Wikileaks hacked ahead of new document release

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

This guy gets his rocks off by pissing in the face of the United States, and feels he's so god damn self righteous no matter how many people he ends up getting killed. The worst part is, he can't see past his own ego. That much is patently obvious. If it were up to me, he'd be having a very nasty "accident", though I'd rather him disappear altogether like Jimmy Hoffa.

agreed
Doesn't the US have laws limiting the distributing of secret files?
Why isn't everybody working with wikileaks arrested yet?

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

agreed
Doesn't the US have laws limiting the distributing of secret files?
Why isn't everybody working with wikileaks arrested yet?

From what I've read in an article today, security from the inside of the system is pretty weak, and there are 850.000 people who have access to classified information, so I guess that could take a while to find every leak.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

agreed
Doesn't the US have laws limiting the distributing of secret files?
Why isn't everybody working with wikileaks arrested yet?

They did arrest that one army guy for what he did a few months ago.

They are based in Sweden so its probably complected. But I heard that some in the US Government are talking about having Wikileaks declared a terrorist organization under US law.

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

From what I've read in an article today, security from the inside of the system is pretty weak, and there are 850.000 people who have access to classified information, so I guess that could take a while to find every leak.

In some countries those 850,000 people would all be shot if something like this happened...

...just saying...

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

In some countries those 850,000 people would all be shot if something like this happened...
...just saying...

Its lucky then that you happen to live in a democracy with a free press.
Ah those pesky bastard reporters, if only they could be muzzled and sent of to guantanamo bay if they ever critised their government. Lets call all of them terrorists since they don't agree with our [US governments] view.
...just saying....

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Its lucky then that you happen to live in a democracy with a free press.
Ah those pesky bastard reporters, if only they could be muzzled and sent of to guantanamo bay if they ever critised their government. Lets call all of them terrorists since they don't agree with our [US governments] view.
...just saying....

Aye. The public has a right to know what the government does. If the government can secretly do whatever they like, without caring about what the public thinks, without caring what the public voted for, then what's the difference from a dictatorship?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

Aye. The public has a right to know what the government does. If the government can secretly do whatever they like, without caring about what the public thinks, without caring what the public voted for, then what's the difference from a dictatorship?

Not that I am disagreeing with you (nor agreeing with you for that matter), but when people throw out the word "Right", I like to ask them for their source.

Where is it written that the public has a right to know specific details about what their government does?

The whole concept of a representative government is so that the public does not need to know all the details. The public elects representatives and these representatives are empowered by the public to make decisions on behalf of the citizens. If the decisions are not in agreement with the citizens, in a representative government, the citizens can elect someone else. But I am not aware of any policy that allows the public to know specific details of what the government does, especially when it comes to national security.

So why do you think the public has a "right" to know everything that their government does?

A desire to know, sure. But really a "right"?

[XabbaRus]

But is exposing things governments don't make available to us justified when the exposing puts at direct risk serving men and women or people working for us, eg informants in Afghanistan?

The idea behind wikileaks is laudable but only in a perfect world. He is being holier than thou with no thought for the people he could be endagering.

As for what ambassadors think about Brown or Cameron I don't care, though I did take a little afrontage over the remarks about keeping the UK govt. hanging about the so called special relationship.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Not that I am disagreeing with you (nor agreeing with you for that matter), but when people throw out the word "Right", I like to ask them for their source.

Where is it written that the public has a right to know specific details about what their government does?

I'm not talking about some kind of legal right that's written in your laws. Just about a symbolic one.

If the decisions are not in agreement with the citizens, in a representative government, the citizens can elect someone else.

But how can the citizens know these decisions are not in agreement with them, if these decisions are not known?

Originally Posted by Aramike

Ummm, how does secrecy in government in any way have anything to do with the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy?

Honestly, are you suggesting that all American citizens be allowed to, say, know the deployment of our special forces at all times?

