92,000 classified military documents leaked

[Meekychuppet]

I wish people would stop saying the argument from authority is an automatic fallacy.
It's not.

It is if you assume it is all that is required to dismiss dissenting views - that's what makes it a fallacy.

[Meekychuppet]

Not the red herring, I didn't.

You did. You made an analogy that has nothing to do with the issue. If you don't want to talk about that then don't post it.

The analogy was good, even if you missed the point.

Actually it was an equivocation fallacy.

[Meekychuppet]

We own it. We pay for it. If you want people to accept your privacy then pay your own stationery bill.

Would you have supported a leak of the plans for the invasion of Normandy?

After the fact? Sure. That's all I am arguing for here.

[Coito ergo sum]

I wish people would stop saying the argument from authority is an automatic fallacy.
It's not.

Quite correct.

[Ian]

Or on national security information? Nevermind it even being a fraction of that information.

Give us the rest of it then.

The good news in all thi is that the reports are all six years to six months old. Nothing too fresh. But that's not the point. The general public has absolutely no right to know everything that's been passed in confidence between military commands or on diplomatic channels. To even think otherwise is incredibly naive.

We own it. We pay for it. If you want people to accept your privacy then pay your own stationery bill.

How about the public getting to review messages involving undercover operatives in a Mexican drug cartel? Or a classified assessment of weak points of an Air Force base in Turkey? Or a disparaging biography of a foreign leader with whom your country nevertheless needs to continue relations. Is "national security" nothing more than an abstract concept to you?

Why not?

Meeky, I'd beg you to accept that my argument is not based upon an ideology, but on the fact that I understand these matters a lot better than you do.

You only understand them because you have access to them. This is just an argument from authority. Additionally, you also are arguing from an ideological standpoint, one of authoritarianism.

We own it, therefore why shouldn't should see all of it??? Are you insane? Because in just the three examples I mentioned above, the undercover operative gets tortured and killed by the drug cartel, the Air base gets attacked by a truck bomber, and diplomatic relations between your country and country X fall to pieces. That's why.

Apparently in a debate you only care about your own logos, and ethos means nothing to you. You have an opinion on classified message traffic and no experience with it. You think I'm just being authoritarian? Maybe you're just being naive. Not everybody gets to know everything, and that means you too. There are damn good reasons for it (see the first paragraph), and if you can't see them, then you're not as bright as you like to think you are.

[Coito ergo sum]

We own it. We pay for it. If you want people to accept your privacy then pay your own stationery bill.

Would you have supported a leak of the plans for the invasion of Normandy?

After the fact? Sure. That's all I am arguing for here.

Except that the problem is, we don't know if the 92,000 pages of documentation involve only things that are of no intelligence use any longer. Just because a document is a year old doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be kept secret for another year from now, for the same basic reason that Allied knowledge of the Enigma machine codes in 1942 don't become "stale" in a year or two. And, I do not believe any analysis of the 92,000 pages were made before disclosure to the public, nor would I assume "Wikileaks" is a sufficient screening service to decide on behalf of the country which intelligence information is o.k. to leak and which is not.

[Meekychuppet]

Or on national security information? Nevermind it even being a fraction of that information.

Give us the rest of it then.

The good news in all thi is that the reports are all six years to six months old. Nothing too fresh. But that's not the point. The general public has absolutely no right to know everything that's been passed in confidence between military commands or on diplomatic channels. To even think otherwise is incredibly naive.

We own it. We pay for it. If you want people to accept your privacy then pay your own stationery bill.

How about the public getting to review messages involving undercover operatives in a Mexican drug cartel? Or a classified assessment of weak points of an Air Force base in Turkey? Or a disparaging biography of a foreign leader with whom your country nevertheless needs to continue relations. Is "national security" nothing more than an abstract concept to you?

Why not?

Meeky, I'd beg you to accept that my argument is not based upon an ideology, but on the fact that I understand these matters a lot better than you do.

You only understand them because you have access to them. This is just an argument from authority. Additionally, you also are arguing from an ideological standpoint, one of authoritarianism.

