More USA documents get released by Wikileaks

[BlueLancer]

I mean, I'm not really going to debate this, but instead I'll just state it. I don't really believe Wikileaks should exist.

 

Its endangering soldiers and other innocent peoples lives right?

 

 

And this, is why I'm not debating it.

But it's not.

 

The Government comes out with the same BS every time about it risking lives and it's absolute crap. Of ALL the times Wikileaks have released 'life-risking' documents, how many people have died from it? None. They're not bloody advertising troop movements and pointing a big neon sign saying 'HERE'S A WEAK SPOT GO KILL THEM'. It's exposing the hypocrisies and corruption of their regime. This doesn't equate to 'blood on Julian Assange's hands'.

 

 

I'd like to quote the CBS article above. (And I have that set of documents on my computer)

 

One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

 

They probably wont be alive for very long.

 

General information and diplomatic cables should be leaked, but names and locations should be censored.

 

People will as a direct consequence of leaking some of the secret documents, be (or already are) murdered, tortured or kidnapped if they contain identifiable people and civilian names. Assange has blood on his hands.

 

What he is doing is a favor to transparency and democracy. But he has no business exposing individual people who were collaborating with foreign forces to catch other insurgents, criminals, terrorists etc.

Comparable to leaking out press sources. Without anonymous press sources you could never interview anyone in undemocratic countries.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter's_privilege

Reporters' privilege is the qualified (limited) First Amendment right many jurisdictions by statutory law or judicial decision have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery.

 

The only reason protection of sources exists (in the case of individuals) is to guarantee their untouchability and physical safety.

If they gave out sensitive enough information & you take anonymity away from them you are signing their death warrant

[magekillr]

Nevermind the fact that Julian Assange completly disregards the 9-11 truth movement and calls anyone who actually supports it a wacko.

 

The story released by Bush is pure [cabbage].

 

The administration opposed the creation of both the congressional and the independent investigations of the 9/11 attacks, and they were tremendously uncooperative. Bush and Cheney even insisted on testifying together to assure that their stories didn't conflict with each other.

 

The Commission may have gotten the big picture right in terms of identifying who the hijackers were, where they were trained, who paid their way, and how they entered the country and ultimately boarded the doomed airplanes. Maybe that part of the report is fairly accurate. But the rest of the report is a complete whitewash that tells us almost nothing we want to know.

 

The key data involved is what did the US know, when did it know it, and why did obvious clues get missed. And also, why the the Bush administration did not take the briefing by the Clinton administration during the transition seriously, choosing instead to focus on Russia and Iraq. That is, the key data the public needs to know are related to government and personal accountability.

 

However, the 911 truth movement IS wacko, goes against all sense of logical forethought, and ignores scientific evidence.

 

Besides the one single video that made wiki leaks famous everything they have posted has actually helped the US's agenda.

 

Not really. I'd like to see an explanation as to how undermining diplomatic efforts can ever be seen as helping said country's agenda. If anything, these leaks just show what any reasonable person already knows:

 

1.) The Arab world wants war with Iran because they do not want their power over the Gulf undermined.

2.) Putting Iraq into chaos has made such a war with Iran even more likely because the balance of power has shifted. It destabilized the region, just like liberals said it would.

3.) Everyone is scared [cabbage]less of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands.

4.) Iran funding Hezbollah through back-door alleys.

5.) Netanyahu and the Israeli government do not want peace, nor do they want Palestine to be an actual state/country/government; they want control over Greater Israel.

6.) Mass corruption in Afghanistan

7.) Britain's conduct in Afghanistan has been abominable, particularly with securing the town of Sangin.

 

I mean, the main hunk of meat everyone who pays attention to the world should already know, unless they're massively deluded (particularly the Zionists, who still claim Netanyahu and Israel are interested in peace). What I also find hilarious are the neocons using the rhetoric of brutal dictators of the most horrible governments on Earth -- Saudi Arabia and Egypt especially -- to rationalize their bloodthirsty desires to bomb Iran into oblivion, or nuke North Korea. What happened to democracy, neocons? Or what about the sanctity of life?

 

What's also hilarious are claims that releasing the documents will harm US national security. I suspect they'll do nothing, really. These recent leaks aren't of much interest to me...it's a bunch of privy annoyances, mostly with the UN diplomats. The spying conducted through US embassies isn't surprising in the least, either.

