Another Wikileaks release

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The soldier who leaked documents is a traitor and scum, he broke his oath, and he broke his security clearance. Its pretty cut and dried. He's not a hero or a a bastien of freedom. He's an insult.

Wikileaks is doing what they're doing, and they're releasing documents that can do serious harm, not just to governments but to individuals who have been put into harms way for the mere crime of working with American forces in Iraq or afghanistan.

I've said before that people that want absolute transparency or openess by their government are living a pipe dream, and the exposure of these diplomatic cables are going to cause a diplomatic hail storm, and people don't understand that this is how diplomatic efforts are run. These guys are obviously diplomats but they're also spies to an effect and analysts.

Okay, I'll agree with you there, but I'm a little biased in my opinions of the military, just a little.

Absolute transparency and openness is a fallacy. Its like 'pure unbiased journalism,' everyone wants it but it doesnt exist.

My beef is that some of these people are incompetent and not only are they getting away with it, they're being applauded for it.

You've mentioned how the wars are being poorly run, well, someone stand up and do something about it. You condemn the soldier who breaks his oath by leaking documents, then you have to condemn the commanders who make the decisions that have turned this into the shambles it currently is.

Those guys arent out there in harm's way dying if these people are competent and making the right decisions, and if they're screwing up it should be known.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh I'm very interested in the banking and pharmacy industry leaks. I'm also interested in the reaction because these companies are far more sue happy then any government is, and by releasing stolen confidential work documents Assauge puts himself into a very vulnerable position, and I'd like to see his get a little bit burned as well.

I can understand that, Assange is sitting on a high horse and it would be nice to see him come down a few pegs.

Well, I feel the same way about a lot of the finance industry around the world. If these guys want to be Kings of Finance then their performance has to be better than it has been.

The system that these people run and operate within basically came crumbling down due to their 'exemplary' performance thus far. In that respect what right do they have to believe that they are as superior as they seem to believe?

Its a put up or shut up situation, the reputation of your firm is no longer sufficient to cover for your mistakes, or at least it shouldnt be. It seems that in recent times poor performance has been glossed over by the concept of being undeniably superior because of the company that you work for and as such the results of your work have taken a back seat and then here we are in a World Wide recession as a result.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I absolutely move up the chain of command. The military also has what basically work out to ombudsman positions. But I don't ever leak to an outside source or the media or the press.

I have a right not to follow illegal orders, I have a duty to report illegal or questionable items up the chain of command.

I don't have the right to break my service oath or my security clearance by dumping documents to wikileaks.

Fair enough.

And if the chain of command buries it?

[CaptainCrunch]

Then you keep pushing up that chain of command and your chain of command can go as high as you want.


You specifically get and sign your security clearance with the understanding that leaking information is akin to treason.

You swear a oath of loyalty.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I absolutely move up the chain of command. The military also has what basically work out to ombudsman positions. But I don't ever leak to an outside source or the media or the press.

I have a right not to follow illegal orders, I have a duty to report illegal or questionable items up the chain of command.

I don't have the right to break my service oath or my security clearance by dumping documents to wikileaks.

But what if the illegal acts are approved by the Commander in Chief? Reporting them up the chain of command isn't going to solve the problem. I have mixed feelings about wikileaks in general, and a lot of the stuff being leaked probably shouldn't be (particularly where it doesn't pertain to illegal actions sanctioned by government), but there are times when public disclosure is the only solution.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, I'll agree with you there, but I'm a little biased in my opinions of the military, just a little.

Absolute transparency and openness is a fallacy. Its like 'pure unbiased journalism,' everyone wants it but it doesnt exist.

My beef is that some of these people are incompetent and not only are they getting away with it, they're being applauded for it.

You've mentioned how the wars are being poorly run, well, someone stand up and do something about it. You condemn the soldier who breaks his oath by leaking documents, then you have to condemn the commanders who make the decisions that have turned this into the shambles it currently is.

Those guys arent out there in harm's way dying if these people are competent and making the right decisions, and if they're screwing up it should be known.

I don't disagree with you on that, if there's a benefit to the wikileaks is that there will be some internal accountability processes that are hopefully created.

I've always stated that I don't like the way that the war has been prosecuted, but I've also stated that its not the sole fault of the senior military officers in charge of the missions. Somewhere around the Vietnam war the balance between military and political objectives changed, and shifted heavily to the politicalization of war which is a failing formula. In WW2 the politicians gave the power to the commanders in the field to prosecute the war as they saw fit. You didn't have defense ministers defining how a war was to be fought, they gave rules of engagement and objectives and left it at that. Now politicians are the last say in term of strategy's and the application of fire power, and they've actually handicapped the officers in the field.

