92,000 classified military documents leaked

[Meekychuppet]

Julian is a fucking cunt. He doesn't give a shit about truth, it's all for publicity. Everything he does is planned according to how much media attention he's going to get.
If you follow, you'll see that he didn't give his first media appearance until everybody wanted to know who he was, until there was demand for it.
And now he's amped up the game.

These 92, 000 documents. Any one of them could put lives at risk.
Maybe they're not pointing them out for a very specific reason Seraph - mainly that saying "Hey, this one here, this is the one that puts lives at risk" is an idiotic thing to do when it's publically available.

Of course he cares about publicity - that's the whole point, to get this information to the public. You can speculate about his motives but you don't know. All we do know is that he has given to the taxpayer information on actions that they have paid for.

The nonsense about his media appearance is plainly not true. Do you really think he could have stayed under the radar? Do me a favour. Anyone with half a grain of sense can see that doing it his way allows him to tell the truth about Wikileaks and it's purpose before the US government started slinging mud. He's been very clever because he has denied them the opportunity to make it about him, so they have to answer the questions posed by these documents.

[sandinista]

Meekychuppet

[The Dawktor]

I hate to remind everyone- but since when does casting a single vote, once every 4 or 5 years, mean that we live in a true Democracy? Just because we have above average IQs does NOT mean we get more say in Government policy and actions (covert or overt) than someone with an IQ of 60. We get sweet FA say in anything AFTER we've marked our X in that ballot box.

I feel rather sorry for the Allied troops over there - all sitting wondering if the leaked stuff is ACTUALLY going to lead to THEIR injury/death.

Just sayin'

[JimC]

Do you honestly think there is anything within those reports that would surprise anyone? That there would be some great revelation about the atrocities of war?
The Government is already accountable, a quick google search will tell you already of the kinds of horrors which have occured during this war. Will these documents change anything?

If you are right in this assessment, then it also implies that such documents are unlikely to contain anything that will hurt allied troops in the field...

I think we need to divorce the argument about whether some form of military action in Afghanistan against the Taliban is justified from the argument as to whether an expose of aspects of allied policy is reasonable.

I am satisfied that action against the Taliban was and is justified, but disturbed at some of the consequences of this action involving excess civilian deaths. I am not convinced that the war is being prosecuted in a way which will lead to the best long-term outcome for Afghans. I am not convinced by arguments from the military and their supporters which basically say to civilians in allied countries "don't worry your pretty little head about that, leave it to us..."

But in all of this, I certainly do not want material released which will clearly and certainly compromise the security of troops on the ground. What emotion and rhetoric cannot do is clearly show whether the current whistle-blowing exercise was in danger of producing that.

[Trolldor]

Someone like Julian in a place like wikileaks? It is not the place best tasked with syphoning through 92, 000 military documents and judging which ones pose risks and which don't.

These are 92, 000 documents. The claims that it is justified rest on the principle that it reveals the 'truth' of the war, but people know what the truth is. The tools of war may have changed, and the tactics may have changed accordingly, but the malicious and cruel nature? It's been the same for several millenia. People are saying that "these documents reveal the truth" - bullshit. They reveal what you already know, they just make it specific.

We know these documents will contain that information because we know war. What we don't know are which lives are going to be put at risk because of it.
If, out of all these 92, 000 documents not a single one contains information that would put lives at risk? Then brilliant.They may be assholes, but they're worthy of respect for the sheer effort, or worthy of ridicule for their sheer luck.
But how likely is it? And how are we to trust the general public with this information? How are we to trust some smarmy, attention-whore like Julian with analysing each and every one of these documents with professional knowledge and determine which are safe to publish and which aren't?

[Hermit]

And how are we to trust the general public with this information?

Governments say they can't, of course. That's why governments keep saying, to pinch the way JimC expressed it: "don't worry your pretty little head about that, leave it to us..." and that in turn reminds me of the ways of corrupt governments. It wouldn't surprise me if Joh Bjelke Peterson put it exactly like that. While Malcolm Fraser was our Prime Minister, he went even further when expressed his desire that the media ignore politics altogether and report on sport, the weather and scandals only. (He probably had something like The Adelaide Advertiser in mind.) My view is that the more information gets dug out that governments are interested to keep away from public scrutiny, the better.

Their kneejerk reaction of crying "National security is compromised", "The lives of our brave boys fighting for democracy, freedom and the American way are at risk." et cetera, don't cut it with me. I'd give them more credence if they were more honest. In this case it would mean saying "Our hold on oil we need for our energy supply demands is compromised." and drop all that bullshit about liberating an oppressed people from an evil dictator. The Iraqi war stinks from go to woe, and any public airing is welcome to me. It all contributes to exposing the sordid self interest of powerful people, the lengths they go to in order to defend or expand those interests, and the number of Joes, Janes, Ahmeds and Aishas they are prepared to have killed in the process.