The government makes decisions on behalf of its citizens. The government is chosen by those same citizens. Now if you remove the ability for those citizens to know what the government does, how can the government be a truthful representative of the citizens? It can't.
One of the requisites of democracy is this ability to know about the actions of the government. Because voting is based upon these actions. Remove this ability, and you remove the ability to truthfully vote.

Furthermore, the deployment of troops or the execution of military commands is not on the government level.
If the government would release any details on military operations, yes, the military would be at risk. But the government generally doesn't make those detailed plans, the military does. The government tells the army "Invade Iraq", "Kill Bin Laden" etc.
I think the public should know whether or not for example a war is imminent. This way they have the opportunity to oppose against it if it's not according to their wishes.

If a government-issued command endangers an operation, I think such information can and should be withheld - UNTIL the end of the operation. When the operation is completed this government-issued command should be released to the public, so they can form their own opinion about it.

Example: Obama decides Ahmadinejad should be killed. He commands this to the CIA.
Up until now, the public shouldn't know about it. If it does, Ahmadinejad can be tipped off and go into hiding.
The CIA sends a kill squad to Iran and shoots the target.
When the target is dead, it should be revealed that it was done by the CIA, or at least that the CIA had an ongoing operation to kill him. If the public is dead against the assassination, they can oppose it by for example not re-electing Obama.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Who should you be mad at? The government that does the shady and rotten things that endanger its troops or citizens? Or the person who brings it out in the open?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, electric light the best policeman.

Exactly

[Cohaagen]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

agreed
Doesn't the US have laws limiting the distributing of secret files?
Why isn't everybody working with wikileaks arrested yet?

Because...

a) Julian Assange is neither American, nor resident there
b) most of the WikiLeaks staff are Swedish or Icelandic
c) WikiLeaks is hosted in Sweden, which is not part of the United States, and is in fact a sovereign foreign country - you'll find it in any US atlas, marked "Here Be Dragons"

Originally Posted by Ducimus

This guy gets his rocks off by pissing in the face of the United States, and feels he's so god damn self righteous no matter how many people he ends up getting killed.

I would really like to know how any of the information they have released could result in anything more serious than severe embarrassment. Let's have a handful of examples showing the mortal consequences we're constantly warned of - actually, let's see if you can find one verified instance of an American croaking as a direct result of WikiLeak's uncomfortable revelations over the last year or so.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

c) WikiLeaks is hosted in Sweden, which is not part of the United States, and is in fact a sovereign foreign country - you'll find it in any US atlas, marked "Here Be Dragons"

How the hell the a bunch of swedish dudes without government support succeed at doing something that KIm Jiong Il and the KGB failed?
This guys gets tonnes of secret files, and ridicules the US
I suspect this guy is making most of the S**t up, since we can't see the originals anyways, we don't know if its true or not

also, I suspect this guy is affiliated with a big company like blackwater, or a government

[Aramike]

The government makes decisions on behalf of its citizens. The government is chosen by those same citizens. Now if you remove the ability for those citizens to know what the government does, how can the government be a truthful representative of the citizens? It can't.

Umm, really?

This is still citizen government. However, the government REPRESENTS the citizens. That's the whole freakin' point of representative government in a democratic republic - so that each citizen doesn't need to know everything in order to have what is accepted to be their best interests represented.

We are not a straight-up democracy where everything is voted upon, and therefore, it would be necessary to obtain fully informed votes upon everything. Our founding fathers weren't that stupid. Or rather, they were smart enough to know that it is not in the public's best interest to be completely transparent, but rather, to reveal such information to SELECT, duly elected REPRESENTATIVES of the people.

That is what the word "representation" means.

But how can the citizens know these decisions are not in agreement with them, if these decisions are not known?

Results.

Furthermore, the deployment of troops or the execution of military commands is not on the government level.

I'm sorry, but are you even taking this seriously? Who's the Commander-in-Chief? Is the Presidency (you know, the Executive Branch) not government now? Or is this just spin to try to make your argument make sense?

If the government would release any details on military operations, yes, the military would be at risk. But the government generally doesn't make those detailed plans, the military does. The government tells the army "Invade Iraq", "Kill Bin Laden" etc.

