More USA documents get released by Wikileaks

[Bloodstain]

"The government is always right and can do no wrong." We should just let them go around doing whatever they want, killing civilians in Yemen and making the Yemeni government take responsibility, clearly this information should be kept a secret!

 

You know that the government releases records of things periodically? Knowing why something happened three years ago doesn't change the current situation, but can definitely make it worse.

 

What wikileaks is accomplishing for us is tightening down current information policy for the US, making it more difficult in the future for important leaks to happen.

 

Government releases what they want to be released. Do you think they'd ever release that they were missile striking Yemen, or funding groups designated as terrorist groups by the US defense department? Maybe instead of looking at this as omg he just revealed US secrets, you should be looking at it as an opportunity to stop some of the things from happening in the future. Do you think it's ok for the government to do the aforementioned things unchallenged? Especially while taking on the unofficial position of world police? Governments should be carrying out the wills of the population they represent, pretty sure killing civilians and aiding terrorists is counter to that. By NOT leaking this stuff, you would be allowing the government to continue with the shady actions and killing civilians

[Bloodstain]

Also from some more leaks today

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=prosecutor-says-russia-a-virtual-mafia-state-2010-12-02

 

 

Russian political parties using organized crime groups to carry out their work were responsible for selling arms to outlawed Kurdish groups so as to destabilize Turkey, according to information in recently leaked U.S. cables.

 

The claim comes from Spanish prosecutor Jose Gonzalez, who told U.S. officials that "he considers ... Russia to be a virtual 'mafia state'" where "one cannot differentiate between the activities of the government and organized crime groups," according to a diplomatic cable made public by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks and published by the Guardian newspaper Thursday.

 

Gonzalez, who has been investigating Russian organized crime in Spain for a decade, also agreed with poisoned dissident Alexander Litvinenko's thesis that Russian intelligence and security services "owned organized crime."

 

The memo, sent in February of this year from the U.S. embassy in Madrid, cited the senior prosecutor as claiming that "certain political parties in Russia operate 'hand in hand' with organized crime."

 

"He argued that the Liberal Democratic Party, or LDP, was created by the KGB and its successor, the SVR, and is home to many serious criminals," the memo said.

 

The allegations in the cables were not supported by evidence.

 

The leaked cable suggested that Russian authorities used the mafia to carry out operations it could not "acceptably do as a government," such as the Kurdish arms sales.

 

The document added the authorities took "the relationship with crime leaders even further by granting them the privileges of politics, in order to grant them immunity from racketeering charges."

 

Any crime lords who defied the country's Federal Security Service, or FSB, could be "eliminated" either by killing them or "putting them behind bars to eliminate them as a competitor for influence," Gonzalez said in the cables.

 

Far from being a localized problem, Gonzalez said he also thought the mafia virtually ran Belarus and Chechnya and exerted "tremendous control" over vital components of the global economy, including aluminum.

 

Putin's spokesman dismissed on Thursday claims about Putin's personal wealth as "ridiculous."

 

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that it was unclear whether the cables were genuine, but that if they were he would be surprised that U.S. diplomats could write such "rubbish."

 

He said that the purported cables repeated silly rumors and lacked supporting facts to back up their claims. He said he did not feel the documents would complicate Russia's relations with the United States.

[Range_This11]

You know that the government releases records of things periodically? Knowing why something happened three years ago doesn't change the current situation, but can definitely make it worse.

Yeah that's good and all, but releasing the information after the events have transpired kind of defeats the purpose of it doesn't it? I want to know what is actively going on so I can form an opinion NOW. Releasing information after things happen removes responsibility from government. If things go well because of their decision: "See, we were right!" If things go badly: "We need to learn from our mistakes". Either situation, they get to do WHATEVER they want to. Granted that is the nature of the democratic system (electing leaders to make decisions for us), but I believe if we elected them, we should at least be granted the decency of knowing what they are doing. I'm willing to compromise if names and the like need to be left out to grant safety to confidential sources or informants, but the rest of the information should be public under all circumstances. That, I will not compromise on.

