# WikiLeaks



## QuambaFu (Nov 30, 2010)

This story keeps getting bigger here in the U.S. I just thought I would start a thread and get peoples reactions to some of the information coming out. I don't see a lot of surprises yet but there will probably be some political fallout, some blaming, and some demonizing of Julian Assange as we've already seen.

I think this is a good thing as long as Wikileaks continue to publish all verifiable information that is leaked to them. It is the free market version of regulation. This information will allow people to make better choices as it pertains to elections and which companies to support. What is even better is that politicians from the left and right seem to be scared shitless of these leaks. The idea of scared politicians brings a smile to my face.

Here's a pretty good interview of Assange by Forbes magazine: An Interview With WikiLeaks&#8217; Julian Assange - Andy Greenberg - The Firewall - Forbes


----------



## Guitarman700 (Nov 30, 2010)

Screw assange and screw wikileaks. He's putting people's lives in danger, and demolishing years of diplomatic ties. Its reckless and stupid.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 30, 2010)

I'm against it and can't believe it's taken so long for the government to go after them. Not for nothing, but teenagers are arrested and put on trial by the RIAA for sharing *36* songs! And this is far more critical. Certain leaks I think aren't a big deal. But anything that is classified, protected, or extremely sensitive in nature I think should be left that way. As much as we all would like the inside scoop if it's illegal then that's that.


Rev.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

I'm actually kinda on the fence about this one. I get the concerns about safety of personnel and security, and I also noticed the guy seems to be a bit of a jackass, but I don't recall anyone being killed based on the information from their last dump.  

FWIW, the government does a lot of insidious things from time-to-time and, sometimes, there's some value in putting information out there and taking them to task for hypocrisy. I don't necessarily think it's the most responsible means of getting information out, but there's a *precedent*(*ahem* Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *ahem*) for relevant information to be made available, despite who's interest it is to keep it from seeing the light of day.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

Wait, I just agreed with QuambaFu about something. Fuck it, I take all of what I just said back.


----------



## HighGain510 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> but there's a *president* (*ahem* Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *ahem*)



Which president was it Randy?   I know you meant precedent.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 30, 2010)

Guitarman700 said:


> Screw assange and screw wikileaks. He's putting people's lives in danger, and demolishing years of diplomatic ties. Its reckless and stupid.


 
Agreed. I'm all for governments being honest, but theres a lot of shit we don't and shouldn't know. We elect our governments and put them in a position of responsibility and we have to accept that, we can't then demand they report to us on everything they do, thats like saying okay you do this job, but you have to do whatever I want even though I don't really know shit about it. Governments do a lot of shit we'd be quick to judge on, but they do it because theres little else to do. We'd do it in the same situation. Obviously they do some evil shit sometimes though.

The fact it is damaging international ties is another big issue, of course wikileaks doesn't think about that because they like most people think freedom of information = good.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Yeah count me among the few that are also not big fans of WikiLeaks at least as it pertains to our government. Want to release some "Big Tobacco" or other corporate whistle-blower crap? Have at it. But leave the government's intel under wraps. 

And Randy, I believe after the last release (or one right before it) the Taliban was more than happy to go on the hunt for "informants" and those they saw as traitors for giving our troops information.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

HighGain510 said:


> Which president was it Randy?   I know you meant precedent.



Har-har, ya' big lug.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

I have a significantly different read on this from the one I had after the first dump. Again, I in no way want to put men and women on the ground in danger but since there was this "OMG! CATASTROPHE!" talk after the first dump and I have seen *no confirmed* reports of somebody killed based on this information, the blind outrage is lost on me at this point.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> I have a significantly different read on this from the one I had after the first dump. Again, I in no way want to put men and women on the ground in danger but since there was this "OMG! CATASTROPHE!" talk after the first dump and I have seen *no confirmed* reports of somebody killed based on this information, the blind outrage is lost on me at this point.



Understood. The hysteria was going pretty strong for a while. Here's a link to an article about someone killed as a direct result of one of the recent leaks.

Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks - Newsweek


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> I'm actually kinda on the fence about this one. I get the concerns about safety of personnel and security, and I also noticed the guy seems to be a bit of a jackass, but I don't recall anyone being killed based on the information from their last dump.
> 
> FWIW, the government does a lot of insidious things from time-to-time and, sometimes, there's some value in putting information out there and taking them to task for hypocrisy. I don't necessarily think it's the most responsible means of getting information out, but there's a _*precedent*_ (*ahem* Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *ahem*) for relevant information to be made available, despite who's interest it is to keep it from seeing the light of day.



This.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Understood. The hysteria was going pretty strong for a while. Here's a link to an article about someone killed as a direct result of one of the recent leaks.
> 
> Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks - Newsweek



That most certainly should've been bigger news than it's been, in that case. There's more coverage of the hysteria than there is of actual effects. While seeing that would make me a little more cautious about the dangers of that information, I *personally* found the connection between what's outlined in the article and the leak to be pretty vague but it's a valid point.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> That most certainly should've been bigger news than it's been, in that case. There's more coverage of the hysteria than there is of actual effects. While seeing that would make me a little more cautious about the dangers of that information, I *personally* found the connection between what's outlined in the article and the leak to be pretty vague but it's a valid point.



Well unfortunately I think it's something (the leaks) that has a rippling effect that without a lot of people there (Afghanistan) to report on events, is very hard to quantify just *how* much (if at all) peoples' lives are directly affected.

