Wikileaks

[Balloon guy 158]

New York Times story detailing the joint US/Israeli Stuxnet attack on Iran's nuclear program:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/mi...eral&src=meThis whole incident is fascinating to me.

It will be fascinating to watch a new breed of suicide bomber armed with proof that Israel is actively sabotaging the Iranian bomb making facility.Equally fascinating to watch as Iranian secret police use the documents to trace who was inside their program and arrest their families and begin the killings.Fascinating.

[custom36 4]

It will be fascinating to watch a new breed of suicide bomber armed with proof that Israel is actively sabotaging the Iranian bomb making facility.Equally fascinating to watch as Iranian secret police use the documents to trace who was inside their program and arrest their families and begin the killings.Fascinating.

Almost as fascinating as watching Israel deny international aid to Palestinian citizens, illegally expand their settlements, and skirt UN resolutions as they do whatever they want because they have the US's delusional blessing.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

It will be fascinating to watch a new breed of suicide bomber armed with proof that Israel is actively sabotaging the Iranian bomb making facility.Equally fascinating to watch as Iranian secret police use the documents to trace who was inside their program and arrest their families and begin the killings.Fascinating.

The NYT article neither revealed new information nor blew anyone's cover (and since when have Republicans been worried about that?). Iran has known from the get-go that it was subjected to a cyberattack, and I'm sure they understood fully who was behind it. The article appeared with the blessing of the government, because they allowed themselves to be quoted in it, and it alluded to _public_ statements made by the outgoing chief of Israeli security. Neither intelligence agency wanted to keep this quiet. They're using it to send a message, likely aimed at North Korea and others.Besides, if you weren't going to be a suicide bomber before, over anything at all, but now you are going to become one only because of Stuxnet ... uh, yeah.And the point of the article was, no one was inside the Iranian program. No one ever needed to be.

[Balloon guy 158]

The NYT article neither revealed new information nor blew anyone's cover (and since when have Republicans been worried about that?). Iran has known from the get-go that it was subjected to a cyberattack, and I'm sure they understood fully who was behind it. The article appeared with the blessing of the government, because they allowed themselves to be quoted in it, and it alluded to _public_ statements made by the outgoing chief of Israeli security. Neither intelligence agency wanted to keep this quiet. They're using it to send a message, likely aimed at North Korea and others.Besides, if you weren't going to be a suicide bomber before, over anything at all, but now you are going to become one only because of Stuxnet ... uh, yeah.And the point of the article was, no one was inside the Iranian program. No one ever needed to be.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep better at night while freedom loving people are tortured and forced to watch their loved ones killed.

[custom36 4]

Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep better at night while freedom loving people are tortured and forced to watch their loved ones killed.

lol. Give it a percentage. How much of the things you say do you actually believe?

[Spademan 94]

Was directed to this thread, god dammit. Now I have to write stuff.Lazy as possible, but utterly accurate:1. I'm glad almost everyone who thought the action in the video was "premature" or "unnecessary" made caveats like "I haven't been to war" ect, because I'll tell you, 2007, that area, at that time, given those circumstances, I would have lit them up and slept peacefully the rest of my days. 2. The cavalier, or even excited attitude of many soldiers while engaging and after winning a conflict isn't really a reflection of government made, indiscriminate "killing machines", but rather a common psychological mode a man goes in to when humans are facing other humans who are trying to kill them. An artifact of the fight or flight adrenalin, and "us verses the enemy" mentality that is necessary when tasked with fighting other human beings to the death. 3. hblask, I'm not sure if it's a mis-communication or what, but what people are arguing for in terms of "diplomacy" and the secrecy necessary in such is directly involved with Intelligence, Military topics (possible and actual), national security and U.S. interests.4. There are more distinct levels of the Top Secret sort of thing which precludes, in many instances, leaks of its information by segmenting the information on a need to know level. However, some of the material stolen from classified reports of a more general nature, released and still held, are a direct threat to persons and Wikileaks is not a hero for having obtained or released it.5. Yes, there should be transparency in regard to gov spending, who owns stock in what and a great many other things, but Wikileaks isn't stealing or hording or releasing just that information, and that is a problem.6. Both Iraq, and on deeper level Afghanistan are "un-winnable" in the sense of us leaving either of them a thriving, freedom based land of relative peace and love. However, on a personal note, there are a great many jackasses over there, mainly due to religion, that are of a violent, barbaric, boy-raping, women subjugating, civilian targeting, women and children suicide-bomb-making, Insha-Allah nature who I don't mind putting in the dirt. Beats working in a cubicle.

[Balloon guy 158]

lol. Give it a percentage. How much of the things you say do you actually believe?