 

Now, unlike the last leak, I see opposition to this particular leak as somewhat reasonable; most particularly that impeding diplomacy makes war more likely, and I don't think anyone wants more war besides the neocons. WikiLeaks has made mistakes in the past, most particularly in redacting names. Although the Pentagon refused to help them make redactions, so any canard coming from the government over "blood on their hands" is hypocritical. That said, our government and political culture is so far toward the end of excessive, improper secrecy that said secrecy is clearly the far more significant threat than any short-term damages to diplomatic relations. I seriously question the judgment of anyone who decides that the real threat is WikiLeaks for subverting that ability. The central goal of WikiLeaks is to prevent the world's most powerful factions -- including the sprawling, imperial U.S. Government -- from continuing to operate in the dark and without restraints.

 

To that I say here here, Wikileaks, and continue doing what you do best; for a democracy cannot operate with an uneducated citizenry:

 

Admire Assange or revile him, he is the prophet of a coming age of involuntary transparency. Having exposed military misconduct on a grand scale, he is now gunning for corporate America. Does Assange have unpublished, damaging documents on pharmaceutical companies? Yes, he says. Finance? Yes, many more than the single bank scandal we’ve been discussing. Energy? Plenty, on everything from BP to an Albanian oil firm that he says attempted to sabotage its competitors’ wells. Like informational IEDs, these damaging revelations can be detonated at will.

 

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/wikileaks-julian-assange-wants-to-spill-your-corporate-secrets/

 

edit:

 

Also, the claims of "blood on Assange's hands" are greatly overstated, and even the Pentagon admits it:

 

But despite similar warnings ahead of the previous two massive releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death.

 

Before Sunday's release, news organizations given access to the documents and WikiLeaks took the greatest care to date to ensure no one would be put in danger. In statements accompanying stories about the documents, several newspapers said they voluntarily withheld information and that they cooperated with the State Department and the Obama administration to ensure nothing released could endanger lives or national security.

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html#ixzz16mxzrCyu

[Sam]

7.) Britain's conduct in Afghanistan has been abominable, many acts being war crimes.

 

May I ask what war crimes these are?..

 

That just strikes me as hypocritical, the US has done many things that strike me as criminal too.

[Michael]

7.) Britain's conduct in Afghanistan has been abominable, many acts being war crimes.

 

May I ask what war crimes these are?..

 

That just strikes me as hypocritical, the US has done many things that strike me as criminal too.

 

Glass houses.

[magekillr]

7.) Britain's conduct in Afghanistan has been abominable, many acts being war crimes.

 

May I ask what war crimes these are?..

 

That just strikes me as hypocritical, the US has done many things that strike me as criminal too.

 

Oh, I'm not absolving my country of any guilt. I'm still awaiting a leak in the future, which Wikileaks has promised, of video footage with American soldiers massacring civilians. In any case, I misspoke; that was a previous leak. Their conduct in Afghanistan was criticized by the US military for failure to provide security in an Afghan town in this leak. My mistake. I'll edit my old post.

[obfuscator]

I do find it odd how people are so insistent on criticizing the "war crimes" of NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan but when the opponents being fought are doing far worse.

[Danqazmlp]

To be honest, all the things Magekillr just stated in the numbered list are all massive assumptions and things which cannot be taken seriously at all without any sort of evidence or proof to back them up.

[michel555555]

Not really. I'd like to see an explanation as to how undermining diplomatic efforts can ever be seen as helping said country's agenda. If anything, these leaks just show what any reasonable person already knows:

 

1.) The Arab world wants war with Iran because they do not want their power over the Gulf undermined.

2.) Putting Iraq into chaos has made such a war with Iran even more likely because the balance of power has shifted. It destabilized the region, just like liberals said it would.

3.) Everyone is scared [cabbage]less of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands.

4.) Iran funding Hezbollah through back-door alleys.

5.) Netanyahu and the Israeli government do not want peace, nor do they want Palestine to be an actual state/country/government; they want control over Greater Israel.

6.) Mass corruption in Afghanistan

7.) Britain's conduct in Afghanistan has been abominable, particularly with securing the town of Sangin.

 

1) Yes but look what isn't in this leak as well. Look at the cabels from May-July. What don't you see? What happened in May that had most of the middle east in an uproar.

 

Yet I could not find one single thing regarding the mavi marmara. But there are plenty of cabels regarding Iran and its own nuclear program. The US has been constantly pushing for a stop to Irans nuclear program and this leak shows how many of the surrounding countries might support such an action and could bring more people to the US's side at the next round of sanctions. Or scare Iran into complying willingly if they do realise how many of their allies are against them.

 

In short, the cabels he posted were cherry picked and not just one big random dump as he claimed.

 

That and the balance of power in the gulf has already been undermined with Israels own nuclear program. If anything the neighboring countries would welcome this because it would, theoretically, even out the balance of power.