Do you really have any idea of what you're talking about?

What do YOU think the CinC does, or SecDef for that matter? Surely you do realize that pretty much all of our black operations come on directive from the White House, originating from a little document known as a National Intelligence Estimate, which our President reads daily... And, surely you're aware of the fact that the specifics of such operations, more often than not, are run through both the State Department and the Justice Department to examine possible ramifications, right?

If a government-issued command endangers an operation, I think such information can and should be withheld - UNTIL the end of the operation. When the operation is completed this government-issued command should be released to the public, so they can form their own opinion about it.

Why? So we can endanger those assets we have in the field which gives us intel on which commands are made?

This is a Submarine board, so let me use a Submarine example to make my point. Ever hear of the German Enigma code? What happens when we let the enemy know we're responding to things we're not even supposed to know about?

You guessed it: he changes the code.

Example: Obama decides Ahmadinejad should be killed. He commands this to the CIA.
Up until now, the public shouldn't know about it. If it does, Ahmadinejad can be tipped off and go into hiding.
The CIA sends a kill squad to Iran and shoots the target.
When the target is dead, it should be revealed that it was done by the CIA, or at least that the CIA had an ongoing operation to kill him. If the public is dead against the assassination, they can oppose it by for example not re-electing Obama.

I'm sorry, man, but that is hopelessly naive.

Should the State Department also release that we decided to act in concert with, say, the Germans? What if the Germans don't want that? Would they ever engage in such dealings with us again?

You can't be serious...

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Umm, really?

This is still citizen government. However, the government REPRESENTS the citizens. That's the whole freakin' point of representative government in a democratic republic - so that each citizen doesn't need to know everything in order to have what is accepted to be their best interests represented.

Doesn't *need* to know. The point of a representative government is that the average citizen can just live its live without having to know all and everything, they can just sit back and watch TV while others care about diplomatic stuff and such. But the fact that they don't *need* to know says nothing about whether or not they *should be able* to know.

Results.

Results? Results to what exactly? Because it is not known what is done, remember?
Results are not everything that matters to the public. The US is in debt? You can either save a few bucks by cutting costs, or you can gain a few bucks by assassinating the richest few and stealing their money. The short term results are the same. But I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't agree with the second way.

I'm sorry, but are you even taking this seriously? Who's the Commander-in-Chief? Is the Presidency (you know, the Executive Branch) not government now? Or is this just spin to try to make your argument make sense?

Do you really have any idea of what you're talking about?

What do YOU think the CinC does, or SecDef for that matter?

So you're saying that the CinC/SecDef/President make all tactical decisions?
That's great news! What do you need your officers for? Just sack all those expensive generals and save a few bucks

Surely you do realize that pretty much all of our black operations come on directive from the White House, originating from a little document known as a National Intelligence Estimate, which our President reads daily... And, surely you're aware of the fact that the specifics of such operations, more often than not, are run through both the State Department and the Justice Department to examine possible ramifications, right?

Did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not. Why don't you get back on this once you have?

Why? So we can endanger those assets we have in the field which gives us intel on which commands are made?

See above.

This is a Submarine board, so let me use a Submarine example to make my point. Ever hear of the German Enigma code? What happens when we let the enemy know we're responding to things we're not even supposed to know about?

You guessed it: he changes the code.

The intelligence gathering operation is still going on. So according to my ideas the information should still be withheld. Sorry, but your example only proves my point.

Should the State Department also release that we decided to act in concert with, say, the Germans? What if the Germans don't want that? Would they ever engage in such dealings with us again?

If it's something the Germans don't want to be associated with, one can wonder whether it is something the US should be doing.
Otherwise, you can simply replace "German" with "a foreign nation" in the report.

[Skybird]

More undiplomatic assessments of Turkey and Erdoghan

Should I feel relief now that unofficially the US obviously agrees with my views of Turkey's suspicious nature, and seems to do so since years - or should I feel worried by the dimension of lacking consequences of Washington responding to these shifting views, and the stubborness by which Washington still demands this snake being accepted into the EU and still tries to ignore it's dubious nature?