[Ian]

I'm comparing them. No-one has pointed to any part of the published documents that compromise current OpSec. They just say "it could jeopardize national security" as if that alone should shut down any conversation.

Yes, it should.

I'm afraid that your word is not good enough.

I don't need to point to any particular part of the documents. Maybe nothing harmful whatsoever is in there, who knows. That'd be swell, but that's not the point: Wikileaks doesn't understand everything they've read, no matter whatever level of scrutinizing they did before releasing these. Just off the top of my head, I can tell you that diplomatic relations between the US and Pakistan (not exactly a trivial issue!) has already taken a hit. Look again at the White House statement about this mess. You'll see the word "Pakistan" mentioned about twenty times in three paragraphs. Those are the first efforts of damage control.

But did Wikileaks think much about diplomatic consequences? Or exposing sensitive intelligence sources? Or undermining the security of Allied facilities or personnel? Not much, considering they published tens of thousands of documents. I don't even know what sensitive information could be in some of them, and that's the point - neither did Wikileaks. But some people with intentions far less benign than debating this stuff on an internet forum are pouring through those papers right now, take my word for it.

Another word for classified is "private". Suppose I could hack the personal computers of everyone here and publish every single email, word document, spreadsheet and photograph I saw fit on the internet. All there for your family, friends and coworkers to browse at their leisure. Should I be able to claim that all information should be available to the public? That's Assange's bizarre, childish ideology. Free information for everybody, and damn the consequences.

See, this is the point. You're not upset because the US has been up to no good, you're upset because they've been caught.

The comparison to privacy is ridiculous. It doesn't matter how you delineate the word 'classified'. When governments pay for their own stuff they can keep it secret. As long as it comes from the taxpayer's graft then openness is necessary. It's us who work to pay for these wars, and I certainly didn't agree to take UK in to Iraq or Afghanistan, and whatever the US is like, I can assure that nobody here, civilian or otherwise has been able to explain what on Earth we are doing there. They're not covering up, they really haven't got a clue, or if they are covering up they do the best acting dumb I have ever seen. Yours and Gawd's responses are so typical of the way government treats us - 'if you don't give us billions to go and kill brown people then we're all going to die'. If that's the case then I want to see the evidence. I have to file my tax return pretty soon - can I tell them it's classified? Only if I want to do three years in Chokey. It's all bullshit, and Wikileaks has done the wold a service because we now know what the military in Afghanistan is up to, and it stinks.

First of all, kiss my ass. Comparing me to Gawd, and babbling something about killing brown people? Grow up.

Secondly, it's not all about Afghanistan. You apparently missed the whole "setting the whole building on fire just to burn one tenant" analogy. My job has nothing to do with Afghanistan whatsoever. Same goes for many, many other people in my business. But how are those of us who depend on sensitive sources of information ever going to convince those sources or potential new ones that the US is capable of keeping their assistance private? How is American diplomacy with any country on Earth going to get anywhere if those countries think their side of the efforts are just going to end up on a no-longer-classified State Dept. email?

And as far as Afghanistan goes, Assange probably just made a tough situation worse. That naive bastard, no understanding of responsibility whatsoever... and I'm beginning to feel the same about you and some others here. He's a former hacker who decided to undermine American efforts there (not to mention place American lives at further risk) because he's decided he knows what's best.

And don't be fooled about this being a "whistle-blower" thing either. It ain't. Those documents came Assange's way not because of some General who nobly risked his career to send that information to Wikileaks in the hopes that the world would understand the war better. Wikileaks got them because a 22-yr old, junior-enlisted Army Intel Specialist who had recently been demoted to Private First Class because of emotional problems and whose girlfriend had just dumped him decided to placate his ego by copyingy all those files onto recordable CDs (which he then labeled "Lady Gaga", emailed them to Wikileaks and then bragged about it on an online forum, where somebody recognized what he did and turned him in. There's nothing heroic about any of this, and it certainly isn't "whistle-blowing".

[Trolldor]

The simple fact is you can't trust the general public with this information because we don't know what to do with it. The knee jerk reaction is actually your reaction.
"Good, truth!"
Truth, truth, it's true, the truthy truthiness.

And yet whether for or against, we are simply not qualified to pass judgement on what is important and what isn't, on what would represent a risk and what wouldn't. It is idiotic to assume that 92, 000 documents released without impunity is a 'good' thing to have in the public domain.
If the concern was truth, 14 documents would have been enough, five. A single document referring to a sanctioned attack on civilians would have been enough. That is truth, hard evidence displaying the reality of what is happening. A reality people are already aware of, that people have been talking about for some time, that returned soldiers have testified to already.