 

2.) How has the invasion of Iraq made a war with Iran more likely? Besides their nuclear program which has been constantly looked over by the UN and has found no plans for weaponizing.

 

3.) sure.

 

4.) This would require Iran to actually have a motive to risk a confrontation with the US and Israel.

 

5.) I missed the documents that actually showed this, I'd be interested in a link though.

 

6.) sure

 

7.) not familiar with the incident so can't comment.

[Vulxai]

I think every military force commits war crimes at some point. And if a video is released of it, the army will find out who that (or those) soldier(s) is/are, they'll most likely be jailed to save face. I haven't committed a war crime, and don't plan on it. I'm there to make sure I come back to my son, not to massacre the innocent or humiliate them.

[magekillr]

To be honest, all the things Magekillr just stated in the numbered list are all massive assumptions and things which cannot be taken seriously at all without any sort of evidence or proof to back them up.

 

They're all assumptions? Normally right now I'd ask which ones were assumptions, but you said "all," implying that every stated number is indeed an assumption. Normally I'd ask why these are assumptions, but seeing as I made the claims, the onus is on me for the proof. Now, I mean, one would think with the revelations of Wikileaks' leak would be enough...but if you need your hand held, fine:

 

1. Claim: Arab states want war with Iran, or rather, Iran to be stopped at all costs due to a loss of power held in the Gulf.

 

Evidence:

 

* Bahrain king says Iranian nuclear programme must be stopped

* Saudi king urged US to attack Iran

* Qatar allowed US to attack Iran from its territory

 

Why is this so obvious before the leak? The Sunni monarchs don't want a "low-class Shiite" like Ahmadi wielding a nuclear weapon when they don't have one. Not just because nuclear weapons are like having a Wal Mart in your town; you're not a real and powerful country until you have them. It's also because they would lose a substantial amount of control over the entire Gulf Region...

 

2. Claim: Putting Iraq into chaos has made such a war with Iran even more likely because the balance of power has shifted.

 

Evidence:

 

* Egyptian President In WikiLeaks Docs: Iran Terror Sponsorship Is 'Well-Known But I Cannot Say It Publicly'

 

This should be known without having acknowledgments from an Egyptian President.

 

3. Claim: Everyone is scared [cabbage]less of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands.

 

Evidence:

 

* Pakistan confirms Wikileaks claim of US nuclear appeals

 

Again, obvious, as this is why we're in Afghanistan. Anyone thinking we're there for al Qaeda is smoking some good reefer.

 

4. Claim: Iran funded Hezbollah through back-door alleys

 

Evidence:

 

* US memos: Iran armed Hezbollah through ambulances

 

This one might not be as obvious as the others, or at least not the specific methods. It's long been suspected that Iran gave weapons to Hezbollah, and is continuing to funnel them millions of dollars per year.

 

5. Claim: Netanyahu and the Israeli government do not want peace, nor do they want Palestine to be an actual state/country/government; they want control over Greater Israel.

 

Evidence:

 

* Top 10 Wikileaks Palestine Nuggets

 

Not that we needed Wikileaks for this, given there's plenty of other stuff on the record from this vile Likud government and its PM, but some nice quotes:

 

Netanyahu also indicated he wasn't interested in a sovereign Palestinian state emerging in the West Bank, but rather "an agreement over territory,settlements and 'refined' Palestinian sovereignty without an army or control over air space and borders."

 

He states "A Palestinian state must be demilitarized, without control over its air space and electro-magnetic field, and without the power to enter into treaties or control its borders."

 

So basically not a 'state' then in any meaningful sense of the term, and they want control over everything meaningful that represents an independent nation-state.

 

6. Claim: Mass corruption in Afghanistan

 

Evidence:

 

* Afghan president pardoned drug dealers

 

Really, do I need to go find more articles detailing the corruption in Afghanistan?

 

Number 7 was already corrected.

[Sam]

7.) Britain's conduct in Afghanistan has been abominable, many acts being war crimes.

 

May I ask what war crimes these are?..

 

That just strikes me as hypocritical, the US has done many things that strike me as criminal too.

 

Oh, I'm not absolving my country of any guilt. I'm still awaiting a leak in the future, which Wikileaks has promised, of video footage with American soldiers massacring civilians. In any case, I misspoke; that was a previous leak. Their conduct in Afghanistan was criticized by the US military for failure to provide security in an Afghan town in this leak. My mistake. I'll edit my old post.

 

Oh I see. I've read about what went on in Sangin.

[Danqazmlp]

To be honest, all the things Magekillr just stated in the numbered list are all massive assumptions and things which cannot be taken seriously at all without any sort of evidence or proof to back them up.

