Wikileaks hacked ahead of new document release

[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...

[Aramike]

As Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, so arrogantly put it (but it's true in this case)

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

This isn't about sneaking a Twinkie from the snack box in the middle of the night, here. And that quote is as silly as it is trite.

There are plenty of things that most of us do in our day to day life that we wouldn't want others to know. Say someone's looking for a better job. Should they NOT be allowed to keep that information from their current boss?

I could come up with example upon example as to how secrecy and compartmentalization of intelligence and foreign relations is paramount.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

How the hell the a bunch of swedish dudes without government support succeed at doing something that KIm Jiong Il and the KGB failed?

My understanding of it is this:

Some puke in the US army with access to sensitive material gets some stupid ideas in his head. He leaks info. I forget what it was exactly, but He's caught, but isn't removed from his position, nor has his security clearances revoked. BIG mistake on the part of the army.

Later on same Army puke who's gone hippie commie, gives out a crapton of sensitive info to wiki leaks. Army puke goes to prison. Wiki leaks profits. Self righteous attention whore at wiki leaks gets his fugly mug in all the newspapers. Turmoil ensues.

[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

[Skybird]

Pakistan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...732110,00.html

The Pakistanis' sophisticated nuclear program is one of the main reasons why the US continues to increase its involvement in the region. The Americans know how unstable the country is, and how weak the government is. They also reveal how the Pakistani military and intelligence agency play the political game according to their own rules.

[TLAM Strike]

The AP reported this today:

WikiLeaks said the malicious traffic was coming in at 10 gigabits per second on Tuesday, which would make it a relatively large effort. According to a study by Internet security company Arbor Networks, the average denial of service attack over the past year was 349 megabits per second, 28 times slower than the stream Wikileaks reported.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz16on1hs1t
Defense.org

Who ever is going this DDOS attack is hitting them with a movie DVD every second. That just amazing.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The AP reported this today:


Who ever is going this DDOS attack is hitting them with a movie DVD every second. That just amazing.

that would be 2 dvds or a 2 sided dvd, since a dvd is 4.7gbs
assume that each "zombie" in the botnet contributes an average of 100kb/s
the number of systems in this botnet would have to amount to 100 systems
which if you think about it isn't that amazing.....

edit: depends on what method was used in the attack, if it was pinging that would take a lot more systems

edit 2: darn, my bad. 100 systems is only 10 megabytes, it would have to be 100thousand systems for 10 gigabytes

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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.

Suppose the only way the CIA could get access to Ahmadinejad would be if they posed as representatives of the International Commission of the Red Cross from Switzerland... and we did not tell the Swiss (which would not be surprising).

Do you still think the people have a right to know that their country violated about a hundred conventions, agreements, treaties and laws even though the cause may be "good"?

No. Oftentimes the reason such operations need to be kept secret is not due to the target, but the methods of access.

International policy is a dirty game. We are making deals with countries you would be shocked at, and going behind the backs of our closest friends. We are making and accepting trade-offs that would morally offend many US citizens.

Politics making strange bedfellows is a virginal honeymoon compared with our foreign policy. I have been working international policy analysis for almost 30 years (next year!). It is an ugly side of Realpolitik. The reason citizens can enjoy their feelings of pride in their country is
That. They. Don't. Know. About. It.

It is not something to be proud of, but it does reflect the ugly reality of foreign policy.

The truly damaging part of the wikileaks is that data is being released without context or confirmation. Citizens will read a few documents, assume that what they are reading is true, and make conclusions and inferences that may be completely inaccurate simply because they lack the training, experience, and background data necessary to be able to evaluate data like this. This is my profession and it is not easy.

President Bush once commented that he does not "do nuance" when it comes to foreign policy. Well foreign policy is nothing but nuance.

And reading a little data out of context is a good way to make a wrong inference.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Do you still think the people have a right to know that their country violated about a hundred conventions, agreements, treaties and laws even though the cause may be "good"?

No. Oftentimes the reason such operations need to be kept secret is not due to the target, but the methods of access.

I'll argue that we still retain the right to know. Maybe it turns out the average American citizen is not so eager to have Ahmadinejad killed that they want their agents to pose as Red Cross representatives.

Imagine a boss (in a democracy, surely we, the common citizenry are the bosses, at least in theory) being told he can't access what a deputy (which is what a representative is, to say nothing of a government bureaucrat) is doing because the deputy claims that the methods are really dirty and he really shouldn't know.

The boss may accept the deputy's explanation that it is all the better if he doesn't poke his nose into this affair. But to say he doesn't have the right to is a whole different thing.

The reason citizens can enjoy their feelings of pride in their country is
That. They. Don't. Know. About. It.

Doesn't that rather demonstrate how some posters "pride" in their country and its actions are often so ridiculous.
After all it can only mean that their views being expressed are either based on plain ignorance or on pure hypocracy.

[Skybird]

cables about the Georgian war

[Skybird]

cables about the immense Arab hostility against a nuclear armed Iran

Some of you guys still want to call me a "hawk"? In the company of these people, I'm feeling more like a dove.