PDA

View Full Version : Wiki leaks crossed the line. I am really sorry.




klamath
12-06-2010, 09:14 AM
This does nothing for government openess but it does put innocent civilian lives at risk, Americans and foreigners.
I really wanted him to keep revealing all the underhanded dealing of governments and letting the Americans and the people of the world see the true nature of geopolitical moves. Publishing targets that would specifically hurt Americans and others it not it.


It details undersea cables, key communications, ports, mineral resources and firms of strategic importance in countries ranging from Britain to New Zealand, via Africa, the Middle East and China.

A Canadian hydroelectric plant is described as a "critical irreplaceable source of power to portions of Northeast US," while a Siemens factory in Germany does "essentially irreplaceable production of key chemicals".

Also listed are European manufacturers of vaccines for smallpox and rabies, an Italian maker of treatment for snake-bite venom, and a German company making treatment for plutonium poisoning.

According to the diplomatic cable, the request was designed "to strengthen national preparedness, timely response, and rapid recovery in the event of an attack, natural disaster or other emergency

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101206/ts_alt_afp/usdiplomacywikileaks_20101206102522

Bruno
12-06-2010, 09:16 AM
Don't be sorry, you didn't do anything.

sailingaway
12-06-2010, 09:17 AM
There is a line wikileaks, like the NY Times, shouldn't cross. I agree. I don't know if they will or not, but there is an awful lot of info in that info dump, and I am leery of it. I agree about putting innocent lives in danger, but also think that without them the East Anglia climategate emails wouldn't be out, either.

However, Ron didn't say wikileaks didn't have to satisfy the same standards the NY Times does, he just said a) an Australian can't be charged with treason, and b) wikileaks needs to be viewed through the same lens as the NY Times, for freedom of press reasons. At the time the stuff coming out was national enquirer type stuff.

Lieberman wants to exhume the Wilson era Espionage Act and make it BROADER, shades of the Patriot Act fiasco, and I am sure that is what Ron was trying to head off.

--
edit, and I agree, that list should not have been put out. But it hadn't been when Ron spoke up for treating Wikileaks like other media. And I think it should be treated like other media, and I'd have a problem with other media putting out that list, as well.

specsaregood
12-06-2010, 09:20 AM
This does nothing for government openess but it does put innocent civilian lives at risk, Americans and foreigners.
I really wanted him to keep revealing all the underhanded dealing of governments and letting the Americans and the people of the world see the true nature of geopolitical moves. Publishing targets that would specifically hurt Americans and others it not it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101206/ts_alt_afp/usdiplomacywikileaks_20101206102522

It seems to me that the info released and discussed in that article merely exposes how weak the US is and at the mercy of the benevolence of the rest of the world. The emperor certainly has no clothes. Or to use another expression: the US is a paper tiger.

sailingaway
12-06-2010, 09:24 AM
It seems to me that the info released and discussed in that article merely exposes how weak the US is and at the mercy of the benevolence of the rest of the world. The emperor certainly has no clothes. Or to use another expression: the US is a paper tiger.

No, if they gave out a list of what are our 'key assets' in our estimation, it is a pretty good roadmap for terrorists or future war. It is just that none of that info is likely hard come by, even without it being gathered in one place. Like people don't know an energy plant is the only one in the region? But I do think it was irresponsible for them to release that. Now, has the NY Times ever released stuff irresponsibly? I leave that to others to decide.

Ron just said they are media and freedom of press issues apply. That includes the limits of a responsible free press. This list wasn't out at that time. I have no interest in carrying water for Assange. I just don't want Leiberman using this as an excuse to erode our liberties.

fisharmor
12-06-2010, 09:27 AM
Really?


A State Department cable from February 2009 asked US missions to update a list of infrastructure and key resources worldwide whose loss "could critically impact" the country's public health, economic life and national security.

Public Health - ok, so I grant that the federal government has chased jobs and industry out of the country which may relate to my health, but the answer is obviously not to spend billions to protect the foreign sites that have been set up to provide those goods.

Economic life - same answer. That they killed industry here is not an excuse to protect industry over there.

National security - this one always blows my mind. The assumption is that if we don't maintain sites overseas, or security here at home is threatened.
Overlooking the fact that it actually makes us less secure in a lot of cases, how does it even logically follow that in order for us to be safe here, we have to maintain sites abroad?

sailingaway
12-06-2010, 09:28 AM
Really?



Public Health - ok, so I grant that the federal government has chased jobs and industry out of the country which may relate to my health, but the answer is obviously not to spend billions to protect the foreign sites that have been set up to provide those goods.

Economic life - same answer. That they killed industry here is not an excuse to protect industry over there.

National security - this one always blows my mind. The assumption is that if we don't maintain sites overseas, or security here at home is threatened.
Overlooking the fact that it actually makes us less secure in a lot of cases, how does it even logically follow that in order for us to be safe here, we have to maintain sites abroad?

Hm. So this is trying to determine critical infrastructure in OTHER countries? Or critical to OUR interests?

specsaregood
12-06-2010, 09:29 AM
No, if they gave out a list of what are our 'key assets' in our estimation, it is a pretty good roadmap for terrorists or future war. It is just that none of that info is likely hard come by, even without it being gathered in one place. Like people don't know an energy plant is the only one in the region? But I do think it was irresponsible for them to release that. Now, has the NY Times ever released stuff irresponsibly? I leave that to others to decide.


Where is that energy plant located? Where are many of those assets located?
That is the point I was getting at. It specifically refers to "assets" that are key to the US way of life, but are actually assets in foreign countries.

Baptist
12-06-2010, 09:29 AM
This does nothing for government openess but it does put innocent civilian lives at risk, Americans and foreigners.
I really wanted him to keep revealing all the underhanded dealing of governments and letting the Americans and the people of the world see the true nature of geopolitical moves. Publishing targets that would specifically hurt Americans and others it not it.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101206/ts_alt_afp/usdiplomacywikileaks_20101206102522


If big corporations didn't buy off governments, making them monopolies and the sole producer of XXX good or XXX technology, then this wouldn't even be a problem.

I'm not sorry.

Go Wikileaks.

georgiaboy
12-06-2010, 09:31 AM
If you're talking about the list of infrastructure sites, I disagree, k.

My thought is that this info is already available for those really wanting to know.

The part about this whole thing that bothers me is how it seems like more and more people are worried about this -- it's like people are going right back into post 9/11 fear mode. It's a big distraction.

Let the cockroaches scurry.

klamath
12-06-2010, 09:33 AM
No, if they gave out a list of what are our 'key assets' in our estimation, it is a pretty good roadmap for terrorists or future war. It is just that none of that info is likely hard come by, even without it being gathered in one place. Like people don't know an energy plant is the only one in the region? But I do think it was irresponsible for them to release that. Now, has the NY Times ever released stuff irresponsibly? I leave that to others to decide.

Ron just said they are media and freedom of press issues apply. That includes the limits of a responsible free press. This list wasn't out at that time. I have no interest in carrying water for Assange. I just don't want Leiberman using this as an excuse to erode our liberties.
I agree and this is what bothers me. Assuage really had the moral high ground in exposing governments deviousness but this is losing it. What Assuage is doing is making it easy for the lieberman's of the world sell a horrible set of laws.

sailingaway
12-06-2010, 09:33 AM
If you're talking about the list of infrastructure sites, I disagree, k.

My thought is that this info is already available for those really wanting to know.

The part about this whole thing that bothers me is how it seems like more and more people are worried about this -- it's like people are going right back into post 9/11 fear mode. It's a big distraction.

Let the cockroaches scurry.

I really think they are trying to crack down on the internet with Leiberman's bill and are trying to gin up concern and support for that, and also some are using it to try to derail Ron from his subcommittee (there are a bunch of non sequitor 'because of this he shouldn't get the committee' banker lobbyist type concern trolls prowling redstate at the moment trying to gin up support for that idea.)