 

They're all assumptions? Normally right now I'd ask which ones were assumptions, but you said "all," implying that every stated number is indeed an assumption. Normally I'd ask why these are assumptions, but seeing as I made the claims, the onus is on me for the proof. Now, I mean, one would think with the revelations of Wikileaks' leak would be enough...but if you need your hand held, fine:

 

1. Claim: Arab states want war with Iran, or rather, Iran to be stopped at all costs due to a loss of power held in the Gulf.

 

I won't disagree they want war, but not because they are just 'losing power' There are a multitude of reasons for them wanting US help in the area. Stating that it is one reason is irresponsible.

 

2. Claim: Putting Iraq into chaos has made such a war with Iran even more likely because the balance of power has shifted.

 

I would argue the opposite, it has made many of the surrounding countries more determined to stick together in opposition to Iran, which could lead to sanctions and eventually a revolution in Iran.

 

3. Claim: Everyone is scared [cabbage]less of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands.

 

The assumption here is 'everyone'. The US is, as your evidence states, but I don't agree that everybody is and you show no evidence of that.

 

4. Claim: Iran funded Hezbollah through back-door alleys

 

As said in the evidence, it is an allegation not proven.

 

5. Claim: Netanyahu and the Israeli government do not want peace, nor do they want Palestine to be an actual state/country/government; they want control over Greater Israel.

 

I agree they do not want a full Palestinian state (and I don't blame them) but they do want peace, as is shown in your proof.

 

6. Claim: Mass corruption in Afghanistan

 

This I do not disagree with.

 

 

 

I am fine with you arguing points on such heated topic, but stating 7 things with no evidence the first time around just leads all of your arguments to look like blind assumptions.

[Dupin]

Conspiracy theories and relative morality of Assange's actions aside, Wikileaks's existence does raise a very important question: Who watches the watchmen? I watched it and it was decent but there are better superhero films.

 

Anyways, whether the info about Assange being a massive egotist* is true or not, it's clear that giving one person or group of people power over governments is dangerous, for as soon as he becomes anything he is no longer "the people". I support what Wikileaks does, but it's completely possible for there to be corruption among the whistleblowers themselves, either now or in the future.

 

*I will not provide links. I read either in the NY Times or the New Yorker an account by a former Wikileaks employee which portrayed Mr. A. in a rather negative light. Whether it was true or not is not the question- what I am saying is it could be true. There are no limitations, no controls, nobody looking on to Wikileaks to tell them not to do something. This is the sort of power that gets abused eventually, and then we'll start seeing "Wikileaksleaks."

[Omar]

Conspiracy theories and relative morality of Assange's actions aside, Wikileaks's existence does raise a very important question: Who watches the watchmen? I watched it and it was decent but there are better superhero films.

 

Anyways, whether the info about Assange being a massive egotist* is true or not, it's clear that giving one person or group of people power over governments is dangerous, for as soon as he becomes anything he is no longer "the people". I support what Wikileaks does, but it's completely possible for there to be corruption among the whistleblowers themselves, either now or in the future.

 

*I will not provide links. I read either in the NY Times or the New Yorker an account by a former Wikileaks employee which portrayed Mr. A. in a rather negative light. Whether it was true or not is not the question- what I am saying is it could be true. There are no limitations, no controls, nobody looking on to Wikileaks to tell them not to do something. This is the sort of power that gets abused eventually, and then we'll start seeing "Wikileaksleaks."

Unless more leaking websites of the sort pop up. Several non-profit journalism institutions will (ideally) ensure that they all stay faithful to their initial cause and be the journalists that we don't have nowadays since as soon as one of them is known to make profit, others will call them out.

[Furah]

I don't know how many times i've heard this.

Tall buildings such as WTC towers are designed to collapse in a controlled manner.

My god, imagine the death-toll had the buildings toppled over!

??

Are you serious or are you just ironizing?

It's hard to know on this forum with some peoples posts.

Sorry I didn't make my statement clear enough. What I meant was, if the WTC buildings hadn't been designed to collapse in a controlled manner and the planes caused them to topple over.

[Omar]

Unless more leaking websites of the sort pop up. Several non-profit journalism institutions will (ideally) ensure that they all stay faithful to their initial cause and be the journalists that we don't have nowadays since as soon as one of them is known to make profit, others will call them out.

 

A system of infinte fallback of infinite different number of groups watching the watchers and each other and not allowing any of them to rise in power to be able to abuse it?

 

Apply that to justice, police and fire protection and you have a working system that doesnt need a centeral government

Hence "ideally"; I'm obviously just throwing things out there. Regardless, it's better than the way journalism is done right now, even though it's still a fallible system. I haven't heard the pro-Wikileaks story on TV yet.

