BF2S Forums Wikileaks - StateLogs

UON wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:

It does, but it gets harder now. The more the people know, the more mature a democracy is. Transparency is key to a functioning democracy, and freedom of speech is fundamental to that. Start drawing lines and imposing limits and ypou begin to step away from democracy.

The goverments, corporations, etc., need to keep their secrets better kept, and not trying to prosecute Assange. Specially considering he isn't the soure of the leaks.

I support leaking things about corporations, because that doesn't usually result in any death.  Leaking wartime secrets is very different.

Even just general leaks on governmental corruption are fine as well.

However, war has to be handled differently.  By its very nature, war is not usually transparent.

Yeah, particularly not when you like blowing up the journalists reporting on it with 30MM cannons.

Collateral Murder

Here we go...

UON wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:

It does, but it gets harder now. The more the people know, the more mature a democracy is. Transparency is key to a functioning democracy, and freedom of speech is fundamental to that. Start drawing lines and imposing limits and ypou begin to step away from democracy.

The goverments, corporations, etc., need to keep their secrets better kept, and not trying to prosecute Assange. Specially considering he isn't the soure of the leaks.

I support leaking things about corporations, because that doesn't usually result in any death.  Leaking wartime secrets is very different.

Even just general leaks on governmental corruption are fine as well.

However, war has to be handled differently.  By its very nature, war is not usually transparent.

Yeah, particularly not when you like blowing up the journalists reporting on it with 30MM cannons.

Collateral Murder

There's a difference between intentionally killing journalists (like how the drug cartels do in Mexico) and accidentally killing them because they're carrying what looks like weapons.

For the record though...   I supported that leak because it was holding us accountable for murdering some people by accident.   Some of the later leaks that Manning provided were of a very different nature.  His treason ended up costing lives rather than promoting justice.

UON wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

UON wrote:

Yeah, particularly not when you like blowing up the journalists reporting on it with 30MM cannons.

Collateral Murder

Here we go...

Hey! I got some catching up to do in the pointless circular argument stakes.  Been a while

Your post hints at the classic theme of 'the evil soldiers' who are, apparently, well aware of the identity, age, personal history and occupation of every person in a war zone, and fly around popping every Tom, Dick and Harry they happen across.

The vid shows a group of men in the company of another group wielding weapons, and happen to be just down the road from a military convoy. Judging from the footage as I remember it, none of these journalists are wearing the blue body armour and helmet that signify them as journalists. They obviously made no effort to inform coalition forces of their presence and frankly, acted foolishly. The pilots radioed for confirmation and got it. I'd like to see you make a better judgement without the luxury of hindsight.

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'd have to look more into the leaks you're referencing to determine what I think of them.  If they did endanger the lives of our allies or informants, then yes, I would consider them deplorable.

I don't really know the details since I'm not that old, but here is the wikipedia article about part of the leaks the Times published on the Vietnam War: Pentagon Papers

Pertaining to this thread, looks like Assange really can't be prossecuted by US law:

Wikipedia wrote:

Prior to publication, the New York Times sought legal advice. The paper's regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication, but house counsel James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy.

As far as I can tell, Senator Gravel's decision to read excerpts of the documents on the Senate floor along with the Supreme Court's defense of his decision is what aided news sources in being allowed to circulate the papers.

There is no equivalent precedent set by Manning's betrayal.  The only possible way I could see that happening would be if some other Senator did what Gravel did with the info leaked by him.

The First Amendment argument would not likely hold up in court.

When you talk about Manning, I agree. Ellsberg was tried for espionage. But Assange? Nope.

EVieira wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'd have to look more into the leaks you're referencing to determine what I think of them.  If they did endanger the lives of our allies or informants, then yes, I would consider them deplorable.

I don't really know the details since I'm not that old, but here is the wikipedia article about part of the leaks the Times published on the Vietnam War: Pentagon Papers

Pertaining to this thread, looks like Assange really can't be prossecuted by US law:

As far as I can tell, Senator Gravel's decision to read excerpts of the documents on the Senate floor along with the Supreme Court's defense of his decision is what aided news sources in being allowed to circulate the papers.

There is no equivalent precedent set by Manning's betrayal.  The only possible way I could see that happening would be if some other Senator did what Gravel did with the info leaked by him.

The First Amendment argument would not likely hold up in court.

When you talk about Manning, I agree. Ellsberg was tried for espionage. But Assange? Nope.

Assange should at the very least be prosecuted for the handling and distribution of stolen material.

UON wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

UON wrote:

Hey! I got some catching up to do in the pointless circular argument stakes.  Been a while

Your post hints at the classic theme of 'the evil soldiers' who are, apparently, well aware of the identity, age, personal history and occupation of every person in a war zone, and fly around popping every Tom, Dick and Harry they happen across.

