92,000 classified military documents leaked

[Meekychuppet]

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

Because I can't get the information...

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.

That's because there isn't one. Whatever room for secrecy we give a government, that;s where it hides the bodies.

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.

Yeah damage can occur alright, as we saw with Iraq. If we had known what a fucking scandal that was at the time we wouldn't have seen a million protesting, they'd have dragged Blair out of the building and hanged him there and then.

[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?

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.

In closing today-
it is incumbent on me as a professional and an expert in one particular Medical field- to recognise my own limitations and not to give opinions in areas in which I can claim no expertise- it is my duty (in such a case) to refer the enquirer to an expert in that field.
That's in the Hippocratic Oath believe it or not.

[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).

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.

Being 6 months old does not make disclosure of them "not an issue." Ongoing missions and operations can last over six months, and can last years. The disclosure might include information concerning informants, covert agents, locations of planned operations, long term goals, details on tactics, details on weapons and munitions, troop levels that may still be current, and the list goes on and on. Of course, it's 92,000 pages worth of stuff and Wikileaks does not appear to have taken the time to parse the wheat from the chaff.

Even 10 year old information could conceivably relate to personnel, operations, strategies and tactics that are still used today. It is a gross oversimplification to suggest that as soon as information is 6 months old it is stale enough to be fair game for anyone.

[Ian]

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.

That's because there isn't one. Whatever room for secrecy we give a government, that;s where it hides the bodies.

I see. Meeky, which one of us sounds paranoid here?

Yep, you're giving a knee-jerk reaction. "Uh! Government, bad!" Childish.

[Meekychuppet]

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.

I am honest enough to admit that I am not sure and I don't know enough about military operations to know when something is safe. What I do think is that these facts wouldn't have been the light of day this century otherwise. The dice are loaded against the common man and I'd like to see someone in government sweat for a change. Government take an age to do anything because they know it takes the sting out of things. Another example is Bloody Sunday. We finally got a conclusion that the army murdered people indiscriminately this year, but it doesn't matter not because the troops who did it are all in their 70s or dead. Were that a civilian crime then justice would have been swift, but because it was the army they'll never get prosecuted. Ian Tomlinson is an other point, blatantly murdered at G20, but the inquiry was deliberately dragged beyond the statute of limitations so that the policeman who killed him won't lose his job. We, the people, put up with this shit too much.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

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.

This complaint would apply equally to the details of the Normandy invasion. You wouldn't know what was in the government's documents, or even that there was a planned invasion, until you saw the documents. If you are allowed the right to know what the government is doing, then you blow the plan sky high.

So, a similar issue arises with information concerning plans, missions, operations, covert personnel, informants, strategies and tactics in an ongoing military campaign - Afghanistan.

[Meekychuppet]

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.

That's because there isn't one. Whatever room for secrecy we give a government, that;s where it hides the bodies.

I see. Meeky, which one of us sounds paranoid here?

Yep, you're giving a knee-jerk reaction. "Uh! Government, bad!" Childish.

Not at all. Governments hide behind laws to sidestep accountability. The people allow them this privilege. The clause in our freedom of information act that caters to the Official Secrets act was recently used to try to block us accessing MPs accounts and expenses, and now we know w2hy. The UK terrorism act was used to seize the assets of Iceland despite no terrorism being involved. Gary McKinnon is being extradited by USA under terrorism charges despite the fact he's clearly not a terrorist. UK councils used terrorism legislation to fine people for not recycling. Governments do it all the time, create laws with back door elements so they can enforce their will and circumvent the public's rights.

[sandinista]

I can tell you the top speed of a steam powered warship can go with two pieces of information, neither of which is obviously of value. Intell works with the tiny bits to make the big picture, and giving the bad guys 92,000 pages of data must be making them believe in Santa.

I'm afraid I don't believe you, and no amount of this kind of argument is ever going to win me over. You don't get to use what you know to tell me what I need to know and retain credibility. I am an intelligent and educated man. I don't need yours or the US military's nannying hand.

I've never come across paranoia like it. So terrified that the populace might think.

I don't care if you believe me or not. You take the steam pressure of a boiler, and the diameter of the main steam supply line and you know exactly how much steam can be delivered. From that you can tell how fast a ship can go.

And please, when the bad guys come to your town, tell the military to stay the fuck out of your life. I'll send flowers.

yah, when the "bad guys" come to town. fucking hell. All this shit about "Oh no...leaks...people will die... "If the US (and canaduh) were not out there invading, bombing and occupying countries for imperialistic/spurious reasons no one would have to worry about "leaks". Thanks to Meekychuppet for being a voice of reason. These leaks are good because these wars are not. They were/are based on lies, propaganda and deception. The more truth that comes out the better. If anyone is concerned about people getting killed, bring the "soldiers" home.