Irrelevant.When we allow for the inability for our allies and snitches to trust us, we make it infinitely harder to get the intel we need to keep this country safe.When the Obama administration went after the 'torturers' in the first few months of his administration, he effectively said: "Everyone at the CIA, you had better remember to always cover your own ass because we will come after you if you put in extra effort to do your job that we feel is politically valuable for us to denounce."This is just like the witch hunt to find any soldiers they can to put on trial. First they fail at diplomacy, and send our troops in, then they sit in their safe offices and look to prosecute American troopers for doing the job they sent them there for. Want to destroy the effectiveness of a fighting unit, tell it that we have the ACLU lawyers to debrief them after every firefight to see if they need to go to jail for their actions.This may not harm us much today, but tomorrow we will be blinder than we might have been to future threats etc.And when the worst happens, we will blame the CIA for not being more aggressive in their intelligence gathering.As the smoke wafts into the sky filled with the left's dreams.So 75-79%

[hblask 1]

Was directed to this thread, god dammit. 3. hblask, I'm not sure if it's a mis-communication or what, but what people are arguing for in terms of "diplomacy" and the secrecy necessary in such is directly involved with Intelligence, Military topics (possible and actual), national security and U.S. interests.

I think we agree on this, and that is why I said it looks like Wikileaks is not up to the task. They don't seem to have an understanding of what they are looking at. Just making people look bad isn't sufficient reason to release stuff, especially if it endangers lives.Having said that, I think anything that doesn't fall into that category seems like fair game to me. I don't care who is embarrassed or what flawed policies are exposed -- in fact, that's the reason for something like Wikileaks to exist. I just want it run by intelligent people who understand how governments and wars work.

[timwakefield 68]

I just want it run by intelligent people who understand how governments and wars work.

The thing is, the only people who are capable and qualified enough to determine which data is potentially dangerous to national security are government agents, and probably the ones at the very top of the ladder. Also I think that about 99.9% of what was released could (and perhaps should) be considered potentially dangerous to our country. I agree that wikileaks could be great, but only if they stuck to non-governmental leaks. I don't understand why people think it is their right to see classified government documents.

[hblask 1]

The thing is, the only people who are capable and qualified enough to determine which data is potentially dangerous to national security are government agents, and probably the ones at the very top of the ladder. Also I think that about 99.9% of what was released could (and perhaps should) be considered potentially dangerous to our country. I agree that wikileaks could be great, but only if they stuck to non-governmental leaks. I don't understand why people think it is their right to see classified government documents.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that ANY of what has been released so far is dangerous to our country. So Hillary thinks the ambassador from Dumpeykvia is a poopy-head.... who cares?I think the reason we have the right to see much of this stuff is that 1. we paid for it, and 2. much of what is classified is only classified to cover up misdeeds that we would never support if we knew about them. Government should not be going behind our back doing things that we (in the "we" as "society" sense) object to.Also, I think I could figure out which documents pose a security threat at least 90% of the time, and a moral government would help out with the rest, explaining why certain documents shouldn't be released. So far, the Obama admin has refused to cooperate with this when asked.

[Spademan 94]

This is drunk, rambling text written while watching Departed for the third time. Do not expect coherence or entertainment:

2. much of what is classified is only classified to cover up misdeeds that we would never support if we knew about them.

First off: no. This is ridiculous.

Also, I think I could figure out which documents pose a security threat at least 90% of the time, and a moral government would help out with the rest, explaining why certain documents shouldn't be released.

No you couldn't, for example:

So Hillary thinks the ambassador from Dumpeykvia is a poopy-head.... who cares?

I'm going to try not to flame in this thread since it's been a fairly reasonable discourse. With that said, there is no other way to classify many of your statements in this thread other than naive. You seem to think that everyone is willing to hold hands and speak reasonably to each other and nation states can get along singing old negro spirituals and never take advantage of each other. It isn't just Hillary. You seem to think that no amount of duplicity is necessary in diplomacy. Listen, it is far more complicated than that. For example, the ambassador from Dupeykvia is the son of the dictator of Dupeykvia. Dupeykvia is closely aligned with Lumpaland. Lumpaland has nukes and tanks and hates our friends in Pumpkinstan. Our Diplomats (or spies, who are often "Diplomats"... think about that, if you want Diplomats to have full disclosure then you basically want to murder our ability to gather information of great and National Security importance) have to be able convey honest, sometimes damning, sometimes embarrassing, but often valuable information about the ambassador of Dupeykvia to decision makers without the ambassador, and by proxy his father the dictator, and by proxy their close friends in Lumpaland ever having access to these formulated opinions. The guys in Lumpaland, by the way, haven't been slaughtering people in Pumpkinstan solely because they think that we are friends with both Lumpaland and their brothers from another mother, Dupeykvia. Discovering that our developed opinion on the dictators son is that he is a "juvenile, dangerous sociopath who, if allowed to succeed his father, may commit the most heinous acts possible given his newfound power and may need to be surreptitiously or even directly thwarted to prevent instability and genocide in not only Dupeykvia but the entire region." And that, "His father, while currently stable, cannot be approached concerning this subject because he has shown himself unreasonable and prone to anger when confronted with the slightest hint of derogatory discussion concerning himself or his family. If the dictator is aggravated by way of family shame, the region could explode before any diplomatic intervention can be fostered, and military intervention is impossible."The idea that diplomacy is like matter between friends and "who cares if people know what we, our government, or our Military really think about them" is incredibly simple-minded.Furthermore, while I admire the spirit of "government should be afraid of the people, not the people afraid of the government", people seem to forget that we have checks and balances built in. I am dumbfounded that people who can be daily inundated by bi-partisan vitriol, Government official vs. Government official, scandals and exposed ****-sucking in the White House, Watergate, Iran Contra, rest-stop faggotry and on and on can possibly think that the "Government" (of their elected officials, by the way), somehow all come together to hide all of these "conspiracies" to dupe the "people".It's just silly. Most things are classified for a good reason, and there are democrats and republicans and "small government" people, and flaming liberals and raging conservatives... all kinds of people- this isn't Nazi Germany - all kinds of people of different faiths and philosophies that have access to the information, who are authorized to see them because they have the clearance and "need to know". They aren't disclosed to the public (which includes foreign governments), not for some Illuminati, Big-Brother, the Man mind-controlling the sheep reason. They aren't disclosed because everyone who produces and consumes them, all these different kinds of people, our brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters and sons and neighbors, not some nebulous "Government", realize that it would imperil lives, and hurt U.S. interests. And of course the illegality of disclosing classified information.The problem with anyone who isn't directly involved with "war and diplomacy" just "getting all of the information" and then deciding what is related to national security or military or intelligence is because... they aren't directly involved with war and diplomacy, so it is literally impossible for them to know. Even when they think they do, as evidenced by your position.Not even taking into account that there is no penalty for being wrong, since they have no clearance or reasonable expectation to know any better. It's a silly risk of lives and interests for very little "cover-up"