RM918
12-06-2010, 09:34 AM
They're releasing them all, they're not picking and choosing. I'd love it if our newspapers did this sort of thing honestly while protecting our interests, but they gave up that right to bow before the government and beg for insider info.

Wikileaks is far from perfect, but they're all we've got. I'd rather have them than have them thrown in jail and just have Fox, MSNBC and CNN.

fisharmor
12-06-2010, 09:40 AM
Hm. So this is trying to determine critical infrastructure in OTHER countries? Or critical to OUR interests?

Both. But the fact that it is currently critical to our interests is not a valid reason to protect it.

I can't tell where you are, but you ought to take a casual drive sometime through Pennsylvania, or New York, or Massachusetts.
Significant portions of this country are littered with skeletal reminders of our former greatness.
There is still so much energy in Pennsylvania alone that nobody is bothering to entertain ideas for what to do about the Centralia fire - and indeed, when it first ignited in the 1960's there were ideas pitched for how to stop it immediately, but there is literally so much coal in PA that an underground fire which has been burning for close to 50 years doesn't even put a dent in the supply, so they chose to do nothing.

What they say is "these foreign sites are vital to our interests".
What I hear is "we can put men on the moon, but we can't figure out how to use what we have here in this country efficiently and cleanly".

It is simply easier in their estimation to rape the world than it is to work out our own problems with our own resources.
I do not have such a dim view of American know-how.

pcosmar
12-06-2010, 09:40 AM
First of all
The Terrorist boogieman doesn't exist. It is a manufactured threat.
Secondly
They have been saying for years (long before this cable) that all these places are targets and have been implementing "security" programs. everywhere. Even searching in peoples underwear.
Third
Non of these known targets has been attacked. In fact the only attempted attacks have been low tech failures.


Go hide under your bed before the Boogieman gets you.
:mad:

klamath
12-06-2010, 09:40 AM
Revealing this list that the US Government thinks is important makes them all top on a target list. If I was a biologist working in a snake bit factory in Italy I would have no love of Assauge right now.

specsaregood
12-06-2010, 09:41 AM
What they say is "these foreign sites are vital to our interests".
What I hear is "we can put men on the moon, but we can't figure out how to use what we have here in this country efficiently and cleanly".
.

And what I wonder is, how is not a threat to our interests if the rest of the world decided to cut us off?

AF is gonna love this thread/article.

Andrew-Austin
12-06-2010, 09:42 AM
I agree and this is what bothers me. Assuage really had the moral high ground in exposing governments deviousness but this is losing it. What Assuage is doing is making it easy for the lieberman's of the world sell a horrible set of laws.

He hasn't lost the moral high ground. This is but a small infraction.

Comment on Yahoo:


The REAL story here is Rudd of Australia talking to Clinton about taking military actions against China - these people are insane, almost on a death-march. Can't defeat Iraqis or Afghans but you want to attack China?

As for that list, don't think that the terrorist couldn't fiqure that out themselves. If it was that much of a secret, blame & fire our incompetent diplomats for putting it on a cable.

I agree, that is more of a story. The government is still the one endangering innocents here, is still the one with blood already on its hand. I don't think he possibly could lose the moral high ground relative to governments. Maybe he can in the eyes of neocons who already dislike what wikileaks has been doing. It was unnecessary to release this specific list, but like I said its a small infraction.

georgiaboy
12-06-2010, 09:48 AM
They're releasing them all, they're not picking and choosing. I'd love it if our newspapers did this sort of thing honestly while protecting our interests, but they gave up that right to bow before the government and beg for insider info.

Wikileaks is far from perfect, but they're all we've got. I'd rather have them than have them thrown in jail and just have Fox, MSNBC and CNN.

i know, right? isn't drudge, huffpo, infowars, wnd, all into this 'get the inside scoop' stuff? how many times did we get the "Obama's secret surprise trip to Afghanistan" from the MSM?

From another angle, to paraphrase one of my favorite RPF'ers, "if our gov't respected and lived by the US Constitution, problem solved".

The response to Wikileaks should be "shrink gov't!" not "more surveillance!"

sailingaway
12-06-2010, 09:49 AM
He hasn't lost the moral high ground. This is but a small infraction.

Comment on Yahoo:



I agree, that is more of a story. The government is still the one endangering innocents here, is still the one with blood already on its hand. I don't think he possibly could lose the moral high ground relative to governments. Maybe he can in the eyes of neocons who already dislike what wikileaks has been doing. It was unnecessary to release this specific list, but like I said its a small infraction.

I'm concerned about how it will be spun against Ron, and we all know when things are spun, the truth is nearly irrelevant.

But I ALSO do think there are lines you shouldn't cross. I don't know if this info crosses that line, I'm just concerned that somewhere in that huge data dump (or, more likely, in the insurance file) there is something like that. I understand Ron had to head off Leiberman's patriot act reprise, but I wish this had all come up a month from now.

georgiaboy
12-06-2010, 09:54 AM
he hasn't lost the moral high ground. This is but a small infraction.

Comment on yahoo:



originally posted by larry
the real story here is rudd of australia talking to clinton about taking military actions against china - these people are insane, almost on a death-march. Can't defeat iraqis or afghans but you want to attack china?

As for that list, don't think that the terrorist couldn't fiqure that out themselves. If it was that much of a secret, blame & fire our incompetent diplomats for putting it on a cable.

i agree, that is more of a story. The government is still the one endangering innocents here, is still the one with blood already on its hand. I don't think he possibly could lose the moral high ground relative to governments. Maybe he can in the eyes of neocons who already dislike what wikileaks has been doing. It was unnecessary to release this specific list, but like i said its a small infraction.

qft!!

YumYum
12-06-2010, 10:02 AM
This whole thing is being hyped to take control of the internet. When the SHTF its the internet that keeps us informed. The government doesn't want us informed. This is giving the government an excuse to become the gatekeeper.

klamath
12-06-2010, 10:24 AM
This whole thing is being hyped to take control of the internet. When the SHTF its the internet that keeps us informed. The government doesn't want us informed. This is giving the government an excuse to become the gatekeeper.

Yes and now Assauge is making is easy for them. He holds a huge amount of power and if he uses it wrongly we are all going to pay with a loss of freedom. If he keeps the leaks to to strategic government manipulation he will win but if he starts releasing info that can get specific innocent people killed he will lose the public opinion battle and the result will be a loss of freedom for us all. Patriot act anyone.

RM918
12-06-2010, 10:26 AM
Yes and now Assauge is making is easy for them. He holds a huge amount of power and if he uses it wrongly we are all going to pay with a loss of freedom. If he keeps the leaks to to strategic government manipulation he will win but if he starts releasing info that can get specific innocent people killed he will lose the public opinion battle and the result will be a loss of freedom for us all. Patriot act anyone.

If that happens, it won't be Assange's fault but ours for putting up with it.

speciallyblend
12-06-2010, 10:32 AM
does anything wikileaks has done come anywhere close to what the us gov has done to its own citizens? i think not!! i think you know the correct answer op!

fisharmor
12-06-2010, 10:36 AM
And what I wonder is, how is not a threat to our interests if the rest of the world decided to cut us off?

A teenager who has his credit card cut in half by the parents who have to pay for his extravagance also faces a threat to his interests.

Most analysts (including, I hope, those of a libertarian bent) would play the world's tiniest violin for that teenager.

crazyfacedjenkins
12-06-2010, 10:37 AM
First of all
The Terrorist boogieman doesn't exist. It is a manufactured threat.
Secondly
They have been saying for years (long before this cable) that all these places are targets and have been implementing "security" programs. everywhere. Even searching in peoples underwear.
Third
Non of these known targets has been attacked. In fact the only attempted attacks have been low tech failures.