We own it, therefore why shouldn't should see all of it??? Are you insane? Because in just the three examples I mentioned above, the undercover operative gets tortured and killed by the drug cartel, the Air base gets attacked by a truck bomber, and diplomatic relations between your country and country X fall to pieces. That's why.

And we have only your word for all of this.

Apparently in a debate you only care about your own logos, and ethos means nothing to you. You have an opinion on classified message traffic and no experience with it. You think I'm just being authoritarian? Maybe you're just being naive. Not everybody gets to know everything, and that means you too. There are damn good reasons for it (see the first paragraph), and if you can't see them, then you're not as bright as you like to think you are.

As long as your justification amounts to 'you can't know because I say so' then I don't know how any right-thinking person will accept it. You know, you say we're not fit to know. Like I said, governments wouldn't even be involved in these things if the public knew. It's completely circular and self-serving to argue this.

Face it, you're Big Brother.

[The Dawktor]

Meeky- I find it interesting that you feel that you are qualified to comment on, or have the right of access to 'everything'- is that what you mean?

Not necessarily. I don't think a person's medical confidentiality should be breached for curiosity's sake, for example. However, in this case I see no reason why we shouldn't have this information.

OK let us lose the Medical parallel-

Meeky- with your above average IQ and keen interest- do you feel qualified to read, judge or comment upon military intelligence documents and their accuracy and relevance?

[Trolldor]

I can't help but notice all you're doing now is pushing buttons.

[Coito ergo sum]

As long as your justification amounts to 'you can't know because I say so' then I don't know how any right-thinking person will accept it. You know, you say we're not fit to know. Like I said, governments wouldn't even be involved in these things if the public knew. It's completely circular and self-serving to argue this.
.

How do you suggest the determination of what gets disclosed be made, without disclosing the information first? (after all, you said that you would support disclosing the Normandy invasion secrets 'after the fact', but you'd have no way knowing it was after or before the fact unless and until you knew the information).

[Meekychuppet]

We own it. We pay for it. If you want people to accept your privacy then pay your own stationery bill.

Would you have supported a leak of the plans for the invasion of Normandy?

After the fact? Sure. That's all I am arguing for here.

Except that the problem is, we don't know if the 92,000 pages of documentation do not involve things that are of no intelligence use any longer. Just because a document is a year old doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be kept secret for another year from now, for the same basic reason that Allied knowledge of the Enigma machine codes in 1942 don't become "stale" in a year or two. And, I do not believe any analysis of the 92,000 pages were made before disclosure to the public, nor would I assume "Wikileaks" is a sufficient screening service to decide on behalf of the country which intelligence information is o.k. to leak and which is not.

Again, that's half of my point. It's not that the government has been wronged, it's that someone else did what they think only they are allowed to do.

The only way we will know is if they are released. The time delay on the release of secret documents is a scandal. A classic example is JFK's assassination. I wasn't even born when it happened and I'll likely be dead before the government releases documents pertaining to it. That was the murder of the leader of the biggest superpower on Earth and people cannot get information about the crime. Governments treat us like idiots.

[Meekychuppet]

Meeky- I find it interesting that you feel that you are qualified to comment on, or have the right of access to 'everything'- is that what you mean?

Not necessarily. I don't think a person's medical confidentiality should be breached for curiosity's sake, for example. However, in this case I see no reason why we shouldn't have this information.

OK let us lose the Medical parallel-

Meeky- with your above average IQ and keen interest- do you feel qualified to read, judge or comment upon military intelligence documents and their accuracy and relevance?

It's very difficult to say since I don't know what is in them, but I don't see any reason why a person should be denied the right to know what it's government is doing.

[Meekychuppet]

As long as your justification amounts to 'you can't know because I say so' then I don't know how any right-thinking person will accept it. You know, you say we're not fit to know. Like I said, governments wouldn't even be involved in these things if the public knew. It's completely circular and self-serving to argue this.
.

How do you suggest the determination of what gets disclosed be made, without disclosing the information first? (after all, you said that you would support disclosing the Normandy invasion secrets 'after the fact', but you'd have no way knowing it was after or before the fact unless and until you knew the information).