Like I said I'm fine with corporate whistle-blower, insider-trading, etc type stuff being released. But things like the most recent release and the few prior that all involve our government and the shit it does and doesn't do, just leave it in the closet. Revealing it, as shown vaguely in this article and elsewhere isn't actually *helping* anything or anyone.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

I'd argue it's because nobody's *doing* anything about the information they're getting out of it. That's what I'm, personally, outraged over. 

This feels like the case of the guy who dug up e-mails between his wife and some guy she's cheating with, then when confronted, the argument centers around how wrong he is for digging through her e-mails instead of it being about her schtuping some dude. 

Perhaps the more responsible course of action were if the person who acquired the information actually had a goal in mind for it and, without airing it to the public, confronted our representatives about it. Feels a little better because the risk of negative repercussions to innocent people is lessened, but TBH, the administrative handling of this gives me zero faith they'd change anything regardless.


----------



## QuambaFu (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> Wait, I just agreed with QuambaFu about something. Fuck it, I take all of what I just said back.


 
Randy, I love you man. I'll try to give you some reasons to dislike me below. 

I guess the main reason I like this is because if the decisions made by politicians, military personnel, and corporate executives are made with the possibility that wrong-doing may be exposed they will more than likely chose to do what is right/legal... hopefully.

Quote from Eric Holder, "To the extent there are gaps in our laws, we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing." Close those gaps, interesting choice of words. Plus, there are a lot of scare tactics being used to try to diminish the fallout from this.

Really there isn't much in these latest leaks that is surprising. Some of the Saudi's fund terrorism and want Iran's nuke program stopped, big shocker there. Vladimir Putin is still in control of Russia, surprise surprise <-- insert sarcasm font. I think some of the most damaging info is that our diplomats are being used to collect personal information and even DNA on foreign leaders. I thought that was the job of the CIA not the state department.

The next major leak is supposedly involving a large US Bank. I'm guessing it's about Goldman-Sachs, as their executive team is pretty interchangable with the treasury and federal reserve.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> I'd argue it's because nobody's *doing* anything about the information they're getting out of it. That's what I'm, personally, outraged over.
> 
> This feels like the case of the guy who dug up e-mails between his wife and some guy she's cheating with, then when confronted, the argument centers around how wrong he is for digging through her e-mails instead of it being about her schtuping some dude.
> 
> Perhaps the more responsible course of action were if the person who acquired the information actually had a goal in mind for it and, without airing it to the public, confronted our representatives about it. Feels a little better because the risk of negative repercussions to innocent people is lessened, but TBH, the administrative handling of this gives me zero faith they'd change anything regardless.



Well I think that was the goal of the that one intelligence analyst that released, or rather stole this data and then gave it to WikiLeaks. That in releasing it to the masses that "things would change". But in my estimation, it's naive to think that way. This won't change anything but how classified data is stored and who has access to it. That's what will change. Not the actual dealings of our government. Not their attitudes or abuses of power. And so basically you and others that are incensed by what is revealed are wasting your time being upset.

And that's not meant in a condescending or smug way, I just mean that in the long run, I really don't see the releases changing anything about our government's behavior for the better. In the interim, the releases have more *potential* for doing more harm than good. That's my take on it


----------



## ddtonfire (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> There's more coverage of the hysteria than there is of actual effects.



This always seems to be the case, unfortunately.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

QuambaFu said:


> Randy, I love you man. I'll try to give you some reasons to dislike me below.
> 
> I guess the main reason I like this is because if the decisions made by politicians, military personnel, and corporate executives are made with the possibility that wrong-doing may be exposed they will more than likely chose to do what is right/legal... hopefully.
> 
> ...



Nope. Still agreeing with you. You'll have to try harder next time.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

orb451 said:


> in the long run, I really don't see the releases changing anything about our government's behavior for the better.



I'm registered in one of the "big two" instead of an independent, despite blatantly illegal/unethical behavior on both sides. I believe, despite the complete unlikelihood that it'll happen, in reforming and salvaging something if you believe in the fundamentals. Do I think realistically my party or my federal government is going reform itself into what'd be ideal? Not really. But I'm stubborn.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> I'm registered in one of the "big two" instead of an independent, despite blatantly illegal/unethical behavior on both sides. I believe, despite the complete unlikelihood that it'll happen, in reforming and salvaging something if you believe in the fundamentals. Do I think realistically my party or my federal government is going reform itself into what'd be ideal? Not really. But I'm stubborn.



I hear ya man, nothing wrong with sticking to what you believe in.


----------



## Jazzercize (Nov 30, 2010)

QuambaFu said:


> The next major leak is supposedly involving a large US Bank. I'm guessing it's about Goldman-Sachs, as their executive team is pretty interchangable with the treasury and federal reserve.



i really hope so. for all the "tough" questioning congress did with the ceo, absolutely nothing happened (typical). if it is a big leak on GS then there is probably some pretty incriminating stuff--especially since they used one of their own (and his internal emails with people he shouldnt have been talking to) as a fall guy to limit blowback on themselves. 


really, my main argument in favor of wikileaks is that its exposing a pretty big flaw in the way our government is keeping information. its pretty lazy and careless. it would be hard to imagine what would happen if another government were to get ahold of these documents instead of a guy like assange who is just making it public information. instead of shitting their pants over assange, they should be working to ensure that this information cant be tampered with and leaked, and especially out of the hands of other governments that can do real damage with this type of info. 

if there are deaths that directly resulted from the leaks then its really the government that is responsible because of how careless they are with "classified" information. *bottom line, it shouldnt be that easy to obtain and leak this kind of information.* our government needs to do a better job at protecting itself instead of whining when people expose clear flaws in the systems it uses.