[kiki5711]

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.

I'm not a military person or anything but it's kind of obvious that some things just should not be made public. How is the military suppose to strategize if it's posted all over the world for everyone to see including the enemy?

On the surface many things don't seem right when we view them in the comfort of our homes. But I think the reality is much much different in real life, especially for those who were actually there.

[sandinista]

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.

I'm not a military person or anything but it's kind of obvious that some things just should not be made public. How is the military suppose to strategize if it's posted all over the world for everyone to see including the enemy?

On the surface many things don't seem right when we view them in the comfort of our homes. But I think the reality is much much different in real life, especially for those who were actually there.

The "reality" is always different when you are "there". WTF is the point of a forum if you can only discuss what you are actually involved in? Makes no sense. The military can still "strategize", these leaks came out months after the actual events. The public should have access to information after the fact. This way, those responsible can be held accountable. They are fucking around with the public's cash after all. The secrecy with the military and CIA is not so much about "strategy or tactics" as it is about not letting the public become aware of the dirty tricks and immoral acts which are committed. For a starter, for anyone interested, I would recommend "Killing Hope" by William Blum, just to scratch the surface of the lies, deceit and dirty business of war and covert actions.

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-Mili ... 1567510523

[Coito ergo sum]

I can tell you the top speed of a steam powered warship can go with two pieces of information, neither of which is obviously of value. Intell works with the tiny bits to make the big picture, and giving the bad guys 92,000 pages of data must be making them believe in Santa.

I'm afraid I don't believe you, and no amount of this kind of argument is ever going to win me over. You don't get to use what you know to tell me what I need to know and retain credibility. I am an intelligent and educated man. I don't need yours or the US military's nannying hand.

I've never come across paranoia like it. So terrified that the populace might think.

I don't care if you believe me or not. You take the steam pressure of a boiler, and the diameter of the main steam supply line and you know exactly how much steam can be delivered. From that you can tell how fast a ship can go.

And please, when the bad guys come to your town, tell the military to stay the fuck out of your life. I'll send flowers.

yah, when the "bad guys" come to town. fucking hell. All this shit about "Oh no...leaks...people will die... "If the US (and canaduh) were not out there invading, bombing and occupying countries for imperialistic/spurious reasons no one would have to worry about "leaks".

Well, Al Qaeta attacked the United States, after having previously declared war openly against the US and made several other attacks, including destroying two American Embassies. Al Qaeta was based in Afghanistan, and the government of Afghanistan harbored and supported them. There isn't a country in the world that wouldn't have taken action against Afghanistan, if it had the capacity to do so.

[sandinista]

So, what? The attack on the US was for no reason at all? What problem do they have with the US? This just happened out of nowhere?

[kiki5711]

The secrecy with the military and CIA is not so much about "strategy or tactics" as it is about not letting the public become aware of the dirty tricks and immoral acts which are committed. For a starter, for anyone interested, I would recommend "Killing Hope" by William Blum, just to scratch the surface of the lies, deceit and dirty business of war and covert actions.

I understand that, but I doubt very much that the other side is playing fair either. Blowing yourself up among unsuspected bystanders or soldiers is hardly anything making sense.

[sandinista]

The secrecy with the military and CIA is not so much about "strategy or tactics" as it is about not letting the public become aware of the dirty tricks and immoral acts which are committed. For a starter, for anyone interested, I would recommend "Killing Hope" by William Blum, just to scratch the surface of the lies, deceit and dirty business of war and covert actions.

I understand that, but I doubt very much that the other side is playing fair either. Blowing yourself up among unsuspected bystanders or soldiers is hardly anything making sense.

So, now the US and Canaduh want to behave like the other side? It's a race to the bottom?

[Coito ergo sum]

The secrecy with the military and CIA is not so much about "strategy or tactics" as it is about not letting the public become aware of the dirty tricks and immoral acts which are committed. For a starter, for anyone interested, I would recommend "Killing Hope" by William Blum, just to scratch the surface of the lies, deceit and dirty business of war and covert actions.

I understand that, but I doubt very much that the other side is playing fair either. Blowing yourself up among unsuspected bystanders or soldiers is hardly anything making sense.

So, now the US and Canaduh want to behave like the other side? It's a race to the bottom?

Based on the content of your posts, it seems you'd think that was a step up.