- #1
Cyrus
- 3,238
- 16
Wooooo, someone just unleashed a treasure trove of classified documents to the public about Iraq and Afghanistan. And the ****storm will begin right about...now.
Last edited by a moderator:
My maxim on this is:aquitaine said:Indeed. It looks like the helicopter gunship killing Iraqi civilians was just the start, I wonder what other dirty laundry they've been sitting on...
Note, the site for this info dump contains some pretty heavily biased editorializing - not a lot of it, just enough to let you know what his stance is. I realize the guy who runs the site just can't help himself, but I can't understand why he doesn't see that he undermines his own credibility by not simply dumping the information with a factual explanation of what it is.Evo said:BTW, wikileaks is not considered an unbiased site, as was proven in their doctoring, voice-overs, and incorrect, misleading commentary of prior pieces.
humanino said:
Yeah, the wikileaks on Afghanastan is a big yawn. Is anyone really surprised that the locals are taking money meant for orphanges and spending it on themselves? That local Afghani's are trying to extort money from UN Convoy's? That local Afghani's are saying they are under attack from insurgents and need ammunition, only to be found to have sold the ammunition in a local bazarre? It goes on and on.edward said:I have read that wikileaks is an anti war group? can't say for sure. This won't be about the veracity of Wikileaks. It will be about the 90,000 military documents.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011710-503544.html
I saw that quote too and though I don't think they make any direct claims about what they post (just implied ones), I think it is a relatively safe conclusion.edward said:I have read that wikileaks is an anti war group? can't say for sure.
Mostly, anyway.This won't be about the veracity of Wikileaks. It will be about the 90,000 military documents.
Evo said:BTW, wikileaks is not considered an unbiased site, as was proven in their doctoring, voice-overs, and incorrect, misleading commentary of prior pieces.
If it is classified, absolutely yes!rootX said:I cannot comment on the quality of information it presents but certainly can see the need of it. Should we let the governments decide if some controversial information should be made available to the public?
Yes but in all fairness, is a government really in the best position to objectively judge this? They can say this of all info that is damaging. If any, this should be judged by a supreme court.russ_watters said:If it is classified, absolutely yes!
It's my understanding that these documents are after action reports by soldiers. The wikileaks editor says they have a policy for minimizing harm, but they don't eliminate it: the release of after action reports can be very damaging to the war effort. Based on the mischaracterizations of the helicopter shooting tape they made and the anti-war/anti-government stance of the editor, I honestly don't think this guy can see beyond the propaganda value to the real military value of such information. He loves this stuff because of the propaganda, but he doesn't even see he's giving the enemy detailed information about our tactics.
Some information is just plain not fit for public consumption because the general public simply doesn't have the frame of reference needed to propertly process the information. It's a case where if misinterpreted, more facts can actually result in less understanding. His focusing on the laughing of the soldiers in the chopper video is a clear indication that he is simply unable to process what he's seeing.
By the same token, if people saw what happened after being put under anesthetic in an oral surgeon's office, there'd be even more fear of dentists than there already is.
Borg said:I'm wondering how someone downloaded that much information thinking that they wouldn't get caught. It's only a matter of time before the military figures out who gave that info to Wikileaks. It may just be obvious day to day issues but, it's still classified. The person who did this is a traitor.
ZQrn said:sub-mediocre intelligence
ZQrn said:Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder
I never really got this strange fixation people have with 'treason' really, but I'm not a nationalist or patriot and never got that either, so...
Oh wow, someone who believes intelligence is more than a subjective judgement, carry on, carry on.CRGreathouse said:Citation, please.
Sure, but the people that don't reveal it get tried for war crimes by the enemy afterwards and then they say you should have stood up against it.Borg said:It isn't a patriotic fixation or something in the eye of the beholder. People who have access to classified documents sign agreements that they will not divulge classified information. Breaking that agreement is grounds to be arrested for treason. That is made clear to them - you break the agreement, you get arrested.
Maybe you shouldn't resort to juvenile name-calling then.ZQrn said:How am I supposed to provide a citation for this?
I think our concept of 'definition' is a bit different, in my world a definition is devoid is vague terms like 'exceptionally grave damage', also, citation that the damage to national security is exceptionally grave?Hurkyl said:
I said I found a world leader stupid in a politics board. I am not allowed to criticize a world leader on his by my perceived intellectual shortcomings for the job?If you can't, then maybe you should stick to the facts, rather than juvenile name-calling.
Of course you're (generally) allowed to. But that doesn't give you any protection whatsoever from being called on it.ZQrn said:I am not allowed to criticize a world leader on his by my perceived intellectual shortcomings for the job?
Sure, but I just think that asking for a citation for that is pretty strange, I mean, I can give one, it wouldn't be too difficult to find some political authority who calls Bush not that bright, or some psychologist who's estimate of Bush's intelligence is not that high. But what does that prove?Hurkyl said:Of course you're (generally) allowed to. But that doesn't give you any protection whatsoever from being called on it.
Isn't that classified?ZQrn said:Bush not that bright, or some psychologist who's estimate of Bush's intelligence is not that high.
Oh bravo, I'm laughing some rudimentary organs off.mgb_phys said:Isn't that classified?
Presumably it would cause grave danger to national security if your enemies found out that your leader was an idiot - Doonesbury should be arrested for treason at once.
Sure, that was shown in another thread. I'll have to look for it.CRGreathouse said:I agree that they're not unbiased. Can you source the doctoring for me? I hadn't heard that one.
russ_watters said:Note, the site for this info dump contains some pretty heavily biased editorializing - not a lot of it, just enough to let you know what his stance is. I realize the guy who runs the site just can't help himself, but I can't understand why he doesn't see that he undermines his own credibility by not simply dumping the information with a factual explanation of what it is.
If it is classified, absolutely yes!
That video is the one that was edited and had intentionally misleading and false information provided by wikileaks.aquitaine said:Governments sometimes classify things simply to avoid embarrassing themselves, not because it is important to national security. That video of the gunship machine gunning Iraqi civilians was classified, because they wanted to conceal their crimes, not to protect the US.
aquitaine said:Governments sometimes classify things simply to avoid embarrassing themselves, not because it is important to national security. That video of the gunship machine gunning Iraqi civilians was classified, because they wanted to conceal their crimes, not to protect the US.
Now now, it's a bit of a dual standard. If there are videos which show heroic deeds of soldiers that aspire patriotism in the general population they are often directly given to the news. Even though it could hamper national security potentially, it does broker a favourable outcome in the midterms.zomgwtf said:Really? Or are all such videos classified?
Are you honestly trying to say that everything recorded etc. by the military in a war is unclassified information unless it involves crimes in which case they immediately find and classify all information pertaining to the crime?
This is incredibly stupid in my opinion.
All videos/recorded info etc. taken during fire fights or attacks are classified and it should be obvious why they are.
War? Declared om whom?zomgwtf said:In my opinion this new leak of 90k+ files isn't damaging to the war effort. I don't think it undermine the war or anthing of that type either. The media is just hyping it up because it's a huge leak of files pertaining to the war.
As well I do not agree with leaking of classified information. This is a war we are atlking about and a lot is at stake. People sitting in America have no idea what it's like in Afghanistan I would be surprised if they could even locate Afghanistan on a map.
ZQrn said:Yes but in all fairness, is a government really in the best position to objectively judge this? They can say this of all info that is damaging. If any, this should be judged by a supreme court.