----------



## JamesM (Nov 30, 2010)

While this is all very exotic, and scandal is appealing, I believe what is being massively overlooked is that there is no way any outsider can even _begin_ to understand the complexities of these various situations, none the less the fallout that this leak has caused. 

It can be reasonably assumed, however, that lives, careers and important relationships have been jeopardized here.


----------



## Ckackley (Nov 30, 2010)

I'm all for freedom of the press and getting the "true" story out there, but there are limits. A friend of mine that works for the government told me once that if the public knew EVERYTHING , none of us would sleep at night. This info being dumped out there is dangerous. It's out of context and just doesn't need to be shared. For every publiced diplomatic mission there are 20 back room bargains. That's the way the world works. The governments more secret stories do not need to be out there for consumption by people that have a hard time deciding which Nascar driver is their favorite. 
Anyone remember the first Irag war ? All the other side had to do was watch CNN to counter troop movements.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Nov 30, 2010)

I honestly think this is only the second time I've agreed with Orb on a subject like this, but he's voiced most of my personal opinions quite well.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Infinity Complex said:


> I honestly think this is only the second time I've agreed with Orb on a subject like this, but he's voiced most of my personal opinions quite well.



Really? I had no idea we disagreed on so much stuff!


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

Serious question... how much of this have any of us actually read?


----------



## Guitarman700 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> Serious question... how much of this have any of us actually read?



Ive read more than I care to admit. About 35 different docs, maybe 70 or 80 cables. Took forever, gave me a headache.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

And what of this business I hear about Saudi financiers also funding Al Qaeda? I haven't read those wires to substantiate that but if that's true, I'd imagine that's not something we shouldn't be so quick to sweep under the rug if we consider them an ally.


----------



## Ckackley (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> And what of this business I hear about Saudi financiers also funding Al Qaeda? I haven't read those wires to substantiate that but if that's true, I'd imagine that's not something we shouldn't be so quick to sweep under the rug if we consider them an ally.



Please correct me if I'm wrong , but didn't the U.S. do some Al Qaeda funding ? Back in the day I'm pretty sure they were supplied with weapons to try and push the Russians out of Afghanistan.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

That was the Taliban (As Rambo 3 taught me ), and I'm talking current. According to the article I read, they're referring to the Saudis, today, giving money to the same Al Qaeda that we're fighting, *today*.

Again, I haven't read the docs to substantiate that _yet_. But that, along with a few of the other bits I've heard seem not only relevant but not this "sensitive information about US troop movement" stuff that the hysteria would lead you to think it is. I'd personally like to know who we're lying in bed with and why, if for nothing else, to know exactly why our friends and family are being put in harms way in the first place and who's funding the enemy.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> And what of this business I hear about Saudi financiers also funding Al Qaeda? I haven't read those wires to substantiate that but if that's true, I'd imagine that's not something we shouldn't be so quick to sweep under the rug if we consider them an ally.



Yeah I'm going to say that a lot, if not all of the WikiLeaks releases concerning our government (and others) is completely contextual. And Ckackley is right, hell we *made* OBL or at the very least *helped* him, the Taliban and whatever Al Qaeda is/was at one point in the past.

Point being, taken out of context a lot of stuff can seem bad, or horribly wrong decision-wise, but I think in the grand scheme of things, our government and others, operate in their own best interests. If it's in the Saudi's interest to fund Al Qaeda, bless their little hearts, let em' do it. I think we call a lot of allies "allies" in the very, very, loosest definition of the word and not what you or I may think of when we think of "friends". I mean England is an American "ally", Saudi Arabia? They're somewhere else on the spectrum...


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

Playing nice with people who currently fund groups of people who are killing us daily doesn't sound like a "loose" friendship worth having. And I'd like to know their definition of "best interests" and what exactly their reason is behind it.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> I'd personally like to know who we're lying in bed with and why, if for nothing else, to know exactly why our friends and family are being put in harms way in the first place and who's funding the enemy.



Again I think it goes back to those in power and what their interests are. If the Saudi's are funding Al Qaeda *today*, I think they're doing it out of a sense of being sided with the ones left standing. Meaning, they *know* that eventually one side or the other (the US forces, or Al Qaeda) will be more or less victorious in this conflict and it's in their best interests in the long run to play both sides of the field, lest they end up out in the cold. 

Just a game, that's my point. But knowing who's funding the enemy, is it a shocker? I personally wouldn't be surprised if the Saudi's, or Iran were doing funding, arming and training of Al Qaeda. Again, this goes back to the word "ally". I think the phrase "tolerated acquaintance skating the fine line between friend and foe" better sums them up.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

Here's what I don't understand of the duality... we can argue about the government jumping in bed (bailouts) with the banks or with Wall Street "for the good of the American people", when the general consensus is that they're cozying up to special interests and *possibly* doing it to line their own pockets, but when it's about foreign countries siphoning money from us (oil) and then paying off the people we're fighting (and also paying to fight) in their back yard... we're supposed to look the other way and assume that this is all on the up-and-up?


