WikiLeaks

[skysidhe]

The 'how' of this has gotten my attention.


The underlying plot thickens.

Manning, the private who apparently copied the documents confesses online to a hacker.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...6/18/wikileaks

Many of the bizarre aspects of this case, at least as conveyed by Lamo and Wired, are self-evident. Why would a 22-year-old Private in Iraq have unfettered access to 250,000 pages of diplomatic cables so sensitive that they "could do serious damage to national security?" Why would he contact a total stranger, whom he randomly found from a Twitter search, in order to "quickly" confess to acts that he knew could send him to prison for a very long time, perhaps his whole life? And why would he choose to confess over the Internet, in an unsecured, international AOL IM chat, given the obvious ease with which that could be preserved, intercepted or otherwise surveilled? These are the actions of someone either unbelievably reckless or actually eager to be caught.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Yes, I've heard they have a soldier under arrest and he will probably be tried.

Not everything is treason, but it's a label that gets thrown about.
That is, the "embarrassed party" views everything in worst possible case scenario (to them self).

But keep in mind there's a difference between public exposure and giving "secrets" to an enemy.
As discussed in the interview, once both sides know a "secret" it loses it's importance to both sides.

Treason? He was working for the Army at the time he copied the documents.Didn't he take an oath to protect the interests of the U.S. and her allis? Public exposure is a pretty soft word. Should we all start copying information from the hard-drives of where we work and expose them?

[classicman]

WTH Lamp? Look at it this way -
I know you cannot be trusted. Now - try to negotiate with me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

After 9-11, so much was made of the lack of communication between various arms of the government, they hooked everything together with access by even lowly clerks.

People say all kinds of things on the internet they wouldn't say in person. When you have something that's bugging you, and have to talk to someone, a stranger on the net seems to be a safe option after you've developed some kind of rapport.

[glatt]

Think of all the hobos we've admitted to killing.

[Lamplighter]

Sky, I'd say yes to copying and whistle-blowing if what a company is doing is illegal.
I doubt many wrong-doers will publicize their own wrong-doings.

[piercehawkeye45]

Ironically, this will probably cause the opposite effect of what wikileaks was hoping for. If they were looking for more transparency, it will cause US leaders to be even more secretive and come down on leaks even harder. If they were looking for a change to a more liberal, by liberal I mean sunshine and flowers type of liberal, US foreign policy, I could see it becoming even more blunt.

There is a need for classified information and blunt foreign policies but the problem, as always, is where is line drawn in the sea of gray.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Sky, I'd say yes to copying and whistle-blowing if what a company is doing is illegal.
I doubt many wrong-doers will publicize their own wrong-doings.

The only time I like to see this, though, is in Hollywood, or maybe a good book. I suppose that makes me shallow.




I am also loyal to a fault, which also pegs me as having no scruples.
ah, well

If this guy Manning had access to these documents, I am sure other people did too. Why should we ( you ) pat this guy on the back when all of the others decided to stay true to their government, and die in the line of duty too.

I wouldn't have done it. For their sakes. For the sake of being a team.For those who I would have considered my brothers and sisters, in arms. I wouldn't have done it.

[Lamplighter]

Classic, I doubt seriously the State Dept will not be able to negotiate with others.

One of the talking heads on TV reported that the response of former State Dept diplomats
was not about the embarrassment or trust, but the perception that diplomats were acting as spies.

If that's the policy (i.e., to spy), then change the policy.
I'm surprised Hillary didn't know better than to perpetuate Condy's policy.

But so far Wikileaks is not about Hillary, and I essentially agree with Piercehawkeye's last comment:

There is a need for classified information and blunt foreign policies but the problem, as always, is where is line drawn in the sea of gray.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's the fucking point! You can't draw a line in a gray area, nobody will know where it is. That's why diplomats need latitude, and the ability to communicate frankly with their associates in other parts of the world, without fear of assholes like wikileaks.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Yes, I've heard they have a soldier under arrest and he will probably be tried.

Yes, and if found guilty I hope he hangs.

Not everything is treason, but it's a label that gets thrown about.

There is no doubt that the acts are treasonous.

That is, the "embarrassed party" views everything in worst possible case scenario (to them self).

So you view that this information release is nothing more than an embarrassment?

But keep in mind there's a difference between public exposure and giving "secrets" to an enemy.
As discussed in the interview, once both sides know a "secret" it loses it's importance to both sides.

There is no doubt that every enemy of our country is sucking this stuff up with a large wet vac.

I can't believe you continue to sound so flippant about the damage known and potential. This is not "whistle-blowing".

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Classic, I doubt seriously the State Dept will not be able to negotiate with others.

Again, I wasn't talking about JUST THE US. This is much bigger than that.

One of the talking heads on TV reported that the response of former State Dept diplomats was not about the embarrassment or trust, but the perception that diplomats were acting as spies.

Separate issue, but I do not think its a good thing letting them know this.
How many of those diplomats are going to be able to talk to other countries when they are now perceived as spies?

But so far Wikileaks is not about Hillary

no it isn't - you are the first to bring her up.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Classic, I doubt seriously the State Dept will not be able to negotiate with others.

It certainly weakens our position. Or don't you care about that?

One of the talking heads on TV reported that the response of former State Dept diplomats
was not about the embarrassment or trust, but the perception that diplomats were acting as spies.

If that's the policy (i.e., to spy), then change the policy.
I'm surprised Hillary didn't know better than to perpetuate Condy's policy.

But what if that was the policy? You don't like it or agree with it and are happy they leaked stolen classified information?

[TheMercenary]

Good news....

WikiLeaks ‘Cablegate’ Site Hit By Powerful Cyber-Attack

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/...-cyber-attack/


A bit like closing the barn door after the horse got away, but hopefully they will destroy this organization.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I'm impressed by this guy...
He seems to have a lot of experience and understands the benefits to what he is doing.
The last 3 or 4 pages of the interview are quite revealing, and I liked his final statement: "courage is contagious"

Assange, whose whereabouts are unknown, is wanted by Sweden internationally concerning allegations against him that include rape and sexual molestation.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101130/D9JQEI3O1.html

Are still impressed by him?

[Lamplighter]

Classic, see post # 14

But that's really not the main point.
The new media have been talking about leaks of State Dept materials, and the "spying" issue has been a major sub-topic.

The policy/directive to carry out the "spying" was a policy initiated by Sec of State Rice, and more recently continued by Sec of State Clinton.