The vid shows a group of men in the company of another group wielding weapons, and happen to be just down the road from a military convoy. Judging from the footage as I remember it, none of these journalists are wearing the blue body armour and helmet that signify them as journalists. They obviously made no effort to inform coalition forces of their presence and frankly, acted foolishly. The pilots radioed for confirmation and got it. I'd like to see you make a better judgement without the luxury of hindsight.

Your inferred meaning is not what I'm saying.  You can see after they wound him and he's crawling on the floor they hold fire because he doesn't have a gun.  That is to their credit. 

But why not just release the video in the first place if it doesn't show them doing anything wrong?

Most likely because they knew certain people would immediately label it as an intentional action as opposed to an accident. The broadcast of such videos or information damages the wider efforts by lowering support or creating distrust, making the job for the troops all the more harder. The outcome of Vietnam was adversely affected by television reports because it cooked up strong opposition.

UON wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

There's a difference between intentionally killing journalists (like how the drug cartels do in Mexico) and accidentally killing them because they're carrying what looks like weapons.

For the record though...   I supported that leak because it was holding us accountable for murdering some people by accident.   Some of the later leaks that Manning provided were of a very different nature.  His treason ended up costing lives rather than promoting justice.

Hmm, I'd have thought more opposition would cause a withdrawal sooner, making their jobs somewhat easier.  And possibly, for quite a high percentage, non-existant.

Well yeah, more opposition does mean that a war will end sooner.  Obviously, there are a lot of people that profit from war.

Still, I'd rather we end things on a strategic basis rather than on the basis of the public's fickle nature.

UON wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well yeah, more opposition does mean that a war will end sooner.  Obviously, there are a lot of people that profit from war.

Still, I'd rather we end things on a strategic basis rather than on the basis of the public's fickle nature.

For me it depends on what is classed as strategic.  You could say a strategic end to the Cold War would have been continuing the arms race until one side had nuke-negating defenses, then one side nuking the hell out of the other with a minimum of nukes coming back.

True.  I'm not saying all strategies are of equal worth, but in the case of Afghanistan, I would prefer we leave after accomplishing certain objectives.

When we left Vietnam, it was with our tail between our legs.  When we leave Afghanistan, I hope it's more a matter of handing off self-rule in a logical, functional manner.  We've already accomplished a lot of things there, so hopefully we can eventually come up with some ceasefire from the Taliban.  The more remote regions of Afghanistan are generally useless in terms of resources.

The most important thing we need to do is stop the opium trade though.  There has to be some sort of economic solution we can implement that will end all of the opium growing in Afghanistan.

Turquoise wrote:

The most important thing we need to do is stop the opium trade though.  There has to be some sort of economic solution we can implement that will end all of the opium growing in Afghanistan.

Stop buying heroin?  Grow it domestically?

I never understood this continuation of the war on drugs, just because someone has a problem with a substance, doesn't mean it needs to be wiped from the face of the planet. Pretty much any vegetable/fruit/grain/plant matter can be distilled into alcohol but I don't see the need to eliminate the worlds supply of food because some people turn into alcoholics.

jord wrote:

You can't end the opium trade in Afghanistan.

You can.  Granted, the easiest way requires reinstating an authoritarian government there.  The Taliban actually stopped its production for a while.

UON wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

UON wrote:

Stop buying heroin?  Grow it domestically?

I never understood this continuation of the war on drugs, just because someone has a problem with a substance, doesn't mean it needs to be wiped from the face of the planet. Pretty much any vegetable/fruit/grain/plant matter can be distilled into alcohol but I don't see the need to eliminate the worlds supply of food because some people turn into alcoholics.

Opium is on a different level.  Alcohol is nowhere near as addictive as opium.

Yet alcohol addition is a bigger problem, in terms of addicts per capita etc.

Well, of course.  It's legal and much more affordable.  It's also more universal in its cultural connections.

If you exposed society to opium to the same extent that we have with alcohol, the addiction rate among the general populace would be far worse.

And hell, if you want a historical example, observe what happened to China when Britain was dumping opium there.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-13 10:53:03)

EVieira wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

jord wrote:

You can't end the opium trade in Afghanistan.

You can.  Granted, the easiest way requires reinstating an authoritarian government there.  The Taliban actually stopped its production for a while.

We coudn't end cocaine production in South Amercia, and its right on our back yard. Opium trade cannot be stopped in Afghanistan...

Well, the reason things like Plan Colombia haven't worked is that our efforts were focused on fumigation and seizing of crops rather than helping to industrialize these areas.

The industrialization route could even work in Afghanistan, but this would require either eliminating the Taliban or making a truce with them.