That#s a very good question. Even I accept that there has to be some buffer etc, but this nonsense of sealing documents for 75 years and so on has to stop. Ian himself has said that these are all at least six months old, and thus not an issue so clearly disclosure in that period is not unrealistic.

[Ian]

Or on national security information? Nevermind it even being a fraction of that information.

Give us the rest of it then.

The good news in all thi is that the reports are all six years to six months old. Nothing too fresh. But that's not the point. The general public has absolutely no right to know everything that's been passed in confidence between military commands or on diplomatic channels. To even think otherwise is incredibly naive.

We own it. We pay for it. If you want people to accept your privacy then pay your own stationery bill.

How about the public getting to review messages involving undercover operatives in a Mexican drug cartel? Or a classified assessment of weak points of an Air Force base in Turkey? Or a disparaging biography of a foreign leader with whom your country nevertheless needs to continue relations. Is "national security" nothing more than an abstract concept to you?

Why not?

Meeky, I'd beg you to accept that my argument is not based upon an ideology, but on the fact that I understand these matters a lot better than you do.

You only understand them because you have access to them. This is just an argument from authority. Additionally, you also are arguing from an ideological standpoint, one of authoritarianism.

We own it, therefore why shouldn't should see all of it??? Are you insane? Because in just the three examples I mentioned above, the undercover operative gets tortured and killed by the drug cartel, the Air base gets attacked by a truck bomber, and diplomatic relations between your country and country X fall to pieces. That's why.

And we have only your word for all of this.

Apparently in a debate you only care about your own logos, and ethos means nothing to you. You have an opinion on classified message traffic and no experience with it. You think I'm just being authoritarian? Maybe you're just being naive. Not everybody gets to know everything, and that means you too. There are damn good reasons for it (see the first paragraph), and if you can't see them, then you're not as bright as you like to think you are.

As long as your justification amounts to 'you can't know because I say so' then I don't know how any right-thinking person will accept it. You know, you say we're not fit to know. Like I said, governments wouldn't even be involved in these things if the public knew. It's completely circular and self-serving to argue this.

Face it, you're Big Brother.

Face it, you don't know what you're talking about.

Meeky, I'm not saying Thou Shalt Respect My Authority. Of course authority should be questioned. All of it. But you don't seem to understand the difference between questioning authority and demanding to see all of its emails.

You shouldn't draw such a divide between the government/military/intelligence communities and the general public. Where I work we come from all 50 states, are Democrats and Repblicans, and pay our taxes like anyone else. We don't say "you're not fit to know." If you want to read confidential traffic and get involved in sensitive matters, apply for a job and pass a security clearance. Until then, accept that some things are kept from the public's view because damage can occur. If you don't think so, become an undercover federal operative in a Mexican drug cartel and hope that your identity isn't read by the cartel's guys.

[Coito ergo sum]

We own it. We pay for it. If you want people to accept your privacy then pay your own stationery bill.

Would you have supported a leak of the plans for the invasion of Normandy?

After the fact? Sure. That's all I am arguing for here.

Except that the problem is, we don't know if the 92,000 pages of documentation do not involve things that are of no intelligence use any longer. Just because a document is a year old doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be kept secret for another year from now, for the same basic reason that Allied knowledge of the Enigma machine codes in 1942 don't become "stale" in a year or two. And, I do not believe any analysis of the 92,000 pages were made before disclosure to the public, nor would I assume "Wikileaks" is a sufficient screening service to decide on behalf of the country which intelligence information is o.k. to leak and which is not.

Again, that's half of my point. It's not that the government has been wronged, it's that someone else did what they think only they are allowed to do.

You still haven't explained what information you should be allowed to have. If you admit that there is some information that shouldn't be leaked: e.g. the plans for the invasion of Normandy (until "after the fact"), then someone must make the determination BEFORE the information is leaked that it is no longer before the fact, and is now 'after the fact.' That person can't be Wikileaks, in my estimation, plus, I have seen nothing to indicate that Wikileaks even tried to figure out what was after the fact and what was before the fact information.