[sees_all1]

I feel like wikileaks is little more than the punk that hacked in to Sarah Palin's email address. The difference between a whistle blower such as (in the past) the new york times and a punk is the type and the amount of information that is leaked. A whistle blower leaks critical information (enough to allow the right questions to be asked or packaged amounts of damning evidence), a punk indiscriminately dumps it all. I'd have more respect for wikileaks if it showed it had the capacity to hold back irrelevant information.

[sees_all1]

I feel like wikileaks is little more than the punk that hacked in to Sarah Palin's email address. The difference between a whistle blower such as (in the past) the new york times and a punk is the type and the amount of information that is leaked. A whistle blower leaks critical information (enough to allow the right questions to be asked or packaged amounts of damning evidence), a punk indiscriminately dumps it all. I'd have more respect for wikileaks if it showed it had the capacity to hold back irrelevant information.

What's wrong with it? The public deserves to know that these things are going on, as do other countries in the world. People say Wikileaks is ruining US foreign policy - they're wrong. US foreign policy ruined US foreign policy. It's not Assange's fault that the US was chilling with a few pals behind closed doors talking [cabbage] about people - all he did was open the door so that everyone would know what was really going on.

That's just it though - how a US Ambassador feels about their counter part is irrelevant to two country's relationship between one another. Personal information or communication is insignificant dribble, actual policy is not. If you contrast this "leak" with say, the pentagon papers, you'll find that this is all fluff, and it isn't all fluff, then its impossible to find what they want you to know. There's no purpose for the leak, nothing to prove, except that some diplomats are [wagon] behind closed doors.

[Skeptical]

The point isn't whether or not you think the information is important: when people get the news that they want, we get Faux News blasting Obama like this.

 

I want information, not idiotic dribble being spoon-fed to me because I find it hard to think critically for myself. (If I sound bitter: my boss was watching Faux, and I really don't have much patience for slandering, xenophobic commie-haters, so the internet is being subjected to my rage.)

[Saru Inc]

The point isn't whether or not you think the information is important: when people get the news that they want, we get Faux News blasting Obama like this.

 

I want information, not idiotic dribble being spoon-fed to me because I find it hard to think critically for myself. (If I sound bitter: my boss was watching Faux, and I really don't have much patience for slandering, xenophobic commie-haters, so the internet is being subjected to my rage.)

 

 

This post made me giggle deep down in places of my heart I rarely visit. I thus appreciate this.

 

 

I also appreciate your appreciation for Freedom of the Press, ironic as it may be.

 

 

I also wonder what's one's argument that supports Wiki Leaks, if Wikileaks posts material that endangers one's lives.

[Skeptical]

The point isn't whether or not you think the information is important: when people get the news that they want, we get Faux News blasting Obama like this.

 

I want information, not idiotic dribble being spoon-fed to me because I find it hard to think critically for myself. (If I sound bitter: my boss was watching Faux, and I really don't have much patience for slandering, xenophobic commie-haters, so the internet is being subjected to my rage.)

 

 

This post made me giggle deep down in places of my heart I rarely visit. I thus appreciate this.

 

 

I also appreciate your appreciation for Freedom of the Press, ironic as it may be.

 

 

I also wonder what's one's argument that supports Wiki Leaks, if Wikileaks posts material that endangers one's lives.

 

If the source is revealed, even if only to WIkileaks, the informations is deleted.

[Saru Inc]

You didn't answer my question.

[Skeptical]

You didn't answer me question.

 

Are you referring to their sources, or individuals who have committed crimes?

[Saru Inc]

"I also wonder what's one's argument that supports Wiki Leaks, if Wikileaks posts material that endangers one's lives. "

 

 

 

What's not to figure out what I mean? How would you justify Wikileaks existence on this planet, if someone died because of it? Anyone. Not just a soldier. Anyone. Justify it.

[Skeptical]

"I also wonder what's one's argument that supports Wiki Leaks, if Wikileaks posts material that endangers one's lives. "

 

 

 

What's not to figure out what I mean? How would you justify Wikileaks existence on this planet, if someone died because of it? Anyone. Not just a soldier. Anyone. Justify it.

 

Without proper information being provided to the people, we will end up with more wars like Iraq, places like Guantanamo, and less and less freedom.

 

Torture, murder and tyranny. Go Faux news!

 

No one complains that reporters risk their lives in war zones: we value information. If I knew that publishing something that would upset the Fundies, I would publish it despite the death threats and assassination attempts, if the information was of value. Wikileaks would let me publish it without being identified, and bring it to much broader public attention.