Wikileaks.org -- Tens of thousands of Afghan war docs leaked

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, and what about all the other classified information they have access to that they're not leaking?

Who is stopping the Russians or Chinese from breaking into Wikileaks headquarters and stealing it all?

The fact that they have access to it is wrong, and I hope their source is shot by the firing squad for treason.

Wikileaks doesn't have a "headquarters." It's almost completely decentralized for just these purposes.

[afc wimbledon]

Canada isn't a republic, its a bloody monarchy.

And if ever a war needed to be questioned it's this one, unwinable, dishonourable and rapidly becomng farcical, started by idiots with no knowledge of history or geography.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Canada isn't a republic, its a bloody monarchy.

And if ever a war needed to be questioned it's this one, unwinable, dishonourable and rapidly becomng farcical, started by idiots with no knowledge of history or geography.

Go back 2000 years and you'll know what I'm talking about.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

1) There have been multiple revelations to suggest that Congress is not explicitly briefed on all aspects. I can cite multiple examples as I'm sure you can as well. The trend has been clearly for the executive to hoard the actual policy details.

And there are been multiple cases where Congress was briefed, and they didn't even read the briefing. I.E NIS briefing on the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

2) What changes is that people withdraw their vocal support, withdraw their votes, and increase their reluctance to let their children go overseas and fight this nebulous battle.

Congress has an 11% approval rating. They've been below 20% since Bush's first term. Somehow I doubt anything will change.

I'd also like to chime in regarding your other question (not directed at me) asking "Who is stopping the Russians or Chinese from breaking into Wikileaks headquarters and stealing it all? "

In a moment of candor, I'd be willing to bet that the Chinese and Russian administrations couldn't care less about the specifics of US operations in this region *provided* that those operations continue. Nothing like watching your economic rival waste his resources (human and financial) in a faraway land on an effort which, almost by definition, is creating more of the exact problem that they're there to fight.

And I could easily see where the Russians and Chinese would be VERY interested in classified documents regarding Afghanistan and possible operations throughout the rest of the world.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Wikileaks doesn't have a "headquarters." It's almost completely decentralized for just these purposes.

Doesn't matter. Someone affiliated with Wikileaks has access to classified stuff that they're not releasing, and you can bet your ass that a lot of governments are trying to track it down.

Somehow I doubt that a bunch of internet nerds could keep information from the Russian, Chinese or US governments.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Go back 2000 years and you'll know what I'm talking about.

I don't think you can apply the campaigns of Alexandra to the contempory strategic situation.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

And if ever a war needed to be questioned it's this one, unwinable, dishonourable and rapidly becomng farcical, started by idiots with no knowledge of history or geography.

Not true. They have known about all that oil, gold, lithium, copper and opium for quite some time.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Azure

And there are been multiple cases where Congress was briefed, and they didn't even read the briefing. I.E NIS briefing on the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Which, I will note, is not an argument against the release of these documents.

Congress either receives them and doesn't read them, or doesn't receive them. Under either scenario, the population at large is left generally clueless and without options. That is why whistleblowers are vital to the interests of the citizens.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I don't think you can apply the campaigns of Alexandra to the contempory strategic situation.

You're out of your element, Donnie.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're out of your element, Donnie.

I doubt it.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

You don't challenge the validity of the policy by releasing classified documents to the public.

But you can challenge why these documents are classified in the first place. The government's need to control information should not outweigh the citizen's right to know, except where operational security would be compromised. The idea that military "needs" should, by default, trump civilian rights is antithetical to democracy, regardless of the extra burden this places on the military.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

But you can challenge why these documents are classified in the first place. The government's need to control information should not outweigh the citizen's right to know, except where operational security would be compromised. The idea that military "needs" should, by default, trump civilian rights is antithetical to democracy, regardless of the extra burden this places on the military.

That's a bunch of gibberish and completely counter to any practical or theoretical view of liberal democracy. The state must be vigilant to protect citizens against enemies.

The release of these documents violate the security of citizens by giving our enemies a propaganda victory and it completely violates the "operational security (whatever that means)" of the troops on the ground.

