway, todays leaks say something about how Karzai was relieved when the USMC took over operations in Helmand, apparently we were doing a pretty shitty job at it all.
Nothing really surprising, just that it's annoying hearing from politicians that everything is ok and how awesome we are doing, and behind doors they're all talking about how it's a disaster whilst people die every day. Just pull the troops out already.
Anyway, todays leaks say something about how Karzai was relieved when the USMC took over operations in Helmand, apparently we were doing a pretty shitty job at it all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11906147In one cable, a US general, Dan McNeill, was said to be "particularly dismayed by the British effort" in fighting the drugs trade in Afghanistan.
He is quoted as saying that British forces had "made a mess" of counter-narcotics operations in Helmand by employing the "wrong" tactics.
Criticism of the British military effort goes back to 2007 when Gen McNeill was in charge of Nato forces.
He criticised a deal with the Taliban which allowed British troops to be withdrawn from Musa Qala in 2006, saying it "opened the door to narco-traffickers in that area, and now it was impossible to tell the difference between the traffickers and the insurgents".
--Responding to the latest leaks, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "UK forces did an excellent job in Sangin, an area which has always been and continues to be uniquely challenging, delivering progress by increasing security and taking the fight to the insurgency.
Nothing really surprising, just that it's annoying hearing from politicians that everything is ok and how awesome we are doing, and behind doors they're all talking about how it's a disaster whilst people die every day. Just pull the troops out already.
Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ! Read what I fucking wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me, ffs.EVieira wrote:
Wrong. The only reason this is about the US is because the leaks came from the US. Assange is only one of the nine heads of the wikileaks. This is a desperate attempt to turn it into something personal.FEOS wrote:
And again, the only reason this is about the US and not some other country is because Assange has a hard-on for the US and not some other country. It could just as easily have been Russia, China, the UK, or even Portugal. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Diplomacy is diplomacy. Diplomats are diplomats. They perform the same functions, regardless of where they are from. Had Assange released confidential diplomatic cables from Portugal, the Portuguese government would have been highly embarrassed at their content, as well.
And no one can say that diplomacy from other countries can be as embarrassing as some of the crap that has been released. What we can say for sure is that we all know a little more of how world diplomacy works, specially American.
The key point is that everyone here is up in arms, pointing their accusatory finger at the US. Meanwhile, their actual governments aren't saying much. Why do you think that is? Because they know they do and say the same things...and "there but for the grace of God go I."
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
^^ They basically have commented that they won't comment on it until further investigation is done FEOS, as you know one can't comment on socalled leaks from one source alone ... and that is what wikileaks is ... one source.
As a private person one can however point the finger in whatever direction one wants ...
As a private person one can however point the finger in whatever direction one wants ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Actually Portugal was more than embarrassed with the cables, since our Foreign Policy Minister lied to our faces about the Guantanamo detainees he's probably resigning. Not that accountability is that high here but we really don't like liars.FEOS wrote:
Not really. There was a push for max information sharing between agencies following 9/11, as a lack of information sharing was seen as one of the proximate causes of missing the hijackers. This is one of the side-effects of that. Smarter information sharing is what's needed, following the rule that has always been in place: need to know.Ticia wrote:
So you're agreeing that too many had access to this information therefore the chance of a breach was higher?FEOS wrote:
Who said "flawless"? You're sounding a little condescending. That means "talking down to people" btw.
State pulled their access to SIPR because they didn't want everyone else having access to their diplomatic traffic after this. That's a prudent move. They should put in rules-based access to enforce "need to know" for things that are that sensitive. Your basic planner and intel troop doesn't need to have access to that kind of stuff. But others do, so the access needs to still be there for certain people.
Now to the next bit, which should be fun...?
All of the people with access to that level of information had been vetted. You always run the risk of one person who can do things like this, regardless of the population size or sensitivity of the information...and SECRET information isn't really all that big of a deal, tbh.And again, the only reason this is about the US and not some other country is because Assange has a hard-on for the US and not some other country. It could just as easily have been Russia, China, the UK, or even Portugal. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Diplomacy is diplomacy. Diplomats are diplomats. They perform the same functions, regardless of where they are from. Had Assange released confidential diplomatic cables from Portugal, the Portuguese government would have been highly embarrassed at their content, as well.Ticia wrote:
I'm being as objective as one can be not my fault if the issue is about the US and not about any other country. Plus I've already mentioned why the US government is so easily singled out on my previous posts.
If you think I
Defending your government, by saying that's just how diplomacy works, when they fucked up so badly could be even endearing had Americans not done it for so long and with such awful consequences now it's just deplorable...and yes here for the first time in this whole topic I am being a tiny bit condescending
BTW if any of you think I'm a US hater then it shows how truly ignorant you are about how the rest of the world sees you. Around this place if you're not an American you can't ever mention obvious US flaws without being called a troll
The reason for that is because Americans are aware of their flaws. The problem lies with people persistently trying to try cram it down their throats, which understandably gets their backs up.Ticia wrote:
BTW if any of you think I'm a US hater then it shows how truly ignorant you are about how the rest of the world sees you. Around this place if you're not an American you can't ever mention obvious US flaws without being called a troll