Wikileaks release classified documents

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[turbo]

Been going on all day. Caught the Pentagon flat-footed, since it will probably be weeks before they can review 90+K documents. They'll also be looking to see what HASN'T been released, because he has even more documents.

 

[ZQrn]

It's funny to see how we live in a world where borderline-conspiracy theorist-sites like this actually are just a little bit more veracious than newspapers and a hell more than governments.

I think that sci-fi series Earth: Final Conflict could be interpreted as a deeper message in this. Clearly the Taelons were duplicit and scheming, but in the end, they were no more than our own human leaders. Like Michael Patrick Flaherty said 'What is it with you and the truth? Why did you join politics if you care so much about the truth?'

 

[aquitaine]

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...

 

[ZQrn]

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...

My maxim on this is:

A: Most conspiracy theories are far fetched nonsense.
B: There are still a lot more conspiracies going on than there are theories.

Most conspiracies and cover-ups never gain a theory, the moment it gains a theory and its true, proving it is straightforward and it becomes a historical fact for the most part.

That professional administrators are willing to cover these things up implies that the chance of people finding out, together with the negative backlash is actually worth it, it's just so low, so you can bet there is a lot more stuff that's never going to be uncovered. That, or our world leaders are really bad at making strategically calculated decisions, either way, it does not look bright.

 

[Proton Soup]

i don't see what the problem is. just pull the internet kill switch, right?

 

[humanino]

 

[Evo]

Aside from making it appear that the Afghani's can't be trusted to positions of power, what, exctly, was revealed? (yes, I've read all that was reported today)

BTW, wikileaks is not considered an unbiased site, as was proven in their doctoring, voice-overs, and incorrect, misleading commentary of prior pieces.

 

[russ_watters]

BTW, wikileaks is not considered an unbiased site, as was proven in their doctoring, voice-overs, and incorrect, misleading commentary of prior pieces.

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.

 

[waht]

Russia is probably retaliating for US public and embarrassing disclosure of Russian spies.

 

[russ_watters]

Note: he is the primary author of the site.

 

[edward]

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

 

[Evo]

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

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26warlogs.html?no_interstitial

 

[russ_watters]

I have read that wikileaks is an anti war group? can't say for sure.

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.

This won't be about the veracity of Wikileaks. It will be about the 90,000 military documents.

Mostly, anyway.

 

[CRGreathouse]

BTW, wikileaks is not considered an unbiased site, as was proven in their doctoring, voice-overs, and incorrect, misleading commentary of prior pieces.

I agree that they're not unbiased. Can you source the doctoring for me? I hadn't heard that one.

 

[rootX]

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?

However, I believe these 90K documents might not include any highly controversial material.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

Also, this is democracy, there is freedom of the press to criticize the administration, and you get elected by popular vote of laymen who indeed lack the finer understanding of politics and military strategy. The same argument can be raised against all news really.

Of course said democracy and popular vote are the only reason a cowboy with sub-mediocre intelligence got to be the world leader.

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.

[PLAIN]http://www.andystrekpage.de/garak01.jpg

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...

 

[CRGreathouse]

sub-mediocre intelligence

Citation, please.

 

[Borg]

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...

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.

 

[ZQrn]

Citation, please.

Oh wow, someone who believes intelligence is more than a subjective judgement, carry on, carry on.

How am I supposed to provide a citation for this? If some psychologist or journalist or political commentator says it it's suddenly true by that authority? Please, calling some one sub-mediocre in intelligent is as subjective as calling a film bad. And I believe that I am entitled to state both of my opinions on the respective matters. Kind of like calling something 'treason', can you cite that? No, it's an opinion, even though you didn't say 'I think it's treason', this is just reading context. If X says 'That's beautiful', surely X means 'I think it's beautiful' in the absence of a metre to objective beauty.

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.

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.

Besides, the philosophical part of it all is that you can always say 'Yeah, but I never agreed to live up to my agreements' and then displace that but 'Yeah, but I never agreed to live up to my agreement to live up to agreements ...' et cetera et cetera.

In the end, it's not so much an issue of right as it is of might. The US government commands a military arm sufficient to compel people into doing what they want, that's how leadership works on a world scale, a government rules by might, not by right.

And some would argue that in this case, the moral code of informers the electorate so that they can make a more informed decision outweighs the moral code of honouring agreements.

And in any case, treason is in the eye of the beholder, I mean, no one considers Deep Throat a traitor, but I'm sure he broke some agreement by divulging what Nixon did. In the end, keeping these things classified from the public is perceive by some as dirty politics, especially when you know it's going to make a lot of people think that the invasion of Aghanistan which you were so adamant about it being a good plan turns out to be worse than you expected. Politicians are not that good at eating their crow. Blair will swim the channel before he says 'Okay, I was wrong, I thought he had WMD's and was an immediate threat, he wasn't, I made a costly mistake.', instead he'll just invent another supposed reason why he invaded.

 

[Hurkyl]

By definition, a top secret document risks

Quote by Wikipedia:
"exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available.​

And since treason is

Quote by Wikipedia:
the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation.​

...

How am I supposed to provide a citation for this?

Maybe you shouldn't resort to juvenile name-calling then.

 

[ZQrn]

By definition, a top secret document risks

Quote by Wikipedia:
"exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available.​

And since treason is

Quote by Wikipedia:
the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation.​

...

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?

Also 'serious' 'betrayal', 'crime', these terms are all in the eye of the beholder I trust we can agree on. One man's traitor is another man's hero.

If you can't, then maybe you should stick to the facts, rather than juvenile name-calling.

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?

Do I need to provide a citation when I say that Michael Bay is a terrible director too? Does 'Yeah, the wikileaks on Afghanastan is a big yawn.' require a citation? Of course not, it's a subjective comment.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am not allowed to criticize a world leader on his by my perceived intellectual shortcomings for the job?

Of course you're (generally) allowed to. But that doesn't give you any protection whatsoever from being called on it.

 

[ZQrn]

Of course you're (generally) allowed to. But that doesn't give you any protection whatsoever from being called on it.

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?

I'm sure you can find a political analyst or a psychologist that says the reverse, namely.

 

[mgb_phys]

Bush not that bright, or some psychologist who's estimate of Bush's intelligence is not that high.

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.

 

[ZQrn]

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.

Oh bravo, I'm laughing some rudimentary organs off.

Other than that, it shows that it's in the eye of the beholder, yeah.

 

[Evo]

I agree that they're not unbiased. Can you source the doctoring for me? I hadn't heard that one.

Sure, that was shown in another thread. I'll have to look for it.

 

[aquitaine]

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!

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.