WikiLeaks Endangers Lives
Whoever leaked these documents has engaged in sedition and should be treated as such.
U.S. officials said U.S. operatives inside Afghanistan and Pakistan may be in danger following the massive online disclosure Sunday.
In his first public comments, President Barack Obama said the leak of classified information from the battlefield “could potentially jeopardize individuals or operations.” He spoke in Washington after meeting Tuesday with Congressional leaders from both parties on the topic.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said a Pentagon investigation will determine whether criminal charges will be filed in the leaking of Afghanistan war secrets. Holder, speaking during a visit Wednesday to Egypt, said the Justice Department is working with the Pentagon-led investigation to determine the source of the leak.
In Baghdad, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters he was “appalled” by the leak.
“There is a real potential threat there to put American lives at risk,” he said.
Odd how wikileak only chooses the American military effort for their scrutiny. Good thing the taliban, and al quaida are beyond suspect. Venezuela? Mexico? nope nothing to see there. Iran? Syria? Pure as the wind driven snow.
Find out who “leaked” these documents, and try them for the traitors they are. Then publicly execute them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1400 hrs
There’s all kinds of information from all kinds of countries on Wikileaks. They don’t collect information. They’re merely a receiver and distributor. So unless you have proof that Wikileaks gets information of interest from those countries and then sits on it for political reasons, you might wish to opt for a less presumptive position.
Also, the public executions would be a nice touch. It’s about time for fascism to make a comeback.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 28, 2010 at 1413 hrs
Yeah Wikileaks is simply a disseminater of information. It’s not an organization that goes around digging up dirt based on political affiliation. There is no organization. It’s just a website that people can post their leaked info too.
Time to ban this here interwebs thing. The tubes is getting clogged with this leaked stuff! We’re all going to die ZOMG!!!111ONE
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 28, 2010 at 1534 hrs
Common sense citizens like to see transparency in government. It’s called accountability.
Check out the episode called “Indecent Disclosure” from “Common Sense with Dan Carlin”. Dan gets into a thought provoking discussion about wikileaks in this episode.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1544 hrs
Recess Supervisor:
Also, the public executions would be a nice touch. It’s about time for fascism to make a comeback.
And the Liberal solution is…................................what?
Fascists, racists, homophobes, these are the Liberal’s boogiemen, Thanks, but I’ll stick with those that are a real threat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1559 hrs
Revealing names of people involved in sensitive, necessary and legal operations who may be harmed by such revelations is one thing. Some retribution may be warranted against the leakers.
Most of the information revealed, though, appears to be of a nature such that it should never have been classified in the first place. What do you think is an appropriate treatment for those who simply classify everything in order to avoid scrutiny?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1610 hrs
Revealing names of people involved in sensitive, necessary and legal operations who may be harmed by such revelations is one thing. Some retribution may be warranted against the leakers.
Exactly. Our government is too quick to hide what they do by classifying it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1614 hrs
Most of the information revealed, though, appears to be of a nature such that it should never have been classified in the first place. What do you think is an appropriate treatment for those who simply classify everything in order to avoid scrutiny?
You mean like the National Archive documents Scooter Libby stuffed down his pants?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1622 hrs
Common sense citizens like to see transparency in government. It’s called accountability.
Right. But the local Common Sense Citizens of Wash Co no longer feel internal transparency is important, since they no longer post the minutes of their (now secret) meetings.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1652 hrs
Right. But the local Common Sense Citizens of Wash Co no longer feel internal transparency is important, since they no longer post the minutes of their (now secret) meetings.
I noticed that too. What’s all the secrecy about?? It looks like they are hiding something. Organizations that do that are not to be trusted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1658 hrs
The purveyors and supporters of Wikileaks style of self-described “journalism” are 1st Amendment absolutists. But of course, they’re the hypocritical kind of free speech anarchists. For if one were to Wikileak Julian Assange’s bank statements, health records, private emails, etc., the first thing that he (and cowards like him) would do is run to the government, begging for protection.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1659 hrs
Organizations that do that are not to be trusted.