Go hide under your bed before the Boogieman gets you.
:mad:

Just about sums this up.

paulitics
12-06-2010, 10:38 AM
This does nothing for government openess but it does put innocent civilian lives at risk, Americans and foreigners.
I really wanted him to keep revealing all the underhanded dealing of governments and letting the Americans and the people of the world see the true nature of geopolitical moves. Publishing targets that would specifically hurt Americans and others it not it.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101206/ts_alt_afp/usdiplomacywikileaks_20101206102522

I agree that it can be dangerous to expose intelligence. It's a very slippery slope, and is why I am not gung ho with Ron Paul, applauding this guy for everything he does. There is a big difference between exposing corruption and exposing this country's vulnerability, putting people's lives at risk.

johnny.rebel
12-06-2010, 10:44 AM
This does nothing for government openess but it does put innocent civilian lives at risk, Americans and foreigners.

how so?

Teaser Rate
12-06-2010, 10:50 AM
I get the feeling that a lot of support Wikileaks comes from libertarians comes from the old maxim the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Once I got beyond the romantic notion that they are fighting corrupt regimes and exposing the secrets of power-hungry men, I had trouble finding anything which Wikileaks does which actually helps bring peace or freedom to anyone.

Maybe Wikileaks’s main purpose is to gain power and attention for themselves ?

speciallyblend
12-06-2010, 10:52 AM
I agree that it can be dangerous to expose intelligence. It's a very slippery slope, and is why I am not gung ho with Ron Paul, applauding this guy for everything he does. There is a big difference between exposing corruption and exposing this country's vulnerability, putting people's lives at risk.

any examples rising to that level?? everything i have seen doesn't but from what i have seen it does show the us gov for what it is!! World Terrorists!

nothing in wikileaks seems news to me just backing up what most americans with brains already knew!

YumYum
12-06-2010, 10:53 AM
Maybe Wikileaks’s main purpose is to gain power and attention for themselves ?


Isn't that all part of a "Free Market"?

TheeJoeGlass
12-06-2010, 10:56 AM
Yes and now Assauge is making is easy for them. He holds a huge amount of power and if he uses it wrongly we are all going to pay with a loss of freedom. If he keeps the leaks to to strategic government manipulation he will win but if he starts releasing info that can get specific innocent people killed he will lose the public opinion battle and the result will be a loss of freedom for us all. Patriot act anyone.

I believe that, that is exactly what Assange wants. Listen to this man in his interviews and you will see that he is NOT a peace activist. He has no problems with war and has made the claim that he is NOT, anti-war. I think Assange would have no problem releasing all of the material, un-redacted, in hopes civil unrest breaks out.

The notion that once all this stuff gets out, that the Government will shrink or be defeated in anyway is way off base. Assange has to know by now what the result will be. Nothing good will come from this and Ron was wrong to throw soo much support to Wikileaks. He could've just said they have the right to do it under the Constitution, but should proceed with caution. This leak was inflamatory and was to get a response. Almost like he is goading them to shut him down just so he can release the encryption code. Ron needs to distance himself from this ASAP!

speciallyblend
12-06-2010, 10:57 AM
Isn't that all part of a "Free Market"?

i see wikileaks as helping people connect the dots for folks who are incapable of connecting dots. this is what is worrying the world terrorists!!

paulitics
12-06-2010, 10:59 AM
Yes and now Assauge is making is easy for them. He holds a huge amount of power and if he uses it wrongly we are all going to pay with a loss of freedom. If he keeps the leaks to to strategic government manipulation he will win but if he starts releasing info that can get specific innocent people killed he will lose the public opinion battle and the result will be a loss of freedom for us all. Patriot act anyone.

I know, this guy can become the new Bin Laden in this country if something happens. Obviously, there are genuine whistleblowers, but some of the information being released are not provided by patriots, but likely moles who have another agenda altogether. Recently, I have seen a change in Assauge, where he thinks that since he is going down, he wants to take America down with him.

Teaser Rate
12-06-2010, 11:00 AM
Isn't that all part of a "Free Market"?

Sure, but in Wikileaks' case it's highly hypocritical because they are becoming what they are claiming to be fighting against.

Releasing data in a way which paints large targets on blameless institutions and releasing the names of innocent Afghans in order to gain political prestige is not much different in principle than, as Wikileaks would put it, collateral murder.

sailingaway
12-06-2010, 11:01 AM
I believe that, that is exactly what Assange wants. Listen to this man in his interviews and you will see that he is NOT a peace activist. He has no problems with war and has made the claim that he is NOT, anti-war. I think Assange would have no problem releasing all of the material, un-redacted, in hopes civil unrest breaks out.

The notion that once all this stuff gets out, that the Government will shrink or be defeated in anyway is way off base. Assange has to know by now what the result will be. Nothing good will come from this and Ron was wrong to throw soo much support to Wikileaks. He could've just said they have the right to do it under the Constitution, but should proceed with caution. This leak was inflamatory and was to get a response. Almost like he is goading them to shut him down just so he can release the encryption code. Ron needs to distance himself from this ASAP!

I don't think Ron ever said that anything they might in the future dump would be a wonderful idea. He said they should be treated like the press, because they are press, and that Assange can't be tried for treason, since he is Australian. That isn't carte blanche. He then DID say 'wouldn't a wikileak on the Fed' be terrific, but he wasn't suggesting they do it, he was just calling for transparency.

the problem is that it is being blown beyond that, and new info is coming out which had it been out before Ron spoke, might have caused him to speak differently.

TheeJoeGlass
12-06-2010, 11:03 AM
any examples rising to that level?? everything i have seen doesn't but from what i have seen it does show the us gov for what it is!! World Terrorists!

nothing in wikileaks seems news to me just backing up what most americans with brains already knew!

Does something need to be attacked before it makes it troubling for Ron? I think the question is now, what happens if one of these sites are attacked?? With Ron giving his full support and the MSM making such a case about his defense, this does not bode well for us.

speciallyblend
12-06-2010, 11:04 AM
I know, this guy can become the new Bin Laden in this country if something happens. Obviously, there are genuine whistleblowers, but some of the information being released are not provided by patriots, but likely moles who have another agenda altogether. Recently, I have seen a change in Assauge, where he thinks that since he is going down, he wants to take America down with him.

If the us gov is following the rule of law. Then they should have nothing to hide. hmmm that feels good sayijng exactly what the police state would say to me:)

Us gov has destroyed america already i doubt assange could do better!!

speciallyblend
12-06-2010, 11:05 AM
Does something need to be attacked before it makes it troubling for Ron? I think the question is now, what happens if one of these sites are attacked?? With Ron giving his full support and the MSM making such a case about his defense, this does not bode well for us.

what are you suggesting would be attacked with this info??

speciallyblend
12-06-2010, 11:07 AM
Does something need to be attacked before it makes it troubling for Ron? I think the question is now, what happens if one of these sites are attacked?? With Ron giving his full support and the MSM making such a case about his defense, this does not bode well for us.

if anything is attacked it is not because of assange ! It is because we occupy 130 plus countries and are entangled in undelcared wars and we will occupy this 130 plus countries for my kids generations!!


the media is already calling assange a rapist just heard that on msnbc! the fact is the only person attacking america is the us gov!!

puppetmaster
12-06-2010, 11:08 AM
Yes and now Assauge is making is easy for them. He holds a huge amount of power and if he uses it wrongly we are all going to pay with a loss of freedom. If he keeps the leaks to to strategic government manipulation he will win but if he starts releasing info that can get specific innocent people killed he will lose the public opinion battle and the result will be a loss of freedom for us all. Patriot act anyone.


ONLY IF WE STAND DOWN......WE HAVE TO STAND UP AND GET PISSED.