[sees_all1]

Also from some more leaks today

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=prosecutor-says-russia-a-virtual-mafia-state-2010-12-02

 

...

 

The allegations in the cables were not supported by evidence.

 

...

 

I don't know, maybe that's a good reason why they don't make this information public?

[magekillr]

Also, I'd like to point out that wikileaks TRIED to get the US to help them identify where it would be good to take out names that would supposedly put people at risk. The US didn't seem to think it was important enough

 

Don't be fooled by what wikileaks "tried" to do. The fact that the US made the information "CLASSIFIED" means that they didn't want any of it leaked to the public. If the US openly cooperated with wikileaks in further censoring the information they were to leak, what would that mean to you? That posting sensitive information is a legitimate thing to do?

 

Here US government, you can have this olive branch from your olive tree we're about to cut down.

 

So, you're willing to let the government deny you information? Information about actions that they have taken in your name, with your money, and possibly your vote?

Yep. I don't need to know (or care) that the US government knows about that voluptuous nurse.

Information hiding happens all the time, and its not a bad thing. It doesn't bother me that I don't know the secret ingredient in Coca-Cola, or the next Apple product, or that I don't know how many monkeys with keyboards Google employs. I still drink coke, listen to my ipod, and search Google.

 

If anything, these leaks show just how much "classified" information there is that should not be classified in the first place. Of course there are some reasonable measures which should be kept secret. Many of these leaks should not.

 

Why are conservatives, the ones who hate government, so willing to just trust what they say? I suppose it's the definition of the person in general; liberals question authority, conservatives worship it.

[sees_all1]

Why are conservatives, the ones who hate government, so willing to just trust what they say? I suppose it's the definition of the person in general; liberals question authority, conservatives worship it.

So, lets turn that statement around. Liberals, who don't trust government at all, want tons of it! That makes sense...

 

 

The point I'm trying to make is that wikileaks is harming watchdogs everywhere. They just proved that gleaning information from willing government employees is easier than pie. By dumping all information they have with *seemingly* no agenda exposes everything - from the frivolous items to the ones with life or death importance. Clarity and honesty in government is a good goal, but the issue I have is the way they're approaching it.

 

 

EDIT:

Contrast this leak with the example I gave earlier, the pentagon papers. The pentagon papers was good because it stripped out all the frivolous information and just exposed the damning evidence. It had a point, and a purpose. Wikileaks has no point or purpose, except to show exactly how sausage is made (and no one wants to know that).

[Skeptical]

Why are conservatives, the ones who hate government, so willing to just trust what they say? I suppose it's the definition of the person in general; liberals question authority, conservatives worship it.

So, lets turn that statement around. Liberals, who don't trust government at all, want tons of it! That makes sense...

 

 

The point I'm trying to make is that wikileaks is harming watchdogs everywhere. They just proved that gleaning information from willing government employees is easier than pie. By dumping all information they have with *seemingly* no agenda exposes everything - from the frivolous items to the ones with life or death importance. Clarity and honesty in government is a good goal, but the issue I have is the way they're approaching it.

 

 

EDIT:

Contrast this leak with the example I gave earlier, the pentagon papers. The pentagon papers was good because it stripped out all the frivolous information and just exposed the damning evidence. It had a point, and a purpose. Wikileaks has no point or purpose, except to show exactly how sausage is made (and no one wants to know that).

 

They don't have a purpose!

 

When you provide information with a purpose, we end up with Faux News. I don't need to be told what to think: I want to know what my government is doing in my name.

[Bloodstain]

Also from some more leaks today

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=prosecutor-says-russia-a-virtual-mafia-state-2010-12-02

 

...

 

The allegations in the cables were not supported by evidence.

 

...

 

I don't know, maybe that's a good reason why they don't make this information public?

 

 

I'm guessing that that is for the bit about the KGB and the party, but I don't know.