Or, maybe they realized that the minutes were both boring and poorly written.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1701 hrs
I believe that our government needs a lot more transparency. Everything our government does and any entity that deals with the government should be required to release every scrap of paper it generates and account for every cent it spends, all the way down to each screw or roll of toilet paper it buys.
The only exception should be when people’s lives are in danger or a VERY narrow definition of national security. After the danger passes, or the code we broke is no longer in use, full disclosure to the public should still happen.
It is the only way that I can see to battle the rampant corruption and waste of our government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1710 hrs
For if one were to Wikileak Julian Assange’s bank statements, health records, private emails, etc.
But the local Common Sense Citizens of Wash Co no longer feel internal transparency is important
But Julian Assange and whatever group that is doesn’t take my money like the government does.
There is a huge difference between private individuals/organizations and the government and organizations who get money from the government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1716 hrs
There is a huge difference between private individuals/organizations and the government and organizations who get money from the government.
There are members of Common Sense Citizens of Wash Co. that are alderman, school board members, and county board members. Political strategy and local policy action are likely discussed at their secret meetings.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1723 hrs
A good question would be, is Common Sense Citizens of Wash Co. becoming our local shadow government??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1728 hrs
But Julian Assange and whatever group that is doesn’t take my money like the government does.
How do you know that he’s not taking your money? How would anyone know that for sure, without hacking into Assange’s bank statements and emails and letting everyone decide for themselves whether or not he’s working for a secret government cabal?
See how ridiculous it gets when you apply Assange’s, ‘the only valid rules are the ones I decide’ type of rationalization?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1744 hrs
Good grief are there really that many people that don’t understand what Wikileaks is and how it works?
I’ll do this in big bold letters.
Julian Assange did not post or leak these documents.
I’ll repeat that.
Julian Assange did not post or leak these documents.
Someone else did and they just used Wikileaks to do so. Had they leaked them on say, a message board on ESPN.com should we execute Chris Berman?
I knew this would turn into a witch hunt. Apparently the conservatives won’t feel better until someone, anyone, is locked in a cage or executed. Even if it’s someone who had nothing to do with it. But hey, the ends justify the means right? Gotta make an example of someone.
And don’t try to feed me this crap “if there wasn’t a wikileaks this wouldn’t have happened.” There’d be something else and they’d have been leaked somewhere else. Then we’d have a whole new bunch of witches to go burn.
Now how about the military find out who actually did it rather than demanding a sacrificial lamb so we can feel better about it?
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 28, 2010 at 1823 hrs
Hey, Jay4Anarchy..
I don’t care.
I’ll repeat that.
I don’t care.
It’s his site; he is the editor in chief; he could pull the docs if he wanted to. Moreover, he has presented himself as the public face of the publishing of anything that he feels justified in having there. Watch his interviews: he talks about “we” this and “we” that in reference to his role as the gatekeeper of those documents and how he vetted their importance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1852 hrs
I don’t need to watch his videos, I’ve heard him speak.
Once again people post on a blog and act like you know it all when you know absolutely nothing.
And nice try with the distraction by equating liberty with anarchy. Further proof you’re not just an idiot, but a completely stupid idiot.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 28, 2010 at 1858 hrs
So you have no counter-argument because you know I’m right: Assange is the gatekeeper of the site. He vets the documents (as he did with these) before they’re published. What happened in this case is not in the least bit similar to someone posting them to “message board on ESPN.com”
I like free speech too. But when a foreign national publicly comes out giving the finger to the U.S. government by publishing the documents and posturing that he alone knows best what we should classify as state secrets or not, well that’s where I draw the line.
And No, I’m not equating “Liberty” with “Anarchy”. I’m accurately pointing out your typical stance on this site, which is anything but liberty. You use Ayn Rand quotes (without citing her) woefully out of context in without regard to her more in-depth non-fiction works and how they typically stand in opposition to the bullshit spew around here. You equate tax collection with brute force thuggery. And then you hypocritically claim you’re all about business and private property rights - until someone wants to hire an illegal alien.