I believe though that there is accountability at the senior level of military leadership in the field. We've seen several commanders replace for inefficiency. If you want to set a budget, use a politician, if you want to fight a war use a general.

Originally Posted by Locke

I can understand that, Assange is sitting on a high horse and it would be nice to see him come down a few pegs.

Well, I feel the same way about a lot of the finance industry around the world. If these guys want to be Kings of Finance then their performance has to be better than it has been.

The system that these people run and operate within basically came crumbling down due to their 'exemplary' performance thus far. In that respect what right do they have to believe that they are as superior as they seem to believe?

Its a put up or shut up situation, the reputation of your firm is no longer sufficient to cover for your mistakes, or at least it shouldnt be. It seems that in recent times poor performance has been glossed over by the concept of being undeniably superior because of the company that you work for and as such the results of your work have taken a back seat and then here we are in a World Wide recession as a result.

I completely agree with you on this, I'm more interested in seeing the backlash against Assauge and Wikileaks, but in my mind the same rule that applies to the military leaker applies to the internal corporate leaker.

I also think that the way to fight wikileaks is probably a lot easier and more brutal in the civilian court room then in the halls of government.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

But what if the illegal acts are approved by the Commander in Chief? Reporting them up the chain of command isn't going to solve the problem. I have mixed feelings about wikileaks in general, and a lot of the stuff being leaked probably shouldn't be (particularly where it doesn't pertain to illegal actions sanctioned by government), but there are times when public disclosure is the only solution.

Thats why you have oversite in congress. The president can't unitarily approve illegal operations. As a citizen you have a right to go to your governmental representative. There are avenues for fighting within your chain that don't allow you to vomit up thousands of documents.

And to be perfectly clear, in terms of things like civillian casualties and other odious areas, thats why the Military does have its own investigative system and justice system. thats why there's a chain of command, and thats why there's options for reporting acts that you might feel are questionable or illegal.

To me it doesn't sound like the leaker pursued any of this. It sounds like he just decided to upload documents.

If thats the case then this guy is certainly in the wrong. I'll change my mind on him if its proven that he went as far as he could in the system and received no satisfaction.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

One of those banks might end up owning Wikileaks.

Why would a bank want to own something that put's them in a huge liability risk? Furthermore what's to stop someone else from starting LeaksRus or some such other thing? Really, all you need to effectively be Wikileaks is an internet connection and membership in one or more of hundreds of torrent/file sharing platforms. Twitter and some well placed media contacts will do the rest.

[driveway]

Strictly speaking, an enlisted US Service Member swears to:

"support and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign; [and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same"

before they swear to:

"obey the orders of the President ... [and] the officers appointed over me."

So it could be argued that, if the service member in question, PFc Bradley Manning, felt that the Constitution was under attack or that by not releasing this information he was not bearing "true faith and allegiance" to it, then he WAS following both the spirit and letter of his Oath.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thats why you have oversite in congress. The president can't unitarily approve illegal operations. As a citizen you have a right to go to your governmental representative. There are avenues for fighting within your chain that don't allow you to vomit up thousands of documents.

And to be perfectly clear, in terms of things like civillian casualties and other odious areas, thats why the Military does have its own investigative system and justice system. thats why there's a chain of command, and thats why there's options for reporting acts that you might feel are questionable or illegal.

To me it doesn't sound like the leaker pursued any of this. It sounds like he just decided to upload documents.

If thats the case then this guy is certainly in the wrong. I'll change my mind on him if its proven that he went as far as he could in the system and received no satisfaction.

Since the Iraq war era began, I'm hard pressed to find any examples of the government and military accountability that you (rightly) suggest is part of the process.

My view is that it's clear these institutions have currently failed the US public over the last decade. I see no reason for the populace to remain affixed to a framework that is not functioning.

[CaptainCrunch]

But he wasn't defending the constitution, he clearly wasn't following the second phase of it.

If you combine it with the signed security clearance documents he wasn't following that at all.

Plus how is leaking classified documents defending the consititution at all.

You could make the argument if he went through the levels of command structure, then not getting satisfaction of action, he went to his congressman or a senator, then like I said maybe you can make a case for what he did.

But it sounds like his first step was the leak. That breaks his security clearance. It also breaks the obeying of orders. Since the classification of documents is an implied order to protect that information from falling into the wrong hands which is wikileaks.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Since the Iraq war era began, I'm hard pressed to find any examples of the government and military accountability that you (rightly) suggest is part of the process.