Grinda said what he has read from 10-12 years’ worth of investigations on OC has led him to believe that whereas terrorists aim to substitute the essence of the state itself, OC seeks to be a complement to state structures. He summarized his views by asserting that the GOR’s strategy is

to use OC groups to do whatever the GOR cannot acceptably do as a government. As an example, he cited Kalashov, whom he said worked for Russian military intelligence to sell weapons to the Kurds to destabilize Turkey. Grinda claimed that the GOR takes the relationship with OC leaders even further by granting them the privileges of politics, in order to grant them immunity from racketeering charges.

 

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10MADRID154.html

 

 

 

e: weren't some cables related to Canada supposed to be released today? I'm interested in those

[sees_all1]

They don't have a purpose!

 

When you provide information with a purpose, we end up with Faux News. I don't need to be told what to think: I want to know what my government is doing in my name.

 

Right, so you plan on reading all 250,000 documents? :rolleyes:

[Danqazmlp]

They don't have a purpose!

 

When you provide information with a purpose, we end up with Faux News. I don't need to be told what to think: I want to know what my government is doing in my name.

 

Right, so you plan on reading all 250,000 documents? :rolleyes:

 

 

Yeah, I mean, it isn't the media and other online news sources which are telling people which parts to read is it. :rolleyes:

 

 

I just don't quite get the point in these documents being released. What is the purpose, the aim?

[obfuscator]

They don't have a purpose!

 

When you provide information with a purpose, we end up with Faux News. I don't need to be told what to think: I want to know what my government is doing in my name.

 

Right, so you plan on reading all 250,000 documents? :rolleyes:

No, don't worry, the liberal media will read them all and tell him what to think.

 

 

OT: I don't particularly care in regards to this whole issue. It seems like a lot of stuff was released but nothing(yet) that really is extremely classified. Most of it just seems to be regular old complaining and candid insults, which, let's be honest, we all know are happening anyway, even if we can't see them.

[Danqazmlp]

They don't have a purpose!

 

When you provide information with a purpose, we end up with Faux News. I don't need to be told what to think: I want to know what my government is doing in my name.

 

Right, so you plan on reading all 250,000 documents? :rolleyes:

No, don't worry, the liberal media will read them all and tell him what to think.

 

 

OT: I don't particularly care in regards to this whole issue. It seems like a lot of stuff was released but nothing(yet) that really is extremely classified. Most of it just seems to be regular old complaining and candid insults, which, let's be honest, we all know are happening anyway, even if we can't see them.

 

We know most of it doesn't matter, but people somehow think this means the government is evil for saying some of the things revealed. Yet, we all know politicians are human and that all humans will say things about others when nobody is around. Somehow, people who think the government are evil, thought the government was squeaky clean before this. Who knew?

[obfuscator]

I see.

 

Well, I wait to see if anything in these docs will actually be a revelation. It all seemed pretty obvious so far.

[sees_all1]

I see.

 

Well, I wait to see if anything in these docs will actually be a revelation. It all seemed pretty obvious so far.

^This + Voluptuous Blonde. Lol.

[Dupin]

So, you're willing to let the government deny you information? Information about actions that they have taken in your name, with your money, and possibly your vote?

I'm willing to entrust them with my life. After all, they all just wanna help out, right?

 

For a liberal, you seem pretty paranoid of the government.

For a conservative, you seem pretty dismissive of the concepts this country was founded on. The USA has always been about openness, but when we stumble across an immoral war, a bad president, and a bunch of knuckleheaded military gun-nuts, it gets hard to find the statistics. Assange's seemingly extremist actions would be unnecessary had the government stuck to its own principles in the first place.

 

But I'll let you be. After all, questioning authority is sinful, right?

 

^This + Voluptuous Blonde. Lol.

You seem pretty caught up on this blonde. My advice: masturbation.