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

orb451 said:


> I personally wouldn't be surprised if the Saudi's, or Iran were doing funding, arming and training of Al Qaeda. Again, this goes back to the word "ally". I think the phrase "tolerated acquaintance skating the fine line between friend and foe" better sums them up.



I don't mean this as a slight on you but if you think our public and private relationships with Iran and Saudi Arabia are at all similar in nature, I believe we've been looking at different information.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> Playing nice with people who currently fund groups of people who are killing us daily doesn't sound like a "loose" friendship worth having. And I'd like to know their definition of "best interests" and what exactly their reason is behind it.



And let's be honest, there's not going to be *one* clear cut winner in our quagmire there in the Middle East. Shit's going to drag on for decades even after we've turned over control to Iraqis and that speaks nothing of Afghanistan and that whole shit sandwich. 

I think the Saudi's want to be on the side of those most likely to have the biggest impact on them and their way of life. I think they want to "appear" to us to be "hard on terrorists" etc, to curry our favor and at the same time, want to "appear" hard on the US and Western Imperialism, by giving handouts to Al Qaeda as needed. All in the interest of self preservation.

We give them money for oil. Al Qaeda meshes better with their sensibilities than Burger King and WalMart, and Al Qaeda, being local, and "loco essssssay" are more apt to bring violence to THEIR doorstep at the drop of a hat, so why not keep them happy? So long as they're funding them, they keep them out of their hair.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> Here's what I don't understand of the duality... we can argue about the government jumping in bed (bailouts) with the banks or with Wall Street "for the good of the American people", when the general consensus is that they're cozying up to special interests and *possibly* doing it to line their own pockets, but when it's about foreign countries siphoning money from us (oil) and then paying off the people we're fighting (and also paying to fight) in their back yard... we're supposed to look the other way and assume that this is all on the up-and-up?



No, believe me, I think we're in agreement, we *shouldn't* look the other way and hell no, I'm not saying that we should "look the other way" and let it slide. But I'm just trying to point out that if they're doing it, I can understand why they would. Personally, I don't think we should be cozying up to anyone but Israel over there and even *they* are a liability at times. And I can understand *why* our government *would* want to, or actively "look the other way" again, because it is in our interests to maintain some semblance of "friendly" relations with Saudi Arabia for the moment. 

Unless and until we're off of Oil as the primary energy source for day to day living, we *want* those fuckers as our "friends n' allies". And we'll *tolerate* their indiscretions as much as is feasibly possible. When we're off of oil, expect a giant FUCK YOU Hallmark card from our government to most of the Middle East.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> I don't mean this as a slight on you but if you think our public and private relationships with Iran and Saudi Arabia are at all similar in nature, I believe we've been looking at different information.



No worries, I didn't mean to lump them in as though they're in the same league as the Saudis in terms of our relationship. Just that I wouldn't be surprised if for similar, or very different reasons, Iran was helping Al Qaeda.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

This is where we start getting into our interpretation of suitable foreign policy. I'd consider war or "a presence" necessary in those areas if we're taking responsibility for protecting out allies. If the same people who we're protecting are paying them? Fuck no it's not worth it. 

Put the "boots on the ground" money into increased border security, more _relevant_ airport security (ie. marshalls on all international flights or something of the sort), more money in counter-intelligence, better screening process for approving visas etc. Stuff that keeps us safer here. Paying money (mind you, the lion's share of our budget) to have _our friends_ and _our families_ shot at as part of some kinda sick power struggle to protect a group of people who are the same as the ones killing us is silly.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> This is where we start getting into our interpretation of suitable foreign policy. I'd consider war or "a presence" necessary in those areas if we're taking responsibility for protecting out allies. If the same people who we're protecting are paying them? Fuck no it's not worth it.
> 
> Put the "boots on the ground" money into increased border security, more _relevant_ airport security (ie. marshalls on all international flights or something of the sort), more money in counter-intelligence, etc. Stuff that keeps us safer here. Paying money (mind you, the lion's share of our budget) to have _our friends_ and _our families_ shot at as part of some kinda sick power struggle to protect a group of people who are the same as the ones killing us is silly.



I'd rep you again if I could. I agree, it's foolish and VERY silly. And agree that we should have ended this conflict a LONG time ago. Thing is, a while back we decided that it was in our best interests, or rather the powers that be decided for us, that we would be better served getting involved in a skirmish over there. The first time *was* to protect allies (Kuwait) and our interests (oil). The second time was to get even (Saddam), protect our interests (oil) and if we happen to liberate and help the locals, that's icing on the cake. 

But we (the powers that be) mistakenly thought that they'd have another repeat of the first dust up. Quick. In. Out. Hello. Goodbye. And all the parades and CNN headlines about victory before it was even achieved or in sight, was stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. We telegraphed every punch we made and threw every punch with half-hearted desire for a knockout. And we got sidetracked and sidelined with piss poor equipment, poor training, some bad apples amongst our troops and overall screwed the pooch royally.

So anyway, I'm sure I have a point in here somewhere, damned if I know what it is (I'm constantly interrupted at work, don't shoot me!)


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

And, to bring the whole point home, I *personally* believe those decisions would have been handled differently if we knew the true intentions of the "local leadership" in those areas at the time we made them. We're there and, in part, we're stuck with it but there are decisions still being made to this day that would be handled differently if we openly acknowledged some of this *wink wink* stuff that's going on. 