Full of shit. And a hypocrite. You’re just like Assange. No wonder you adore him so much. You each make up your own rules as you go along, government & society be damned. Like I said: Anarchy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1911 hrs
You are confusing liberty and anarchy again, Jay. Every society has some level of liberty, some more, and some less. It seems that you are against any and all levels of governance in the name of liberty, even beyond the restraints in our founding charter. You seem to believe that our nation should operate more on a level of the wild west and the relative lawlessness that was experienced in the early US territories. Without the protections offered by government, you would certainly lose some of your liberty to the action of your more opportunistic neighbors.
Offering Wiki-leaks as a tool to commit acts of treason certainly opens the editor/founder of the site to possible prosecution as an accomplice. It’s also a disgusting act that could result in bodily harm befalling people… harm for which he bears some level of blame. Lending your neighbor a mask and hand gun to go rob a bank does not exempt you from culpability in the name of liberty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 2024 hrs
There are members of Common Sense Citizens of Wash Co. that are alderman, school board members, and county board members. Political strategy and local policy action are likely discussed at their secret meetings.
All the more reason they should be transparent. Or do these alderman, school board members,and county board members only feel that others should be transparent, not themselves?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 2043 hrs
Offering Wiki-leaks as a tool to commit acts of treason certainly opens the editor/founder of the site to possible prosecution as an accomplice.
Good luck with that, considering the site is based in Sweden.
I think the bigger issue here is that the Bush administration so came to love classifying unpopular information as a way to keep it out of the hands of Americans that most people are now incredibly suspect of government’s motives in these situations.
Perhaps the biggest acknowledgment in this whole information dump has to be that the overwhelming majority of the information that was classified had absolutely no basis for said status in the first place. Our commander-in-chief has acknowledged this through his surrogates. If the material contains no new information and the commander-in-chief says that nothing contained forthwith is damaging to our security interests, then there’s really nothing to see here.
Well, other than to examine the overuse of classified status. As the LA Times so aptly said today, “Information should not be classified just because it is embarrassing or simply because its revelation might make it harder for the administration to pursue its objectives.”
We should be far more upset about our government’s abuse of secrecy than we should be about a guy who “leaks” a bunch of documents with stale information.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 28, 2010 at 2145 hrs
The same people who think Wikileaks is no big deal, were calling for federal investigations into the people (not the content) who leaked the climate gate emails. Can anyone say hypocricy?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 0047 hrs
Perhaps the biggest acknowledgment in this whole information dump has to be that the overwhelming majority of the information that was classified had absolutely no basis for said status in the first place.
RS… I have to disagree with your conclusion. Keeping information classified means more than just protecting “intelligence” or key information about spies, weapons, and battle plans. There is a term in the DoD called “operational security”. Information is distributed on a need-to-know basis. If it’s not part of your job, it doesn’t matter how benign the information is, you should not have access to it. The reason for this is because the more information about military operations that is passed around, the more easily the enemy can connect puzzle pieces, get names, and paint a more complete picture of how everything works. It allows them to find weaknesses and gaps to exploit (think bribery, forgery, and worse).
You may think that the information has no basis for being classified, but you’re looking at it from the wrong context. In the military everything - all information and communications - are to be kept confidential unless otherwise ordered to release it to someone.
The info in the Wikileaks documents may well confirm what we knew all along about the quagmire that is Afghanistan. But if I were an enemy, I would be salivating at the reams of useful information I would now be able to glean from those 90,000+ documents. It’s a treasure trove.
Obama was elected in no small part due to people’s frustration with the wars. If his administration has not yet seen fit to order investigations, then we have to wait. Same thing with Congress. We’re still a functioning democracy here. While I too have a healthy distrust of government officials, I also know human nature. And at some point this stuff will be investigated by the appropriate officials - if for no other reason one side wanting a political win over the other. Sanctioning and cheering on this kind of breach of our system really sends a bad message and takes us down a very risky path.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1147 hrs
I would suggest, David, that you are looking at it from the wrong context. In a free state the assumption should not be secrecy, but transparency. The reason for this is that the less information that gets passed around the easier it is for enemies of a free society to exploit secrecy for their own ends (think bribery, forgery, worse.) Additionally in our particular free state, the military is subservient to the civil government and the people. This can only be maintained when the people have the information necessary to control the military.