[Bloodstain]

Some more interesting leaks from today for those who don't actually follow it:

 

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quashed-torture-investigation

 

 

 

 

5.41pm: This just in: the Guardian's John Hooper in Rome reports that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is rushing to an unscheduled meeting with Russia's Vladimir Putin tonight in what history may recall as the "Bunga Bunga Summit":

 

The change to the Italian prime minister's plans was signalled just hours after the publication of US diplomatic cables alleging the two men had a secret business association in addition to their known personal and political links.

 

John Hooper also records the difficulties the WikiLeaks revelations have caused for Berlusconi back home in Italy in an already hostile political climate:

 

The release of the cables by Wikileaks deepened the crisis surrounding Berlusconi's already embattled government, which faces a motion of no-confidence on 14 December. Five centrist groups today stepped up the pressure on the prime minister, calling on him to resign and announcing that, if he refused to do so, they would table a censure motion of their own.

 

One of the groups, Freedom and Future for Italy, was created by Berlusconi's former ally, Gianfranco Fini, who split from the prime minister in July. On paper at least, the split left the government without a majority in the lower house of parliament.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

 

^^^^ THAT LINK HAS LIVE UPDATES! Use it if you're looking for updates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.11am: Salon's Glenn Greenwald blogs about the hypocrisy of the bloodthirsty reaction to the leaks in America.

 

The ringleaders of this hate ritual are advocates of - and in some cases directly responsible for - the world's deadliest and most lawless actions of the last decade. And they're demanding Assange's imprisonment, or his blood, in service of a Government that has perpetrated all of these abuses and, more so, to preserve a Wall of Secrecy which has enabled them. To accomplish that, they're actually advocating - somehow with a straight face - the theory that if a single innocent person is harmed by these disclosures, then it proves that Assange and WikiLeaks are evil monsters who deserve the worst fates one can conjure, all while they devote themselves to protecting and defending a secrecy regime that spawns at least as much human suffering and disaster as any single other force in the world. That is what the secrecy regime of the permanent National Security State has spawned.

 

^ Better than I've been putting it

[Bloodstain]

And now, a word from JFK

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces&feature=player_embedded#!

[magekillr]

I think the most overwhelming thing in this entire thread, is simply the irony.

 

 

 

" He stands as an indictment of them. "

 

 

 

I wonder why you said "them."

 

Because according to the Village, lefties such as myself are not Very Serious People. Jeez, get with the program. Don't you understand the Beltway mindset by now? I'm supposed to be yelling for Assange's head and for him to be imprisoned like Joe Klein of TIME Magazine.

 

This picture is a tell-tale of all:

 

 

And look at Marc Ambinder, having so much fun with the White House insiders:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-biden-beach-party/57765/

 

They're peas in a pod. It is them, because they want access, and they get access by sucking the government's [rooster]. All of this just helpfully reveals what our nation's leading "journalists" really are: desperate worshipers of political power who are far more eager to be part of it and to serve it than to act as adversarial checks against it. Thankfully, organizations such as Wikileaks act as a true check on such secret and overly concealed hubris while the MSM is caught with their pants down.

[Dupin]

And now, a word from JFK

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces&feature=player_embedded#!

Preceded by: Cuban Missile Crisis, in which JFK neglected to mention to the world the benefits the USSR got from the solution, making it seem like a massive defeat for Kruschev

Context: McCarthyism, during which the press did very little other than talk up the "Communist Threat" and the evils of godlessness

Succeeded by: The Pentagon Papers (and the political environment that made them necessary)

 

Oops.

[sees_all1]

For a conservative, you seem pretty dismissive of the concepts this country was founded on. The USA has always been about openness,

 

Right, because the delegates to the constitutional convention in 1787 weren't sworn to secrecy. Oh wait...

No, I'm pretty sure that the current US constitution was drafted in secret.

 

Let me check, yep here it is:

 

Two ground rules would govern the convention proceedings. First, all deliberations were to be kept secret. (Detailed word about the debates remained guarded until the publication of Madisons notes in 1840.) Second, no issue was to be regarded as closed and could be revisited for debate at any time.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h368.html

 

 

That does seem a bit odd for a country founded on openness to draft their constitution in secret. Learn2history.