I am not sure why many folks think this is going to be easy and painless. It's going to hurt and many will be paying with their lives.

amy31416
12-06-2010, 11:09 AM
Assange tried to get, I believe, the State dept. to review the documents prior to release to ensure there was nothing that put innocent people at risk.

Ask yourself why they turned him down numerous times.

The US goes ahead and kills thousands of people in order to preserve their empire, to take care of their belligerent buddies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and doesn't give a flying fuck about how many innocent people they take out--in the long term, it's better to crumble the murderous empire to get this sociopathic government to STOP killing thousands and thousands of truly innocent people, who are generally poor already.

Now who, exactly, does these leaks put at risk? Some CIA agents? They're not truly "innocent." Some diplomats? Also not truly innocent. Some American people? Yeah, well, we've mostly been blindly supporting the gov'ts folly in these matters, and we audaciously go to these "conquered" countries and set up our social engineering "charity" bullshit rather than "allow" people to have the culture, government and way of life that they choose. Then there's the companies who are in cahoots with our gov't who go and set up companies to profit off of their destruction. Also not "innocents" in my book.

Nope. I can't get on board with condemning Assange.

speciallyblend
12-06-2010, 11:10 AM
ONLY IF WE STAND DOWN......WE HAVE TO STAND UP AND GET PISSED.

I am not sure why many folks think this is going to be easy and painless. It's going to hurt and many will be paying with their lives.

nothing left to lose but my wife, dog, cat, my life and car! Hands the f off us gov!

puppetmaster
12-06-2010, 11:11 AM
nothing left to lose but my wife, dog, cat, my life and car! Hands the f off us gov!


freedoms just a another word for nothing left to lose!!

speciallyblend
12-06-2010, 11:12 AM
Assange tried to get, I believe, the State dept. to review the documents prior to release to ensure there was nothing that put innocent people at risk.

Ask yourself why they turned him down numerous times.

The US goes ahead and kills thousands of people in order to preserve their empire, to take care of their belligerent buddies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and doesn't give a flying fuck about how many innocent people they take out--in the long term, it's better to crumble the murderous empire to get this sociopathic government to STOP killing thousands and thousands of truly innocent people, who are generally poor already.

Now who, exactly, does these leaks put at risk? Some CIA agents? They're not truly "innocent." Some diplomats? Also not truly innocent. Some American people? Yeah, well, we've mostly been blindly supporting the gov'ts folly in these matters, and we audaciously go to these "conquered" countries and set up our social engineering "charity" bullshit rather than "allow" people to have the culture, government and way of life that they choose. Then there's the companies who are in cahoots with our gov't who go and set up companies to profit off of their destruction. Also not "innocents" in my book.

Nope. I can't get on board with condemning Assange.

we should be hammering drudge and msm on these facts alone! the us gov loves to risk innocent lives. anyone bashing or condeming assange really needs to think who is more dangerous to american lives the us gov or assange.

YumYum
12-06-2010, 11:13 AM
Nope. I can't get on board with condemning Assange.

Me either.

Cowlesy
12-06-2010, 11:16 AM
This does nothing for government openess but it does put innocent civilian lives at risk, Americans and foreigners.
I really wanted him to keep revealing all the underhanded dealing of governments and letting the Americans and the people of the world see the true nature of geopolitical moves. Publishing targets that would specifically hurt Americans and others it not it.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101206/ts_alt_afp/usdiplomacywikileaks_20101206102522

I am with you in rspect to this disclosure.

nobody's_hero
12-06-2010, 11:18 AM
Am I the only one who doesn't really understand the significance of this 'leak'?

Something about infrastructure being important to countries?

Suppose the terrorists already knew that????? After all, there must have been some reason they struck the World Trade Center. (Duh?)

vita3
12-06-2010, 11:19 AM
"Assange tried to get, I believe, the State dept. to review the documents prior to release to ensure there was nothing that put innocent people at risk.

Ask yourself why they turned him down numerous times.

The US goes ahead and kills thousands of people in order to preserve their empire, to take care of their belligerent buddies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and doesn't give a flying fuck about how many innocent people they take out--in the long term, it's better to crumble the murderous empire to get this sociopathic government to STOP killing thousands and thousands of truly innocent people, who are generally poor already.

Now who, exactly, does these leaks put at risk? Some CIA agents? They're not truly "innocent." Some diplomats? Also not truly innocent. Some American people? Yeah, well, we've mostly been blindly supporting the gov'ts folly in these matters, and we audaciously go to these "conquered" countries and set up our social engineering "charity" bullshit rather than "allow" people to have the culture, government and way of life that they choose. Then there's the companies who are in cahoots with our gov't who go and set up companies to profit off of their destruction. Also not "innocents" in my book.

Nope. I can't get on board with condemning Assange."

Good Post.
__________________

sailingaway
12-06-2010, 11:27 AM
Am I the only one who doesn't really understand the significance of this 'leak'?

Something about infrastructure being important to countries?

Suppose the terrorists already knew that????? After all, there must have been some reason they struck the World Trade Center. (Duh?)

They now have (purportedly) a neat list of exactly what we consider most crucial. That is the sort of thing spies spend lives to get, in wartime. Mind you, it was only classified at low levels (I believe all this material is low level classification) so the individual pieces are likely known. However, there are limits. I don't think anyone here would believe there should be no state secrets for national security -- only that it shouldn't be used to frustrate citizen knowledge of material that should truly NOT be state secrets.

speciallyblend
12-06-2010, 11:35 AM
I am with you in rspect to this disclosure.

our gov had many chances to redact these documents but they refused on several occasions! so the real blame still is with the us gov not assange!

fisharmor
12-06-2010, 11:39 AM
They now have (purportedly) a neat list of exactly what we consider most crucial.

OMG, people in this country have FIREARMS! They have the ability to mow down dozens of people in a crowd! We must do something about this!

OMG, people have access to DRUGS! They could get high and jump off a building - or worse, they could try to DRIVE! We must do something about this!

OMG, people have EXCESS MONEY! They could be using that money improperly, like buying shit for their teenagers instead of subsidizing unwed minority mothers! We must do something about this!

idirtify
12-06-2010, 11:43 AM
the limits of a responsible free press.

Same phony excuse used to control the press for at least the last 50 years.

sailingaway
12-06-2010, 11:44 AM
OMG, people in this country have FIREARMS! They have the ability to mow down dozens of people in a crowd! We must do something about this!

OMG, people have access to DRUGS! They could get high and jump off a building - or worse, they could try to DRIVE! We must do something about this!

OMG, people have EXCESS MONEY! They could be using that money improperly, like buying shit for their teenagers instead of subsidizing unwed minority mothers! We must do something about this!

Come on, this is different. This is what you bomb in wartime if you are on the other side. We are supposed to keep our side of this secret. That goes to the leaker, really, though. Personally, I expect this list isn't nearly so secret as they are making out, since the classification was so low. It is better media the other way, of course. however, there absolutely are things that are true national security secrets which should not be disclosed.

RonPaulCult
12-06-2010, 11:48 AM
Assange tried to get, I believe, the State dept. to review the documents prior to release to ensure there was nothing that put innocent people at risk.

Ask yourself why they turned him down numerous times.

Exactly what I was going to say. Wikileaks tried to avoid something like this from happening by having the government tell them which ones they should not release. The would have listened. Anything that puts national security at risk - you can blame first and foremost the US government.

With that said, I do agree that Wikileaks could have done a better job of reviewing these cables and not releasing ones like this. However, I think they are new to this and lack full understanding of journalist ethics. They are hackers and dissidents, not trained journalists.

idirtify
12-06-2010, 11:49 AM
Really?



Public Health - ok, so I grant that the federal government has chased jobs and industry out of the country which may relate to my health, but the answer is obviously not to spend billions to protect the foreign sites that have been set up to provide those goods.