My view is that it's clear these institutions have currently failed the US public over the last decade. I see no reason for the populace to remain affixed to a framework that is not functioning.

We have seen investigations into prisoner abuse, we have seen investigations into civilian casualties. I would question the consistancy of of these investigations.

I would counter by saying that the failure is in the court systems after these investigations are complete.

Your never going to get complete transparancy in a chaotic environment.

If no one reports civilian casualties or abuse you have next to no basis to investigate.

If there's a cover up at a senior level then you have a real problem and I will agree that we have seen that and it always disturbs me. But at the same time there are mechanisms in the chain of command for reporting these things, I go back to things like whistle blower hotlines for anonymous reporting that the U.S. military has put into effect.

If Wikileaks had started and stopped with some of the leaked documents about coverups I could be more sympathetic to what its trying to achieve.

However they basically vomited up every document that they could, including information that could compromise lives (sources). There was obviously no other reason to release these diplomatic cables then to embarress the United States.

Its the wrong forum for effecting change. All your going to do is increase secrecy, your not going to get actual change.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Your right, he's way to high profile to dissapear, and I doubt that the house members are stupid enough to be discussing that. If they were they've been reading to many Tom Clancy novels.

I think at this point, for the U.S. government the damage is done. While the documents released about Canada were interesting they weren't unexpected.



http://www.canada.com/news/Canadians...117/story.html

However releasing documents about banks and other major corporations might be wikileaks downfall as he's now dealing in stolen work papers, something that courts tend to take a really dim view of. One of those banks might end up owning Wikileaks.

Don't be so sure. Remember, WikiLeaks is not the one to steal these documents. Whoever leaks them is the one responsible for that criminal act. WikiLeaks acts much like any media outlet, be it newspaper or television: the one that wants to rat comes to them -- not the other way around. They publish what has been given to them. You really get into sticky territory when you start looking to sue and/or shut-up a group (can it even be called a group?) like WikiLeaks because it can be argued they are only practicing free speech and their First Amendment rights (even if they aren't even American). Do you start to look at actual newspapers as targets when they publish what government officials leak to them? Then you have to convince the country they belong to to hand them over and/or commence legal proceedings in some way.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

We have seen investigations into prisoner abuse, we have seen investigations into civilian casualties. I would question the consistancy of of these investigations.

Right.

So we know that they're simply going to conduct a kangaroo court. Lynndie England acted alone! Until, that is, the former president and vp came out and boasted about the use of torture.

I understand the desire to respect the chain of command, but in the US it has not been accountable at all.

[T@T]

Maybe I've watched too many movies but. Anyone else get the feeling the CIA is drumming up an unfortunate accident for this guy?

Obama's new pin.

[FlameOn]

Apparently the Russians are also likely to have a release on wikileaks soon. They will be much more ruthless and may assassinate those that are involved in the leaks. US intelligence has picked up evidence wikileaks is being watched by the FSB.

http://yhoo.it/g9XMUC

[mikey_the_redneck]

Although I'm not sure I trust Wikileaks intentions, I hope the next leak exposes Goldman Sachs fraud....

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Although I'm not sure I trust Wikileaks intentions, I hope the next leak exposes Goldman Sachs fraud....

Rumor has it the bank in question is the Bank of America. Stocks have already started falling because of this.
http://reut.rs/edYlAu

[HPLovecraft]

Interpol released a warrant for Assange for "sex crimes." Funny the timing of that, being the day after the diplomatic document releases. Also funny is the timing when it originally broke (after the war docs were released), and then their dropping immediately afterwards.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Apparently the Russians are also likely to have a release on wikileaks soon. They will be much more ruthless and may assassinate those that are involved in the leaks. US intelligence has picked up evidence wikileaks is being watched by the FSB.

http://yhoo.it/g9XMUC

“We may not have been able to stop WikiLeaks so far, and it’s been frustrating,” a U.S. law-enforcement official tells The Daily Beast. “The Russians play by different rules.” He said that if WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, follow through on threats to post highly embarrassing information about the Russian government and what is assumed to be massive corruption among its leaders, “the Russians will be ruthless in stopping WikiLeaks.”

Sounds like it could be an American scare job, with comments like that. It's possible it's not, either, I suppose, but WikiLeaks has definitely shaken those in authority and with power. I hope when the bank documents are released it's done to expose the corruption we all know to be going on in that sector and it forces a few execs to be accountable.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Interpol released a warrant for Assange for "sex crimes." Funny the timing of that, being the day after the diplomatic document releases. Also funny is the timing when it originally broke (after the war docs were released), and then their dropping immediately afterwards.

One would think they would try something new.