Clearly this has been covered up for some reason. I pray that it's only because it's honestly "what's in our best interest". Totally my opinion? If the corruption of the leadership in those countries was made clear to the American public, they'd be demanding out and now. A little bit less of the feigned outrage over being told what we don't want to hear under the guise that it's going to "endanger us" and a little more _legitimate_ outrage over the actual content and what it says about why we're letting ourselves get killed, so we can end this. 

Again, it's pie in the sky. I have a small glimmer of hope (based on history) that if people targeted their energy and their outrage on getting results, we'd be better off. If we're just talking sensitive stuff for the sake of knowing shit we can't do anything about or "showing our hand" to our enemies, of course I wouldn't condone that.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> Again, it's pie in the sky. I have a small glimmer of hope (based on history) that if people targeted their energy and their outrage on getting results, we'd be better off. If we're just talking sensitive stuff for the sake of knowing shit we can't do anything about or "showing our hand" to our enemies, of course I wouldn't condone that.



And again, while I have a coherent thought going, I'd like to believe things would be different if we'd gone about it differently as far as the Middle East conflict is concerned. But as far as this stuff being released is concerned it just seems to me to be more the latter in your example and little if any, of the former. And yeah, that fucking sucks.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

The first two leaks, I'll agree with. This "cablegate" stuff is a bit more benign with regard to "things people can take direct action against us" over, but hefty in "shit we should know"


----------



## bostjan (Nov 30, 2010)

So wait, it is supposed to be a surprise that the rich Saudis are funding Al Queda? 

Who is bin Laden again?

I hate to sound so black and white, but these are all problems that have little to do with wikileaks itself, and I don't really see wikileaks as anything new. It was leaks of information by the press before both world wars that got people fired up back then, and made governments look pretty silly, too. It's the same thing now but in electronic format, in my opinion.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 30, 2010)

I've just started reading some of these confidential reports. So far, it seems that President Lee Myoung-Bak of South Korea deserves a goddamn medal for all the great work he is doing. (at least in foreign policy, not sure what his domestic agenda is like, but this document suggests it isn't good) He more or less did a 180 degree turn of the policy set by his predecessors and is taking HUGE steps in maintaining strategic cooperations with Russia, China and Japan, but while taking a more hardline approach to North Korea. 

More or less, it seems that South Korea has a leader that can actually lead (and do it well) when it comes to foreign policy.


----------



## QuambaFu (Nov 30, 2010)

Randy, I know there's some libertarian in you, we'll eventually bring it out.

We could have a pretty long thread discussing what needs to be protected information(classified) and what doesn't. Let's be honest about Saudi Arabia, aren't we pretty much funding terrorism by limiting our own domestic oil drilling? That's just one facet of the thousands of foreign policy decisions we make. I'm not saying it's right or wrong either, it's just reality. FYI - former CIA guy Bob Baer wrote a great book about oil and terrorism and he doesn't take a political stance either way.

I agree that very little will be done to change the way things are handled. and I'm sure we all have different ideas on what should be done. I wrote Assange off as a cuckoo brain when he originally made waves with the iraq war docs but I'm not sure anymore and I think it has the potential to be impactful. 

As far as reading the actual information, I did watch a few of the chopper videos where a few journalists were killed by friendly fire. It makes you think twice about our foreign policy but you also have to realize that the journalists chose to be in a war zone, good luck with that.

As an isolationist or a globalist I see things that identify with each foreign policy ideology. I guess I really like seeing hard information that makes people become consistent with their views and I think these leaks have a potential to do that. 

Diplomatically didn't George Bush already ruin our standing with other countries, that's what I kept hearing in the media when he was president. Sorry, I kid, had to say it.

Honestly, I don't know if anyone has been physically harmed because of these leaks . Part of me says, if you can't take the heat maybe you shouldn't be in the kitchen. I hope these leaks will make the people in positions of power to make better decisions.


----------



## QuambaFu (Nov 30, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> More or less, it seems that South Korea has a leader that can actually lead (and do it well) when it comes to foreign policy.


 
That's cool to hear. I also read that China is rethinking their stance with NK. The more I learn about the Korea peninsula I'm finding that China has a lot more to lose than we do and are starting to look foolish backing up Kim Jong Il.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

Maybe I'm a libertarian when it comes to foreign policy?  What a revelation.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 30, 2010)

I'll try to link one of these here. It seems the Saudis are having their own war on terror:
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09RIYADH1121.html

(note that it will come up as unable to connect in firefox, but after I click the try again tab, it pops up. Also, if this is somehow against the forum rules, mods please feel free to delete this post)


----------



## Xaios (Nov 30, 2010)

It's nice having you guys around to put things into perspective sometimes. Otherwise all I would have likely gotten from all this (taking into account how little I actually cared) would be this:

"Should you encounter an Irishman in a gas station singing to a coconut, do not lend him your stapler, for he surely possesses the power of Benji, the great atlantean cruciferous newt. His wrath will be gelatinous, his fury spheroid."






The canadian media has really only covered the most recent leak as it related to cables about Canada. So far, this hasn't amounted to diddly squat, so the coverage in canadian news hasn't exactly been enlightening. It was surprising to see just how many foreign diplomats seemed to be asking the US to "take care" of Iran and North Korea.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

The coverage here in the states is more like:
"WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE BECAUSE OF WIKILEAKS"


----------



## Xaios (Nov 30, 2010)

Here it's been more like "WikiLeaks, YAWN."