Not to suggest that the military is the only, or even primary, keeper of state secrets.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1334 hrs
... the military is subservient to the civil government and the people.
BV… I completely agree. But that doesn’t mean that any Joe Plumber can go walking into the Pentagon and demanding to see classified documents because he has a hunch about something. We have procedures to reveal these things - people (civilians) at the Congressional level and in the Executive branch who we elect to deal with these matters. They’re the ones with the clearances who are charged with investigating and vetting information to be released that won’t compromise our security. If people don’t like the way Congress and the Executive branch are handling those matters, then they have the opportunity to vote in replacements who will do a better job. Amateurs and foreign nationals deciding they know what information should and should not be classified, and then just flaunting the law and publishing it, is uncivilized, highly illegal, and should be treated as such.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 2142 hrs
You are confusing liberty and anarchy again, Jay.
Nope you’re wrong.
Offering Wiki-leaks as a tool to commit acts of treason certainly opens the editor/founder of the site to possible prosecution as an accomplice
As RS pointed out, it’s not an American site, Julian Assange isn’t American. So how is it treason?
My only point is the Julian Assange is not the witch to be burned here it’s the people who leaked the documents. Should we get them or will any scalp suffice in this instance?
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 29, 2010 at 2153 hrs
Full of shit. And a hypocrite. You’re just like Assange. No wonder you adore him so much. You each make up your own rules as you go along, government & society be damned. Like I said: Anarchy.
You seriously need to go back to school and get some reading comprehension skills and learn how to think.
I do not admire him, in fact I hardly agree with him at all.
And then you hypocritically claim you’re all about business and private property rights - until someone wants to hire an illegal alien.
I have never claimed anything of the sort about illegal aliens. Nice try though.
You equate tax collection with brute force thuggery.
If I don’t pay the governments protection money that they demand what happens? Oh right, brutes with guns show up to drag me away and lock me in a cage. That’s not brute force thuggery? Oh wait, here comes the reply about responsibility to society blah blah blah your voice is your vote blah blah blah. Just because you have excuses for it does not change what it actually is.
You use Ayn Rand quotes (without citing her) woefully out of context in without regard to her more in-depth non-fiction works and how they typically stand in opposition to the bullshit spew around here.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Ever read the context of those posts or are you just angry and lashing out and finding anything to rip me over?
He vets the documents (as he did with these) before they’re published.
So he read all 90,000 plus pages before posting them? I must have missed that fact because I sure haven’t seen it.
I like free speech too. But when a foreign national publicly comes out giving the finger to the U.S. government by publishing the documents and posturing that he alone knows best what we should classify as state secrets or not, well that’s where I draw the line.
AND I AGREE! I’m more concerned with getting the people who actually did the leaking. We can deal with Assange later. Like I said I heard him speak. I think he takes the whole transparency thing too far. I do not support the “leaking” of personal, confidential, secret or privileged information unless it is of a criminal nature. For a hypothetical example, a company is working on a new display that will revolutionize the home TV market. That should not be leaked, it is THAT companies privileged information and therefore their property. However, a company that is engaging in insider trading or screwing their customers by cooking the books, THAT SHOULD BE LEAKED.
I’ll sum it all up and you can still draw your silly conclusions about me and feel superior.
Julian Assange is NOT the guy who needs to be rounded up and executed. Find the people who did this first, they are the ones that will do much more harm than a guy running a website. You can take down Assange and Wikileaks, but it will do no good without taking down the source first. Unless of course you’re just worried about feeling good.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 29, 2010 at 2227 hrs
Short of someone publishing examples of classified information, David, how exactly is the public supposed to go about judging the job others are doing?
I’ll take my chances with transparency and the amateurs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 0036 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 115
Total anonymous users: 4
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 04:25 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).