Economic life - same answer. That they killed industry here is not an excuse to protect industry over there.

National security - this one always blows my mind. The assumption is that if we don't maintain sites overseas, or security here at home is threatened.
Overlooking the fact that it actually makes us less secure in a lot of cases, how does it even logically follow that in order for us to be safe here, we have to maintain sites abroad?

right. Just more excuses for the US to police the world (for the MIC to spend/make money).

nandnor
12-06-2010, 11:49 AM
nvm

fisharmor
12-06-2010, 11:52 AM
Come on, this is different. This is what you bomb in wartime if you are on the other side. We are supposed to keep our side of this secret. That goes to the leaker, really, though.

No, it's not.
My examples, like yours, assume that it is the duty of the government to prevent crime.
Not only is it impossible, but SCOTUS has ruled that it is not a government duty to keep citizens safe.
Just like gun control, the war on drugs, and socialism, state secrets assume from the outset that it is possible for the state to take action to prevent criminal action or make our lives better.
The only difference is that in my cases the government is taking goods out of the hands of people, and in yours it is taking information out of our hands.
Both appeal to the same faulty ideology - punish individuals, and individuals are better off.

speciallyblend
12-06-2010, 11:53 AM
Releasing data of purely private matters of civilians is quite bad manner

killing innocents and occupying 130 plus countries and violating american rights on a daily basis i think rises far above what wikileaks has done! The real blame still goes to the us gov who refused to redact the wiki leak documents so blame the us gov not assange!

puppetmaster
12-06-2010, 11:56 AM
Releasing data of purely private matters of civilians is quite bad manner


They are using public computers.....right/ using computers the public bought with taxpayer funds

RonPaulCult
12-06-2010, 11:57 AM
If you don't think this release put lives at risk - ok - fine. But LOOK at the response on here - a bunch of LIBERTARIANS against it. Imagine what "normal" people are thinking! Wikileaks did ITSELF a disfavor by releasing this. It has damaged itself in the court of pubic opinion. It could mean future leakers do not leak their information because they don't trust wikileaks to filter it appropriately. It could mean government secrets and corruption we will now never get to know about.

Chew on that for a moment and tell me it was the right thing for them to do!

idirtify
12-06-2010, 11:58 AM
I agree and this is what bothers me. Assuage really had the moral high ground in exposing governments deviousness but this is losing it. What Assuage is doing is making it easy for the lieberman's of the world sell a horrible set of laws.

Yes, let’s make it the victim’s fault. Let’s blame Assange for Lieberman’s insults and threats of criminal legislation. Yeah, that’s the ticket!:rolleyes:

idirtify
12-06-2010, 12:01 PM
First of all
The Terrorist boogieman doesn't exist. It is a manufactured threat.
Secondly
They have been saying for years (long before this cable) that all these places are targets and have been implementing "security" programs. everywhere. Even searching in peoples underwear.
Third
Non of these known targets has been attacked. In fact the only attempted attacks have been low tech failures.


Go hide under your bed before the Boogieman gets you.
:mad:

good post!

Anti Federalist
12-06-2010, 12:07 PM
This does nothing for government openess but it does put innocent civilian lives at risk, Americans and foreigners.
I really wanted him to keep revealing all the underhanded dealing of governments and letting the Americans and the people of the world see the true nature of geopolitical moves. Publishing targets that would specifically hurt Americans and others it not it.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101206/ts_alt_afp/usdiplomacywikileaks_20101206102522

As one of the "violent revolt now people" who, according to you, wants nothing more than to rip babies guts out with my demon teeth, how is undermining the war effort inconsistent with your view, (at least that's what I'm assuming your view is, since you never answered the question) that no war is ever justified, because, any war, regardless of righteousness of cause, will result in some innocent deaths?

Not to mention the whole premise of your stance here is unsupportable, for two reasons, one, Assange approached State and asked them to review the documents and redact any information that might put somebody at risk.

They turned him down, cold.

Two being that the state will always howl and moan that any exposure of the state's dirty dealing will result in "innocent deaths".

Can anybody point to single one that was a direct result of this latest document dump?

Fuck them, Go Assange!!

idirtify
12-06-2010, 12:08 PM
Revealing this list that the US Government thinks is important makes them all top on a target list. If I was a biologist working in a snake bit factory in Italy I would have no love of Assauge right now.

Since when did journalists have to check before their reports are released, to see if they might “cause” (VERY loose usage) some kind of harm???? What kind of standard is that?

Please understand this (and note that it is rare for me to make absolute statements): Literally every thing and every action is potentially harmful.

idirtify
12-06-2010, 12:12 PM
He hasn't lost the moral high ground. This is but a small infraction.

I agree, that is more of a story. The government is still the one endangering innocents here, is still the one with blood already on its hand. I don't think he possibly could lose the moral high ground relative to governments. Maybe he can in the eyes of neocons who already dislike what wikileaks has been doing. It was unnecessary to release this specific list, but like I said its a small infraction.

Considering your well-made point about a comparison to government, it’s not even an infraction. How often does the people get to spy on the government? It seems they constantly spy on us and often do us DIRECT HARM, but god forbid the tables get turned for once!!

RonPaulCult
12-06-2010, 12:13 PM
Since when did journalists have to check before their reports are released, to see if they might “cause” (VERY loose usage) some kind of harm???? What kind of standard is that?

Please understand this (and note that it is rare for me to make absolute statements): Literally every thing and every action is potentially harmful.

Yes, but as somebody with a media background I can tell you that journalists do have a standard of conduct, a set of ethics to follow when releasing information. They often hold back information to save lives.

And wikileaks has done so in the past also by blacking out names of people who could be killed for their words or actions.

They messed up here - they should not have released this.

JamesButabi
12-06-2010, 12:13 PM
Not to mention the whole premise of your stance here is unsupportable, since Assange approached State and asked them to review the documents and redact any information that might put somebody at risk.

They turned him down, cold.

Yep, pretty much. Im not one of the people upset over the leaks to begin with. Even still, if the government wasn't power playing and concerned about safety they would have reviewed the information and stopped any harmful parts.

Then again, the supreme court has ruled over and over that the government holds no obligation to protect any of us. There is no foundation of legitimacy besides what people have been indoctrinated with.

dannno
12-06-2010, 12:14 PM
I agree and this is what bothers me. Assuage really had the moral high ground in exposing governments deviousness but this is losing it. What Assuage is doing is making it easy for the lieberman's of the world sell a horrible set of laws.

So are you still against the idea that it is a CIA op?

idirtify
12-06-2010, 12:15 PM
Yes and now Assauge is making is easy for them. He holds a huge amount of power and if he uses it wrongly we are all going to pay with a loss of freedom. If he keeps the leaks to to strategic government manipulation he will win but if he starts releasing info that can get specific innocent people killed he will lose the public opinion battle and the result will be a loss of freedom for us all. Patriot act anyone.

Pure reversed blame. All of it.

pcosmar
12-06-2010, 12:16 PM
good post!

Thank you (sincerely)
Coming from a sometimes antagonist, (I say that with some respect) It means something.

People are losing focus on who is the real enemy.
They are focused of the manufactured (and minimal) threat of Boogiemen, rather on the real terrorists. The ones that Wrote these memos.
;)

idirtify
12-06-2010, 12:24 PM
Yes, but as somebody with a media background I can tell you that journalists do have a standard of conduct, a set of ethics to follow when releasing information. They often hold back information to save lives.

And wikileaks has done so in the past also by blacking out names of people who could be killed for their words or actions.

They messed up here - they should not have released this.

Are you ready to back up your opinion? I mean it’s fine to not like the release, but are you implying something should/could be done about it? If so, what?