I like truthiness. I'm outraged about the fact that there are documents on the cold war that are still being kept secret, but that doesn't change the fact that the idea of releasing them at the time they were the most volatile is a fucking idiotic, backwards idea.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I like truthiness. I'm outraged about the fact that there are documents on the cold war that are still being kept secret, but that doesn't change the fact that the idea of releasing them at the time they were the most volatile is a fucking idiotic, backwards idea.

There are agents who worked in countries during the Cold War that are still in place. Outing them means they'll be dead, or worse. Want to see this?

[Trolldor]

No, I don't. I already know there are spies, I know they're all over the place, my getting a name and a place is not worth someone else's death.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, I don't. I already know there are spies, I know they're all over the place, my getting a name and a place is not worth someone else's death.

Evidently Wikileaks doesn't share your position. And this in a part of the world where they kill the family of a "traitor" as well as the "guilty party". But it does wonders for their street creds, so I guess that's all that matters.

[Meekychuppet]

The simple fact is you can't trust the general public with this information because we don't know what to do with it.

Why? Because you say so?

[Feck]

I like truthiness. I'm outraged about the fact that there are documents on the cold war that are still being kept secret, but that doesn't change the fact that the idea of releasing them at the time they were the most volatile is a fucking idiotic, backwards idea.

There are agents who worked in countries during the Cold War that are still in place. Outing them means they'll be dead, or worse. Want to see this?

No obviously not ! my concern is that there are people still in positions of privilege and power that probably should be dead or worse .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I like truthiness. I'm outraged about the fact that there are documents on the cold war that are still being kept secret, but that doesn't change the fact that the idea of releasing them at the time they were the most volatile is a fucking idiotic, backwards idea.

There are agents who worked in countries during the Cold War that are still in place. Outing them means they'll be dead, or worse. Want to see this?

No obviously not ! my concern is that there are people still in positions of privilege and power that probably should be dead or worse .

People will die from this.

[Meekychuppet]

First of all, kiss my ass. Comparing me to Gawd, and babbling something about killing brown people? Grow up.

Not a promising opening. When was the last time USA picked a fair fight? Would they ever? The hypocrisy and corruption in the US government and military is breathtaking. I really don't think USA realises that a large portion of the world is sick to fucking death of its antics.

Secondly, it's not all about Afghanistan. You apparently missed the whole "setting the whole building on fire just to burn one tenant" analogy. My job has nothing to do with Afghanistan whatsoever. Same goes for many, many other people in my business. But how are those of us who depend on sensitive sources of information ever going to convince those sources or potential new ones that the US is capable of keeping their assistance private? How is American diplomacy with any country on Earth going to get anywhere if those countries think their side of the efforts are just going to end up on a no-longer-classified State Dept. email?

So, to rephrase your question: How is America supposed to win if it has to play by the rules? American diplomacy seems to consist of 'do what we want or we'll destroy you'. If the bullies of the world are forced to actually talk to those they disagree with rather than kill them then I can't think of many inducements which I would not tolerate to that end.

And as far as Afghanistan goes, Assange probably just made a tough situation worse. That naive bastard, no understanding of responsibility whatsoever... and I'm beginning to feel the same about you and some others here. He's a former hacker who decided to undermine American efforts there (not to mention place American lives at further risk) because he's decided he knows what's best.

As opposed to the government deciding they know what's best? Classic American military thinking. You can do whatever you like but as soon as you get it stuck up your ass you don't like it. That's what 9/11 was for you too - your Indian Mutiny, where someone did to you what you did to them. The reaction to it was a disaster too. America is going to have to accept that it needs a little more humility in it's dealings with the world. You are a superpower in decline. Pretty soon China and India will be the dominant economic powers and your bullying days will be over by default rather than choice. The sooner USA learns what diplomacy really is the better off we'll all be.

And how is it worse? All I can see is that USA is the latest nation to pick this fight and it's getting the same bloody nose the others did. Throwing a tantrum about it is what all bullies do when they pick on the wrong people and get punched in the nose.

And don't be fooled about this being a "whistle-blower" thing either. It ain't. Those documents came Assange's way not because of some General who nobly risked his career to send that information to Wikileaks in the hopes that the world would understand the war better. Wikileaks got them because a 22-yr old, junior-enlisted Army Intel Specialist who had recently been demoted to Private First Class because of emotional problems and whose girlfriend had just dumped him decided to placate his ego by copyingy all those files onto recordable CDs (which he then labeled "Lady Gaga", emailed them to Wikileaks and then bragged about it on an online forum, where somebody recognized what he did and turned him in. There's nothing heroic about any of this, and it certainly isn't "whistle-blowing".

So what? Would Watergate been any less a crime if it had been some other source? Would Clinton's blow job and subsequent lying to Congress be any less an impeachable offence if it had come from a disreputable source?

Blind patriotism is the same as blind faith. It's adherents defend it to the death, they excuse all manner of atrocity in it's name and at no point will they accept that there might be a better way.