Although there was one communique from the former head of CSIS regarding the Omar Khadr case indicting typical canadians for "knee-jerk anti-american reactions" and "moral paroxyms" regarding some less-than-savoury counter terrorism measures, calling such things "a canadian specialty." For the most part, I actually agree with him. While I'm certainly no fan of things such as torture, sometimes when the stakes are high enough, you gotta do what you gotta do. 

I know that's certainly not a popular view around these parts, and I can certainly understand why. That's just how I feel.


----------



## Trev (Dec 1, 2010)

I fully support the release of these documents. The claim that they endanger lives is pretty exaggerated and as far as I know nobody has died as a result of them. Our media fail to provide the information we need to make informed decisions on politics and Wikileaks is doing all of us a service by providing this info.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 1, 2010)

Trev said:


> The claim that they endanger lives is pretty exaggerated and as far as I know nobody has died as a result of them.



If you go back just a few posts, Orb posted info about people being killed as a direct result of the leaks.


----------



## Trev (Dec 1, 2010)

Ok I stand corrected about that and my condolences go out to their families, but their number of deaths absolutely pale in comparison to the civillians who have lost their lives in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as a result of wanton, unnecessary U.S. brutality. This CIA memo alone is a great example of why it's necessary that this information be leaked. http://mirror.wikileaks.info/leak/cia-afghanistan.pdf
It proves that our leaders relish the fact that there's so much public apathy in America and that "Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters."


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Dec 1, 2010)

See, this would be a little cooler if maybe other big powers like China were also leaked.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 1, 2010)

Trev said:


> Ok I stand corrected about that and my condolences go out to their families, but their number of deaths absolutely pale in comparison to the civillians who have lost their lives in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as a result of wanton, unnecessary U.S. brutality. This CIA memo alone is a great example of why it's necessary that this information be leaked. http://mirror.wikileaks.info/leak/cia-afghanistan.pdf
> It proves that our leaders relish the fact that there's so much public apathy in America and that "Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters."



I'd like to think that if WikiLeaks had leaked the fact that the intelligence leading into the Iraq war was falsified, that the world would be a safer place, but honestly, there is no way that anyone paying attention at the time could have believed 100% that Iraq had WMD, and that it was a good idea to invade them if they really did have WMD.

I think that WikiLeaks has a much smaller impact on the doings of our leadership here in the USA than both WikiLeaks and the leadership would like us to believe.


----------



## Meshugger (Dec 1, 2010)

Stealthtastic said:


> See, this would be a little cooler if maybe other big powers like China were also leaked.



That would be quite boring. Russia, China and the others are the 'bad guys', everything related to them wouldn't be much of a surprise anyway + they are way more closed societies. When it comes to the good guys messing up (=the west) it is much more interesting, since it is actually difficult to be a nice guy.


----------



## tacotiklah (Dec 1, 2010)

bostjan said:


> I'd like to think that if WikiLeaks had leaked the fact that the intelligence leading into the Iraq war was falsified, that the world would be a safer place, but honestly, there is no way that anyone paying attention at the time could have believed 100% that Iraq had WMD, and that it was a good idea to invade them if they really did have WMD.
> 
> I think that WikiLeaks has a much smaller impact on the doings of our leadership here in the USA than both WikiLeaks and the leadership would like us to believe.



After reading some of these cables, I'm inclined to agree. Most of it is pretty boring, useless crap about the everyday doings of diplomats and ambassadors.
Only once in a while (like in my last 2 posts here) will you find some somewhat interesting stuff.


----------



## QuambaFu (Dec 1, 2010)

bostjan said:


> I'd like to think that if WikiLeaks had leaked the fact that the intelligence leading into the Iraq war was falsified, that the world would be a safer place, but honestly, there is no way that anyone paying attention at the time could have believed 100% that Iraq had WMD, and that it was a good idea to invade them if they really did have WMD.
> 
> I think that WikiLeaks has a much smaller impact on the doings of our leadership here in the USA than both WikiLeaks and the leadership would like us to believe.


 
Good point, I think a lot of people forgot that the UN inspectors in the late 90s and early 2000s said that Iraq more than likely had WMDs. Bill Clinton even said so during his presidency and the CIA agreed. I know they found about 100 missiles that are classified as WMD but that wasn't what they were referring to in the sanctions and as a justification for invasion.



Stealthtastic said:


> See, this would be a little cooler if maybe other big powers like China were also leaked.


 
I agree with you. If other countries baggage were revealed the US wouldn't look so bad when we fuck up. As much as I'm suspect of our government, regardless of which party is in control, I still believe that as the most charitable nation in the world we still kick ass and that the world is better off with us around. I could do without some of the interventionism though. Economically, I'm a globalist, but militarily I'm probably like Pat Buchanan.


----------



## orb451 (Dec 1, 2010)

QuambaFu said:


> Good point, I think a lot of people forgot that the UN inspectors in the late 90s and early 2000s said that Iraq more than likely had WMDs. Bill Clinton even said so during his presidency and the CIA agreed. I know they found about 100 missiles that are classified as WMD but that wasn't what they were referring to in the sanctions and as a justification for invasion.