Anti Federalist
12-06-2010, 12:26 PM
rather on the real terrorists. The ones that Wrote these memos.
;)

No kidding. :mad:

klamath
12-06-2010, 12:27 PM
I am with you in rspect to this disclosure.
Thanks Cowlesy. Many on here I won't even respond to because I already know they want to take the US down and are quite willing to condone the killing of the innocent to do this. Just because I am having misgiving about Assauge doesn't mean I condone all actions of the US government as people think I am. Yesterday I was cheering him today I am not so sure. The lives of specific individuals should not be put at risk especially when they have absolutely nothing to do with the wrong US government actions.

TheeJoeGlass
12-06-2010, 12:28 PM
if anything is attacked it is not because of assange ! It is because we occupy 130 plus countries and are entangled in undelcared wars and we will occupy this 130 plus countries for my kids generations!!


the media is already calling assange a rapist just heard that on msnbc! the fact is the only person attacking america is the us gov!!

I agree with you but the media will not. It seems to me that Ron has put his chances in danger by defending Wiki and for what? If Wiki would've had a game changing document it would be different. But the stuff they are leaking is not changing anything except for a clamp down by the Gov. Assange is no Daniel Ellsberg.

idirtify
12-06-2010, 12:33 PM
Thank you (sincerely)
Coming from a sometimes antagonist, (I say that with some respect) It means something.

People are losing focus on who is the real enemy.
They are focused of the manufactured (and minimal) threat of Boogiemen, rather on the real terrorists. The ones that Wrote these memos.
;)

Yes. You’re welcome. And likewise. It is good to have mutual posting respectability no matter the minor disagreement, but it’s downright pleasant to gain an ally against the bigger enemy.

fisharmor
12-06-2010, 12:34 PM
Many on here I won't even respond to because I already know they want to take the US down and are quite willing to condone the killing of the innocent to do this.

There's that boogeyman again.
IFthe innocent start getting killed,
THENI might change my mind.

Until then, this is pure and simple scaremongering.

Anti Federalist
12-06-2010, 12:36 PM
There's that boogeyman again.
IFthe innocent start getting killed,
THENI might change my mind.

Until then, this is pure and simple scaremongering.

That ^^^

+rep

This thread is full of Fail.

heavenlyboy34
12-06-2010, 12:36 PM
Assange tried to get, I believe, the State dept. to review the documents prior to release to ensure there was nothing that put innocent people at risk.

Ask yourself why they turned him down numerous times.

The US goes ahead and kills thousands of people in order to preserve their empire, to take care of their belligerent buddies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and doesn't give a flying fuck about how many innocent people they take out--in the long term, it's better to crumble the murderous empire to get this sociopathic government to STOP killing thousands and thousands of truly innocent people, who are generally poor already.

Now who, exactly, does these leaks put at risk? Some CIA agents? They're not truly "innocent." Some diplomats? Also not truly innocent. Some American people? Yeah, well, we've mostly been blindly supporting the gov'ts folly in these matters, and we audaciously go to these "conquered" countries and set up our social engineering "charity" bullshit rather than "allow" people to have the culture, government and way of life that they choose. Then there's the companies who are in cahoots with our gov't who go and set up companies to profit off of their destruction. Also not "innocents" in my book.

Nope. I can't get on board with condemning Assange.

This^^ ftw.

amy31416
12-06-2010, 12:37 PM
Thanks Cowlesy. Many on here I won't even respond to because I already know they want to take the US down and are quite willing to condone the killing of the innocent to do this. Just because I am having misgiving about Assauge doesn't mean I condone all actions of the US government as people think I am. Yesterday I was cheering him today I am not so sure. The lives of specific individuals should not be put at risk especially when they have absolutely nothing to do with the wrong US governement actions.

Why did this government not take the time to edit the documents, if they're really concerned about the innocent people that could be harmed (and I haven't yet seen any direct evidence that that's the case.)

Anti Federalist
12-06-2010, 12:40 PM
Why did this government not take the time to edit the documents, if they're really concerned about the innocent people that could be harmed (and I haven't yet seen any direct evidence that that's the case.)

Because they don't give a shit about that.

They only care about their "symbolic prestige".

10,000 innocents a day could die, and gooferment wouldn't give rat's ass, but let someone point out that the emperor truly is naked, and the whole world comes unglued.

Imaginos
12-06-2010, 12:40 PM
They're releasing them all, they're not picking and choosing. I'd love it if our newspapers did this sort of thing honestly while protecting our interests, but they gave up that right to bow before the government and beg for insider info.

Wikileaks is far from perfect, but they're all we've got. I'd rather have them than have them thrown in jail and just have Fox, MSNBC and CNN.
qft.

klamath
12-06-2010, 12:42 PM
Why did this government not take the time to edit the documents, if they're really concerned about the innocent people that could be harmed (and I haven't yet seen any direct evidence that that's the case.)
It doesn't need a top state department annalist to know this memo should not have been released. I am not defending the government I am just not able to call Assuage a hero for releasing this.

idirtify
12-06-2010, 12:43 PM
Thanks Cowlesy. Many on here I won't even respond to because I already know they want to take the US down and are quite willing to condone the killing of the innocent to do this. Just because I am having misgiving about Assauge doesn't mean I condone all actions of the US government as people think I am. Yesterday I was cheering him today I am not so sure. The lives of specific individuals should not be put at risk especially when they have absolutely nothing to do with the wrong US government actions.

Let’s get some perspective here. With regard to my enemies, my security depends on the location of my house. So when the phone book publishes my name and address, are they “willing to condone the killing of the innocent”?

johnny.rebel
12-06-2010, 12:45 PM
Assange tried to get, I believe, the State dept. to review the documents prior to release to ensure there was nothing that put innocent people at risk.

Ask yourself why they turned him down numerous times.

The US goes ahead and kills thousands of people in order to preserve their empire, to take care of their belligerent buddies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and doesn't give a flying fuck about how many innocent people they take out--in the long term, it's better to crumble the murderous empire to get this sociopathic government to STOP killing thousands and thousands of truly innocent people, who are generally poor already.

Now who, exactly, does these leaks put at risk? Some CIA agents? They're not truly "innocent." Some diplomats? Also not truly innocent. Some American people? Yeah, well, we've mostly been blindly supporting the gov'ts folly in these matters, and we audaciously go to these "conquered" countries and set up our social engineering "charity" bullshit rather than "allow" people to have the culture, government and way of life that they choose. Then there's the companies who are in cahoots with our gov't who go and set up companies to profit off of their destruction. Also not "innocents" in my book.

Nope. I can't get on board with condemning Assange.
excellent post. information does not put innocent people at risk. lack of information does.

Brian4Liberty
12-06-2010, 12:46 PM
If big corporations didn't buy off governments, making them monopolies and the sole producer of XXX good or XXX technology, then this wouldn't even be a problem.


Count me in as the second person in this entire thread to see what you saw in those particular leaks: Corporatism.

This is a peek at how corporations, businesses and industries convince politicians that they are indispensable, and that special government favors for them is in the national interest. In reality, it's about monopoly, oligopoly and redistribution of wealth from taxpayers and smaller businesses into the hands of the crony corporatists.

Anti Federalist
12-06-2010, 12:49 PM
Count me in as the second person in this entire thread to see what you saw in those particular leaks: Corporatism.

This is a peek at how corporations, businesses and industries convince politicians that they are indispensable, and that special government favors for them is in the national interest. In reality, it's about monopoly, oligopoly and redistribution of wealth from taxpayers and smaller businesses into the hands of the crony corporatists.

Agreed.

angelatc
12-06-2010, 12:59 PM
No, if they gave out a list of what are our 'key assets' in our estimation, it is a pretty good roadmap for terrorists or future war.

Not a single place is even on our soil, is it? Maybe that's the point.

RonPaulCult
12-06-2010, 01:08 PM
Are you ready to back up your opinion? I mean it’s fine to not like the release, but are you implying something should/could be done about it? If so, what?