Military needs in defense of the country or in the execution of foreign policy trump the desires of citizens to engage in the self-masturbatory act of arm-chair generalship.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

That's a bunch of gibberish and completely counter to any practical or theoretical view of liberal democracy. The state must be vigilant to protect citizens against enemies.

Oh well then, I stand corrected. You've convinced me that the details of years-old tactical operations are essential, world-shaking secrets that will topple democracy if exposed - how could I have possibly thought otherwise?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Azure

Doesn't matter. Someone affiliated with Wikileaks has access to classified stuff that they're not releasing, and you can bet your ass that a lot of governments are trying to track it down.

Somehow I doubt that a bunch of internet nerds could keep information from the Russian, Chinese or US governments.

Doesn't matter? Is this your argument? A complete dismissal of everything said to the contrary, and a simple statement that nothing matters but what you say?

You realize that, to be able to track down these so-called "internet nerds" and stop their distribution of this material, and others, the world's governments will need to employ other "internet nerds" to do so, right? An Israeli commando isn't sitting at a computer with his gun slung over his back tracking them on AIM.

You have absolutely no idea how Wikileaks is structured or how its source is releasing this information to them. The "internet nerd" that founded and runs the organization (if you can even call it that) is an extremely intelligent man, a computer programmer, and also a hacker. Independent hackers are some of the best on the planet -- in many cases, probably the majority, better than those employed by governments to oppose them.

These "internet nerds" are sure doing a good job keeping information from the US right now, eh? I wonder when Jason Bourne will come after them. . . .

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

These "internet nerds" are sure doing a good job keeping information from the US right now, eh? I wonder when Jason Bourne will come after them. . . .

They're presenting a circular argument.

On the one hand the competing interests are super smart and pose great risk to the US (in this scenario) and can capitalize on each and every piece of info in these leaks, yet they're not clandestine and diligent enough to procure these items themselves and have to wait for people like Assange to release the info so that they can capitalize on it.

Wikileaks is really for the concerned ordinary citizen, and that's why I find it ironic to see the citizenry outraged by these historical data. That these releases constitute some major tactical or strategic threat is hard to defend; they're after the fact recounts. Gibbs today was stuttering and bumbling through his attempted explanation as to *how* these releases would have a meaningful impact on soldier security. At one point he even said "it's not the content" of the reports.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

They're presenting a circular argument.

On the one hand the competing interests are super smart and pose great risk to the US (in this scenario) and can capitalize on each and every piece of info in these leaks, yet they're not clandestine and diligent enough to procure these items themselves and have to wait for people like Assange to release the info so that they can capitalize on it.

Wikileaks is really for the concerned ordinary citizen, and that's why I find it ironic to see the citizenry outraged by these historical data. That these releases constitute some major tactical or strategic threat is hard to defend; they're after the fact recounts. Gibbs today was stuttering and bumbling through his attempted explanation as to *how* these releases would have a meaningful impact on soldier security. At one point he even said "it's not the content" of the reports.

Hey, now, two Afghani farmers toiling around by the side of some remote rural road in 2004 that ran away when a small foot-patrol of US troops came by is a matter of the UTMOST security of the U-S-A!

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

"operational security (whatever that means)" of the troops on the ground.

Oh yah - and before I forget - if you don't know what operational security means in the context of military operations, perhaps you're not qualified to opine on this matter. They probably left that chapter out of whatever "theory of democracy" book you borrowed.

FYI, operational security is what is in place to deny the enemy information about your movements, troop dispositions, logistics, objectives, reserves and other components of your military operations, so they they are not able to anticipate and counter you. While it's extremely important during the actual operations, its usefulness to an enemy years later decreases vastly and soon approaches nil. Which is why there is no real reason it needs to be marked "secret".

[Azure]

I agree that there needs to be transparency, especially with the military, but I don't agree that releasing so much classified stuff is really productive.

If there aren't proper channels to get this stuff out, then we need to fix that.

What happens if Wikileaks accidentally releases classified information that puts a bunch of lives at risk?

You're playing too close to the fire.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Here is a site from actual vets from this war.

Why are veterans, active duty, and National Guard men and women opposed to the war in Iraq?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Here is a site from actual vets from this war.

Why are veterans, active duty, and National Guard men and women opposed to the war in Iraq?

Wrong war actually.