[das1330]

You know that the government releases records of things periodically? Knowing why something happened three years ago doesn't change the current situation, but can definitely make it worse.

Yeah that's good and all, but releasing the information after the events have transpired kind of defeats the purpose of it doesn't it? I want to know what is actively going on so I can form an opinion NOW. Releasing information after things happen removes responsibility from government. If things go well because of their decision: "See, we were right!" If things go badly: "We need to learn from our mistakes". Either situation, they get to do WHATEVER they want to. Granted that is the nature of the democratic system (electing leaders to make decisions for us), but I believe if we elected them, we should at least be granted the decency of knowing what they are doing. I'm willing to compromise if names and the like need to be left out to grant safety to confidential sources or informants, but the rest of the information should be public under all circumstances. That, I will not compromise on.

 

Making all such discussion public would only hurt the government's ability to do its' job. Many of these communications could easily damage international relations and hinder actual dealmaking.

[Saru Inc]

So, you're willing to let the government deny you information? Information about actions that they have taken in your name, with your money, and possibly your vote?

I'm willing to entrust them with my life. After all, they all just wanna help out, right?

 

For a liberal, you seem pretty paranoid of the government.

For a conservative, you seem pretty dismissive of the concepts this country was founded on. The USA has always been about openness, but when we stumble across an immoral war, a bad president, and a bunch of knuckleheaded military gun-nuts, it gets hard to find the statistics. Assange's seemingly extremist actions would be unnecessary had the government stuck to its own principles in the first place.

 

But I'll let you be. After all, questioning authority is sinful, right?

 

I hope not. [bleep], all I do is blatantly break rules to break them, or just disregard authority because I deem it unworthy. So, I guess I'm a sinner. Oh wait.

 

 

Also, I'm not a conservative. I took a political compass test, and it said (which I agree) really my only die hard conservative beliefs fall on the economy. As well a smidget in some other places. And I'm aware of what the country was founded on, but that doesn't change my opinion.

 

And how was the Iraqi war an immoral war? And no, I don't want sarcasm.

 

^This + Voluptuous Blonde. Lol.

You seem pretty caught up on this blonde. My advice: masturbation.

 

 

Or kidnapping + masturbation.

[Range_This11]

You know that the government releases records of things periodically? Knowing why something happened three years ago doesn't change the current situation, but can definitely make it worse.

Yeah that's good and all, but releasing the information after the events have transpired kind of defeats the purpose of it doesn't it? I want to know what is actively going on so I can form an opinion NOW. Releasing information after things happen removes responsibility from government. If things go well because of their decision: "See, we were right!" If things go badly: "We need to learn from our mistakes". Either situation, they get to do WHATEVER they want to. Granted that is the nature of the democratic system (electing leaders to make decisions for us), but I believe if we elected them, we should at least be granted the decency of knowing what they are doing. I'm willing to compromise if names and the like need to be left out to grant safety to confidential sources or informants, but the rest of the information should be public under all circumstances. That, I will not compromise on.

 

Making all such discussion public would only hurt the government's ability to do its' job. Many of these communications could easily damage international relations and hinder actual dealmaking.

I have a sneaking suspicion we will disagree on this, but I don't believe the government's job is to be secretive and withhold information from its people. I know diplomacy is rooted in secrecy and deception but that doesn't make it right.

[Alg]

I have a sneaking suspicion we will disagree on this, but I don't believe the government's job is to be secretive and withhold information from its people. I know diplomacy is rooted in secrecy and deception but that doesn't make it right.

At best it's a necessary evil.

[obfuscator]

I have a sneaking suspicion we will disagree on this, but I don't believe the government's job is to be secretive and withhold information from its people. I know diplomacy is rooted in secrecy and deception but that doesn't make it right.

At best it's a necessary evil.

This.

 

I believe a government should be honest and transparent....insofar as it's possible to do so without compromising national security.