Sure something should be done! Nothing as drastic as you are expecting though. The US should be more careful about its information and protecting it. Wikileaks should be more careful about what it releases. The public should let them know they went too far with this one and hopefully they won't do so again in the future.

I don't think anybody should be arrested for it because I believe in freedom of the press.

YumYum
12-06-2010, 01:13 PM
But LOOK at the response on here - a bunch of LIBERTARIANS against it. Imagine what "normal" people are thinking! Wikileaks did ITSELF a disfavor by releasing this. It has damaged itself in the court of pubic opinion.

Who do you consider "normal people" to be?

LisaNY
12-06-2010, 01:14 PM
I don't know what to make of this, but if these sites are indeed vital to our interests they should already be heavily guarded.

j6p
12-06-2010, 01:19 PM
For the idiots on RPF who think naming names is bad and think this data dump went to far. I would say to you is that the names on the cables have caused much more harm. If they are so worried about names then why are these people participating with the gov. Just like what they say to the peons "If you got nothing to hide"

Anti Federalist
12-06-2010, 01:21 PM
If they got nothing to hide they should be alright.

LoL, yeah right, turn it around on them.

Anti Federalist
12-06-2010, 01:29 PM
You Know You Live in an Empire When …
Posted by Charles Featherstone on December 6, 2010 01:13 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/72410.html

… your government produces a list of things critical to the security of your country , and all of the things on that list are located outside your country.

In fact, every bit of infrastructure on this State Department “comprehensive inventory of [critical infrastructure & key resources]” is “located outside U.S. borders and whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States.” The vast majority are sites where undersea communications cables come ashore (which is why Fiji is on the list, for example). But mines (mostly producing “battery grade” metals) across the world, from Congo to China, are on this list, as are a huge number of Western European pharmaceutical factories and “metal fabrication machines” held at unspecified sites in Europe by a “small number of Turkish companies.”

Off the list are “government facilities overseas managed by State or war fighting facilities managed by other departments or agencies.” I guess providing that would have been too taxing to the embassy personnel tasked to get the info.

I’m so glad my government is busy doing this work. I feel soooo much safer already knowing the chromite mines of Orissa state in India are being looked after in my name because they’ve been judged essential to my health and well-being.

(As an aside, the document refers separately to “national” and “homeland” security. What on earth is the difference?)

specsaregood
12-06-2010, 01:36 PM
In fact, every bit of infrastructure on this State Department “comprehensive inventory of [critical infrastructure & key resources]” is “located outside U.S. borders and whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States.”

Ain't "free trade" great? LOL, sorry had to do it.

HOLLYWOOD
12-06-2010, 01:36 PM
First off this stuff release is mostly tabloid level, compared to the TS compartmental and higher messaging. ALL of THEM are the same, just some do a better polished and covert job at it. The most illegal acts by an evil country has been likewise conducted by the respected, kinder, and gentler nations, like the US, which operates on the state of paranoia daily. Global Imperialism... uses every justification and covert conducted operations to exploit... We need breathing room starting with Lincoln.


Active Measures a form of political warfare conducted by the Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security) Central Intelligence Agency services (Cheka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka), OGPU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Political_Directorate), NKVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD), KGB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB)) (CIA, DIS, DIA, NSC, NSA, DOD, DOS, DHS, Pentagon) to influence the course of world events, "in addition to collecting intelligence and producing politically correct assessment of it". Active measures ranged "from media manipulations to special actions involving various degree of violence". They were used both abroad and domestically. They included disinformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation), propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda), counterfeiting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit) official documents, assassinations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination), and political repression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression), such as penetration of political parties, unions, churches, and persecution of political dissidents.

Active measures included the establishment and support of international front organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_organizations) (e.g. the World Peace Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Peace_Council) USAID/Peace Corp/etc); foreign communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist) Air America, democratic, liberal, and democracy opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_%28politics%29) parties; wars of national liberation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_national_liberation) in the Third World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World); and underground, revolutionary, insurgency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency), criminal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime), and terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) groups. The intelligence agencies of AXIS NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc) and other fascist/socialist states also contributed in the past to these type of programs, providing operatives and intelligence for assassinations and other types of covert operations. Retired CIA xxxx xxxx described active measures as "the heart and soul of Soviet American intelligence": "Not intelligence collection, but subversion: active measures to weaken the West, non conforming/defiant countries to drive wedges in the Independent community alliances of all sorts, particularly NATO,former and post WARSAW Pact/Libya/El Salvador/Iraq/Afghaistan/N. Korea/Iran/Venezuela/etc etc, to sow discord among allies axis, to weaken the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) the eyes of the peoplepropaganda of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe), Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia), Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa), Latin America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America), New World Order and thus to prepare ground in case the war really occurs." Active measures was a system of special courses taught in the Andropov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Andropov) Institute of KGB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB) situated at SVR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Service_%28Russia%29) headquarters in YasenevoLangley Virginia and classified locations, near Moscow throughout the world. The head of "active measures department" was Yuri ModinMichael Furlong et al, and a slew of other Alpha Agency operatives. former controller of the Cambridge Five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five) spy ring. for CFR/NWO/Central Global government

Anti Federalist
12-06-2010, 01:42 PM
Ain't "free trade" great? LOL, sorry had to do it.

Yeah, for real, LoL.

"Free Trade" - Increasing your standard of living since the Black Death. ;)

Peace&Freedom
12-06-2010, 02:16 PM
Free speech and re-establishing transparent government should not be blamed for creating jeopardy for people whose actions were based on bad policy. If our military, intelligence, and diplomatic bullying regimes have put myriad people in a hazardous situation following decades of meddling in over a hundred different countries around the world, danger befalling them after the disclosure of their activity is the fault of our interventionist policy putting them that situation, not the fault of the whistleblowers.

Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be intervening in over a hundred different countries around the world, spying, warring, and bullying. Did we think this situation would really go on forever, in the age of the web? Did the government think true public servants working in the government and armed forces would indefinitely, universally comply with secrecy, given the nature of the atrocities (assassinations, torture, civilian massacres, etc.) and other crimes being hushed up under the catch-all "national security" charade?

Conspiracy bashers are always saying "bad secrets can't be kept, somebody will step forward eventually." Well, some people have stepped forward. Some more legitimate questions should be asked about Wikileaks, though, such as where are the top secret disclosures? How can anybody swipe 250,000 documents without getting to any of the big stuff? Where is any leaked document of theirs that puts Israeli policy in a bad light? Was this a Mossad or CIA assisted project, all a sly way of putting out Israel's spin on conflicts? Are there moles in Wikileaks, including Assange?

sailingaway
12-06-2010, 03:17 PM
Yes. You’re welcome. And likewise. It is good to have mutual posting respectability no matter the minor disagreement, but it’s downright pleasant to gain an ally against the bigger enemy.

I think it quite possible that when Lieberman started blowing dust off Wilson's espionage act and saying he wanted it to go FURTHER, Ron got alarmed and thought someone needed to speak up for freedom of the press. Note that at least at that time NO ONE had. I'm sure he made a lot of people think twice about jumping into another patriot act type situation. I am proud of him.

However, I am also CERTAIN he never would have said something appearing to approve wikileaks itself to the extent he thought they were truly putting our country or armed forces at risk. He is a member of the Foreign Services committee, and absolutely keeps material confidential as needed, I am certain.

I am not saying the wikileak dump amounts to that level of danger, I don't know, but obviously there is still a lot coming out. I understand the info at that classification was available for 2.5 million people to see, which makes me think they didn't expect to keep it a strict secret. However, as more sensitive stuff comes out, as it may, I think it is important to make a distinction between Ron standing up for OUR rights and freedoms, and Ron giving wikileaks a blanket stamp of approval, regardless of what they publish.

awake
12-06-2010, 04:28 PM
This article makes my head hurt... Warning, Iraq war Bush rhetoric ahead. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120603074.html)

If you are telling the truth, there are no lines to worry about. The people for which the secrets are revealing seem to be the ones trying to draw them. The PTB are infuriated ; they thought they had the press under allegiance and docile control.