[Balloon guy 158]

I like the way Spade explained it there.One of the most instrumental moments in my world view of politics was the late Patrick Moynihan.He was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and an article I read opened my eyes to the reality that Democrats can love their country, support the troops and place the interest of their country ahead of their party.I forget the particulars, but once I stopped believing that all dems bad all repubs good, I grew as a person.Now I know that most dems bad, some repubs good, and I allow for the possibility that a person can have a different view than me and still be a great American.But overall I trust that behind closed doors, the men and women on these committees are capable over providing oversight without the need for Wikileaks. And I trust that the American military is made up of more solid Americans with good motives and honorable intentions that I give them the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise.But most of them cannot golf to save their lives.

[akoff 0]

I like the way Spade explained it there.One of the most instrumental moments in my world view of politics was the late Patrick Moynihan.He was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and an article I read opened my eyes to the reality that Democrats can love their country, support the troops and place the interest of their country ahead of their party.I forget the particulars, but once I stopped believing that all dems bad all repubs good, I grew as a person.Now I know that most dems bad, some repubs good, and I allow for the possibility that a person can have a different view than me and still be a great American.But overall I trust that behind closed doors, the men and women on these committees are capable over providing oversight without the need for Wikileaks. And I trust that the American military is made up of more solid Americans with good motives and honorable intentions that I give them the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise.But most of them cannot golf to save their lives.

Golf...i miss golf. 6 inches more white shit this morning. last week i went to my club for dinner...dinner i never eat dinner there I golf there!!! freakin winter!!

[Balloon guy 158]

Golf...i miss golf. 6 inches more white shit this morning. last week i went to my club for dinner...dinner i never eat dinner there I golf there!!! freakin winter!!

Walked the Bob Hope Classic tournament yesterday, 80 degrees, blue skies.But this kind of weather only lasts for 9 months of the year, then it gets hot. A dry hot.

[timwakefield 68]

Wired.com just published the full Bradley Manning-Adrian Lamo chat logsThey're quite fascinating, especially if you know Lamo's history and know of course that he very quickly turned these chats over to the gov't, which is how Manning got caught. On their decision to publish the complete chats:

When we broke the news of Manning ’s arrest in June 2010, we judged, after discussions with Manning’s friends and family, that the logs included sensitive personal information with no bearing on WikiLeaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them. In coming to this position, we weighed Manning’s privacy interest against news value and relevance, a standard journalistic balancing test embodied in the ethics guidelines of the Society of Professional Journalists.We also exercised what we felt was due caution to avoid inadvertently revealing sensitive military information in the midst of a complex, breaking news story. (We have been satisfied for some time that there is nothing of military importance in the unpublished logs.)We stand by that decision and our reasoning, but we now believe that independent reporting elsewhere has tipped the scale in favor of publishing. By all evidence, Manning is a figure of historic importance. Inasmuch as the conversations shed light on the personal pressures in Manning’s life at the time of his arrest, publishing the logs serves a valid news interest, and at this point we believe it will cause little additional harm to Manning’s privacy.

[Balloon guy 158]

Looks like wikileaks gets its first victimAnd it was one of the guys who took out the iranian nuke scientist.

[phlegm 6]

Looks like wikileaks gets its first victimAnd it was one of the guys who took out the iranian nuke scientist.

Unintended consequence of a free society.

[Balloon guy 158]

When you out the source of information in a manner that it can be traced to the source, you are not accidently getting a man killed.btw, why is the correct spelling of accidently not in the chrome spell checker?<remove glasses>They left it out by accident?

[timwakefield 68]

Accidentally.

[colonel Feathers 5]

Looks like wikileaks gets its first victimAnd it was one of the guys who took out the iranian nuke scientist.

Im guessing assange is now on the mossads "To DO" list.