Oh I don't think people forgot. I think people on the left willfully ignore this fact and assume that Bush, in his evil plan to dominate the world, cooked up the WMD story all on his own for shits n' giggles. 

I think people also don't realize that Saddam in the late 90s was surrounding himself with a cadre of "Yes Men", so he himself *probably* thought he *had* WMDs to use on the US or whomever he wanted should the need arise. Which incidentally backed the intel that we'd gathered over there on the run up to the second Iraq war. 

But those things don't stop Liberals from playing their "Bush lied, people died" mantra over and over again. 

Here's a quick link from CNN and a blurb from an FBI agent that interviewed Saddam regarding WMD's:

Agent: Hussein was surprised U.S. invaded - CNN


----------



## bostjan (Dec 1, 2010)

Bah, Bush lied, Clinton lied, Bush before that lied, etc etc. The lying will never stop.

The press caught on pretty quick when Clinton lied and when Bush number one lied, but seemed to really drop the ball on the second Bush's lies until things were already moving along.

Now with WikiLeaks exposing lies like the press used to do, well...I don't know, I really don't see this as anything new of which to be afraid. It's not like this hasn't been part of a natural process which was going on for centuries prior to WikiLeaks.

Old people ignore the history they know, young people don't learn the right history, and as time moves on the true series of events gets twisted into a mostly true recent history, then a partly true distant history and finally a completely untrue legend. I honestly don't know why this happens, but I've seen it. I know that Saddam's initial rise to power had a lot to do with the CIA whilst Bush Sr. was in charge, due to anti-Iranian and anti-Communist sentiments that the US government shared with him. I remember Kuwait stealing oil from under Iraqi ground by drilling sideways, yet most of the people with whom I speak have this account of history that Saddam came to power alone and attacked Kuwait for no reason whatsoever. 

Even the second Iraq war's reason kept getting changed after the fact. We were told that we invaded to take away the WMD, which included nuclear weapons (or nucular weapons, which they might have, because I don't know what nucular means). Then we were told it was because Iraq had connections to 911, then it was to liberate the Iraquis. You can't tell me with a straight face that it was really any of those reasons.

Heck, even the crap they feed us about both world wars is heavily filtered and somewhat altered to make us feel better about wining them. I've never seen a high school history book mention the "eight-action plan."


----------



## Randy (Dec 1, 2010)

Just got this Email from Office of Secretary Gates



> A: SEC. GATES: One of the common themes that I heard from the time I was a senior agency official in the early 1980s in every military engagement we were in was the complaint of the lack of adequate intelligence support. That began to change with the Gulf War in 1991, but it really has changed dramatically after 9/11.
> 
> And clearly the finding that the lack of sharing of information had prevented people from, quote/unquote, "connecting the dots" led to much wider sharing of information, and I would say especially wider sharing of information at the front, so that no one at the front was denied -- in one of the theaters, Afghanistan or Iraq -- was denied any information that might possibly be helpful to them. Now, obviously, that aperture went too wide. There's no reason for a young officer at a forward operating post in Afghanistan to get cables having to do with the START negotiations. And so we've taken a number of mitigating steps in the department. I directed a number of these things to be undertaken in August.
> 
> ...


----------



## orb451 (Dec 1, 2010)

bostjan said:


> Bah, Bush lied, Clinton lied, Bush before that lied, etc etc. The lying will never stop.



Agreed, but I don't remember bumper stickers, T-Shirts and a lingering sense of "He lied!!!! THE PRESIDENT LIED!!!! OMFG!!!! HE'S THE FIRST POLITICIAN TO LIE TO US!!!!" like we got with W. Bush. I mean with Clinton it was, yeah he lied about getting a BJ or diddling Monica Lewinsky... yawn... I mean as far as the court of public approval is concerned. Yes I realize that the Right was happy to attempt to impeach Clinton for his indiscretions. However I don't remember it lingering for *quite* as long as the shit around W. has. Today it seems like Clinton is all but revered by most if not all and all the shit he pulled is forgotten or overlooked. But whatever, I agree, *all* politicians lie if it suits them or furthers their agenda.



bostjan said:


> The press caught on pretty quick when Clinton lied and when Bush number one lied, but seemed to really drop the ball on the second Bush's lies until things were already moving along.



Again, I think the press caught on because it was a big, obvious story. Why wouldn't they latch onto it? But it blew over in short order. With W., I don't think it was all lies, so much as bad information. We relied on piss poor information and on top of that yes, W. had an agenda, but it was a mix of the two and *not just* some sinister plan the way the Left has made it seem.

In other words, somewhere between what they've harped on for 8+ years and the rest of him and his cronies bullshit, lies the actual *truth* about why we went into Iraq. Yes, I do think with a straight face that it was initially to find WMD's, were they nukes? I have no fucking idea. Maybe they *thought* they had nukes or nuke capability. They certainly had chemical weapons and had proven they were fine using them. So you take that bit of truth, and combine it with some motivation on people in W.'s cabinet and their agenda, I believe it was Rumsfeld and others that had been talking about invading Iraq while Clinton was in office, when Bush came into office it was all the easier to get done. Combine those elements together and you start to get a perfect storm, all the right people, with the right motivation, in power, at the same time and *boom* shit started happening.