The US is concerned about its NATO ally Turkey. Embassy dispatches portray Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a power-hungry Islamist surrounded by corrupt and incompetent ministers. Washington no longer believes that the country will ever join the European Union.

The Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is the most important Muslim ally of the United States. On coming into office he promised a democratic Islam -- a vision that could have become a model for other countries in the region.

But if the US dispatches are to be believed, Turkey is far from realizing that vision. Erdogan? A power-hungry Islamist. His ministers? Incompetent, uneducated and some of them corrupt. The government? Divided. The opposition? Ridiculous.

US diplomats have sent thousands of reports from Ankara to Washington in the past 31 years. Recent documents, though, are merciless. They convey an image of Turkey which is at odds with almost everything the US government has officially said about the country.
(...)
The prime minister grew up in Kasimpaa, a rough port district of Istanbul, and became involved in a radical Islamist organization as a young man before joining the conservative Order of the Nakibendye. Before the entering government, he said: "Democracy is like a train. We shall get out when we arrive at the station we want."
(...)
Some AKP politicians, according to a US assessment, support Turkish membership in the EU for "murky" and "muddled" reasons, for example because they believe Turkey must spread Islam in Europe. A US dispatch from late 2004 reports that a member of a leading AKP think tank said that Turkey's role is "to take back Andalusia and avenge the defeat at the siege of Vienna in 1683."

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu largely shares this viewpoint and the Americans are alarmed by his imperialistic tone. In a summary of a speech by Davutoglu delivered in Sarajevo in January 2010, the US ambassador wrote: "His thesis: the Balkans, Caucasus and Middle East were all better off when under Ottoman control or influence; peace and progress prevailed. Alas the region has been ravaged by division and war ever since.... However, now Turkey is back, ready to lead or even unite. (Davutoglu: 'We will re-establish this (Ottoman) Balkan')."
(...)

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

Doesn't *need* to know. The point of a representative government is that the average citizen can just live its live without having to know all and everything, they can just sit back and watch TV while others care about diplomatic stuff and such. But the fact that they don't *need* to know says nothing about whether or not they *should be able* to know.

Results? Results to what exactly? Because it is not known what is done, remember?
Results are not everything that matters to the public. The US is in debt? You can either save a few bucks by cutting costs, or you can gain a few bucks by assassinating the richest few and stealing their money. The short term results are the same. But I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't agree with the second way.

So you're saying that the CinC/SecDef/President make all tactical decisions?
That's great news! What do you need your officers for? Just sack all those expensive generals and save a few bucks

Did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not. Why don't you get back on this once you have?

See above.

The intelligence gathering operation is still going on. So according to my ideas the information should still be withheld. Sorry, but your example only proves my point.

If it's something the Germans don't want to be associated with, one can wonder whether it is something the US should be doing.
Otherwise, you can simply replace "German" with "a foreign nation" in the report.

It's quite clear you're stretching here, as well as taking my responses out of the contexts of YOUR own quotes. As such, I'm going to let my (and basic) logic stand for itself and thank God that the vast majority of people on both sides of the aisle AND the Constitution understands the need for secrecy.

Results are not everything that matters to the public.

But results might be all that matter to those who don't want the public to know unless it is a result they can sell to the public.
So secrecy is needed as it would be bad enough for people to find their "representatives" are doing business with a crazy murdering drug dealer, breaking all their own laws and misappropriating tax payers money on harebrained schemes, it would be really bad if the bad actions were publicised and they hadn't achieved any positive results at all.
So to keep the population informed and keep the representatives accountable it is important that only success stories with good results are publicised and only then if they have been done all nice andf legal without having to grub around with notorious scumbags

One thing out of this latest pile of leaks I find funny.
Prince Andrew and doing business/corruption.
It shines some light on his ex-wife and the errrrrr...... businessmens donations to her "help me" fund