Wikileaks release classified documents

  • News
  • Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date
  • #1
2,985
15
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:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45


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.
 
  • #3
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?'
 
  • #4
18
9


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......
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
100
1


i don't see what the problem is. just pull the internet kill switch, right?
 
  • #7
2,425
6


 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Evo
Mentor
23,153
2,773


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.
 
  • #9
russ_watters
Mentor
19,799
6,196


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.
 
  • #10
1,482
3


Russia is probably retaliating for US public and embarrassing disclosure of Russian spies.
 
  • #11
russ_watters
Mentor
19,799
6,196
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Evo
Mentor
23,153
2,773


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
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
19,799
6,196


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.
 
  • #15
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,820
0


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.
 
  • #16
378
2


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.
 
  • #17
russ_watters
Mentor
19,799
6,196


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.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Borg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,881
2,370


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.
 
  • #19
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 [Broken]

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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,820
0


sub-mediocre intelligence
Citation, please.
 
  • #21
Borg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,881
2,370


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.
 
  • #22
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.
 
  • #23
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19


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. :wink:
 
  • #24
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. :wink:
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.
 
  • #25
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19


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. :wink:
 

Related Threads on Wikileaks release classified documents

  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
9K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
42
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
301
Views
26K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Top