We haven't seen a free press in a long time, it is no wonder people want to attack the reporter and his sources. Does any one even care what the leaks are saying...? There are real criminal activities documented.

You don't need to worship Assange, but he is an effective model of peaceful resistance.

runningdiz
12-06-2010, 04:47 PM
This does nothing for government openess but it does put innocent civilian lives at risk, Americans and foreigners.
I really wanted him to keep revealing all the underhanded dealing of governments and letting the Americans and the people of the world see the true nature of geopolitical moves. Publishing targets that would specifically hurt Americans and others it not it.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101206/ts_alt_afp/usdiplomacywikileaks_20101206102522

How does publishing a list of what our government "thinks" is potential targets put people at risk? Just shows how stupid our government is to even bother wasting time and money coming up with a list of potential terrorist targets.

The list is rather pathetic anyway. We could do a better job at ronpaulforums coming up with a potential terrorist target list.

pcosmar
12-06-2010, 04:57 PM
We could do a better job at ronpaulforums coming up with a potential terrorist target list.

We are the target of the terrorists. They have already made lists. (MIAC/SPLC hit list)

As to this other HooDoo,,, The government has announced these targets themselves, and constantly warn people to be "aware" of people taking pictures of certain sites (which they have named).
Did they "put these targets at risk" by doing so?

:(

idirtify
12-06-2010, 05:57 PM
Sure something should be done! Nothing as drastic as you are expecting though. The US should be more careful about its information and protecting it. Wikileaks should be more careful about what it releases. The public should let them know they went too far with this one and hopefully they won't do so again in the future.

I don't think anybody should be arrested for it because I believe in freedom of the press.

Well then my disagreement with your position just diminished by 96%. The only thing left for you to consider is the similar relationship between your position and Wikileaks release – in terms of eventual consequences. If you are truly worried about “harmful” information, I suggest you take a look at your position – and the information you are releasing. When you understand how mass disagreement with the actions of Wikileaks could result in more fascist laws, then you might see how your own publications here on LF carry their own kind of “potentially hazardous” character.

Anti Federalist
12-14-2010, 11:47 AM
///

RedStripe
12-14-2010, 11:51 AM
Wait, there are actually people who frequent "Liberty Forest" who think that what Wikileaks is doing is wrong? Seriously? You got to be kidding me.

JoshLowry
12-14-2010, 12:10 PM
Wait, there are actually people who frequent "Liberty Forest" who think that what Wikileaks is doing is wrong? Seriously? You got to be kidding me.

Why is that surprising?

The particular cable being discussed does leave room for debate. Defense is pretty high up there on what government should do. This cable is not about encouragements from Country X to attack Country Y while they publicly claim support through the media mouthpieces the opposite.

No need to scold anyone.

Agorism
12-14-2010, 12:11 PM
1 out of 5 tars for this thread.

klamath
12-14-2010, 12:18 PM
Why is that surprising?

The particular cable being discussed does leave room for debate. Defense is pretty high up there on what government should do. This cable is not about encouragements from Country X to attack Country Y while they publicly claim support through the media mouthpieces the opposite.

No need to scold anyone.

Thanks Josh. This is about this particular leak and my belief that this could get entirely innocent individual people caught in crossfire from global conflicts.

Anti Federalist
12-14-2010, 12:22 PM
Thanks Josh. This is about this particular leak and my belief that this could get entirely innocent individual people caught in crossfire from global conflicts.

If government was so concerned about innocent lives being lost, why did it turn down the opportunity to review the documents and redact any information that could cause that to happen?

mconder
12-14-2010, 12:27 PM
Anyone with some talent, who did a bit of research could find this stuff out.

JoshLowry
12-14-2010, 12:40 PM
If government was so concerned about innocent lives being lost, why did it turn down the opportunity to review the documents and redact any information that could cause that to happen?

They don't really care, it's all theater. Pot calling the kettle black.

"You're going to kill innocent people!"

I stand behind wikileaks still.

The little harm this doc might do is undone in my eyes by how far the other cables will carry out.

(really it doesn't take a genius or evil person to come up with a list of soft targets)

Anti Federalist
12-14-2010, 12:43 PM
They don't really care, it's all theater. Pot calling the kettle black.

"You're going to kill innocent people!"

I stand behind wikileaks still.

The little harm this doc might do is undone in my eyes by how far the other cables will carry out.

(really it doesn't take a genius or evil person to come up with a list of soft targets)

Exactly.

RedStripe
12-14-2010, 12:47 PM
Why is that surprising?

The particular cable being discussed does leave room for debate. Defense is pretty high up there on what government should do. This cable is not about encouragements from Country X to attack Country Y while they publicly claim support through the media mouthpieces the opposite.

No need to scold anyone.

I'm not scolding anyone. I'm simply shocked that anyone not standing in from of a podium with a government seal on it would actually argue that making this information public is harmful to anyone but the government and its legitimacy.

Um, if these factories, power plants, and research facilities are so important I'd rather know about them than not. If understanding their role is essential to preparing for natural and man-made disasters, why isn't that a great reason to be aware of it? It's like arguing that the government needs to be well-armed to protect the public, but that the public doesn't need to be armed for the very same reason. Knowledge is power.

HOLLYWOOD
12-14-2010, 01:21 PM
Current WIKILEAKS' releases are more on the tabloid level... plenty of website posting this "National Inquire" telexes... quite laughable.

Let me say this... there is a huge amount of Terrorising, Lies, and Unlawful operations conducted by the US government ALWAYS in the name of National Security. What gives the right for the US government to continue to violate laws, perform terrorist operations, and then lie about it all? Let's just say if any one here on this forum conducted such acts... it would be imprisonment, treason, or even death ruled by the very same government. The US condones other countries, governments and people when they perform such acts. Well, if you want to get to the real truth(which some here have been privy to...), its at the Top Secret level and above, now there's where get to the Cause and Effect of a government with their omerta motives and operations. The hypocrisy runs far and deep with this government's Double Standards as the first template created by them... DO as I say and to exonerate themselves and hold everyone else accountable. This is to protect Government and the real owners in this rigged system, which is created for themselves first. The people are the pawns and serfs to support this monstrosity.

It's amazing how history repeats itself with government(s)... look at the policies, laws, and operations, especially by the US government, right in line with Nazi Germany. Just more refined, covert, and polished for the public especially their mass media public relations firms of DIS & MIS - information.

Same Tyranny by the Usual Suspects

Bruce
12-14-2010, 01:31 PM
If, as some seem to argue, releasing this information threatens the very continued existence of America, I have severely underestimated the incompetence of the U.S. government.

In all seriousness though, reading the cable itself (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/02/09STATE15113.html), which contains the so called 2008 Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative (CFDI) list, I'm not very impressed.

Some of you need to stop overreacting...

klamath
12-14-2010, 02:11 PM
They don't really care, it's all theater. Pot calling the kettle black.

"You're going to kill innocent people!"

I stand behind wikileaks still.

The little harm this doc might do is undone in my eyes by how far the other cables will carry out.

(really it doesn't take a genius or evil person to come up with a list of soft targets)
I agree with you Josh. As it stands now the good far outweigh the bad. I do think open government advocates will win far more by releasing information that reveals where our government and other governments lie to their own people to gain the public support for the actions (wars and the killing of innocents) those governments wish to accomplish. If the very people that support organizations like wikileaks hold them accountable for the release of information that harms innocents the more these organizations will gain public support. Losing public support will allow our government and foreign governments to get by with even deeper deceit.