But was it all completely baseless? That's my point, the motivation to go there to Iraq, was it all fairy tales? I don't think so. Not for a minute. Was it weak intel, poor judgement and ego tripping? Yeah, I think it was a combination of all three. But the Left would have you believe that it was 110% made up fiction, the work of one man or a small group, who just wanted cheap oil and corporate contracts, kickbacks and payouts. The kind of shit you'd see on the bigscreen in Hollywood for Christ's sake. And the *follow* through on our part once the shit hit the fan was dismal at best. All this "Shock and Awe" nonsense. The bravado. It was stupid. 



bostjan said:


> Even the second Iraq war's reason kept getting changed after the fact. We were told that we invaded to take away the WMD, which included nuclear weapons (or nucular weapons, which they might have, because I don't know what nucular means). Then we were told it was because Iraq had connections to 911, then it was to liberate the Iraquis. You can't tell me with a straight face that it was really any of those reasons.
> 
> Heck, even the crap they feed us about both world wars is heavily filtered and somewhat altered to make us feel better about wining them. I've never seen a high school history book mention the "eight-action plan."



Well honestly, once the WMD's weren't found, did you honestly expect the people in power at the time to just throw up their arms and say "fuck it, you know what? We looked for em', can't find em', screw it, this country is clean, we're pulling out, war's over, everyone go home". And I mean this with respect, so don't take it the wrong way, but no, things don't work that way. There's no way in hell they were going to do that. So yeah, they changed the goal. First WMD's, none found, OK, moving on, 9/11 links and I think that reality was more along the lines of Iraq turning a blind eye to terrorist training camps there moreso than say, Saddam himself giving his holy blessing for a Jihadist movement against the US, or attacking us outright. It was guilt by association. He was complacent with whackos training in his back yard and we decided that was a good enough reason to keep the ball rolling at the time. Was it, in hindsight? No, but hindsight is a motherfucker. Makes complex issues sooooo very easy to pick apart and break down. 

And lastly, the liberating Iraqis is the Top Sirloin outcome. We were hoping for Filet Mignon. We were hoping to find WMD's, not look like idiots, take out Saddam, minimal casualties, in/out, quick n' easy, free the Iraqis from their dictator, install one that we were chums with, gain another ally in the Middle East that we could rely on and call it a day. That was Filet Mignon. Chef couldn't handle that. So we got Top Sirloin instead. We got something that's barely passable as "sufficient". That's where we are today, chewing on old, tired, crappy ass Top Sirloin instead of a nice cut of Filet Mignon. And why? Because we fucked up.

So to wrap it up, the only difference I think I have with the Left at this point concerning Iraq, is just that I don't believe it was all lies and bullshit and covert plans by Bush and his cronies to dominate the world. I think they went in with reasonable intentions, a LOT of ego and bad information and went nuts. And shit got sticky really fast. And they weren't prepared for things to get "real" and when they did, they didn't know *what* the fuck to do. Now to end it, I'd say, pull the fuck out, close up shop, let the chips fall where they may and be done with it. Game over. Sooner or later they'll realize that they have to cut their losses. You can't fight a conventional war with an enemy that you can't see, that's agile and always moving. I *thought* we learned that in Viet Nam, but the pride and ego of others has shown otherwise.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 1, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Agreed, but I don't remember bumper stickers, T-Shirts and a lingering sense of "He lied!!!! THE PRESIDENT LIED!!!! OMFG!!!! HE'S THE FIRST POLITICIAN TO LIE TO US!!!!" like we got with W. Bush. I mean with Clinton it was, yeah he lied about getting a BJ or diddling Monica Lewinsky... yawn... I mean as far as the court of public approval is concerned. Yes I realize that the Right was happy to attempt to impeach Clinton for his indiscretions. However I don't remember it lingering for *quite* as long as the shit around W. has. Today it seems like Clinton is all but revered by most if not all and all the shit he pulled is forgotten or overlooked. But whatever, I agree, *all* politicians lie if it suits them or furthers their agenda.



Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. The incident was overblown, in comparison with Clinton's cabinet's handling of the Waco Texas incident and the Oaklahoma City bombing that followed exactly one year later.





> Again, I think the press caught on because it was a big, obvious story. Why wouldn't they latch onto it? But it blew over in short order. With W., I don't think it was all lies, so much as bad information. We relied on piss poor information and on top of that yes, W. had an agenda, but it was a mix of the two and *not just* some sinister plan the way the Left has made it seem.



I fail to see how having an affair with an intern can compare to starting (not getting involved in, but actually starting) a war with a sovereign nation. I also fail to see how anyone could be soo blundering as to believe such a ridiculous story. I have no proof that there was more to it, but traditional logic fails to support any theory out there, so we will all have our own equally legitimate opinions about that.



> In other words, somewhere between what they've harped on for 8+ years and the rest of him and his cronies bullshit, lies the actual *truth* about why we went into Iraq. Yes, I do think with a straight face that it was initially to find WMD's, were they nukes? I have no fucking idea. Maybe they *thought* they had nukes or nuke capability. They certainly had chemical weapons and had proven they were fine using them. So you take that bit of truth, and combine it with some motivation on people in W.'s cabinet and their agenda, I believe it was Rumsfeld and others that had been talking about invading Iraq while Clinton was in office, when Bush came into office it was all the easier to get done. Combine those elements together and you start to get a perfect storm, all the right people, with the right motivation, in power, at the same time and *boom* shit started happening.



Honestly, the entire WMD thing is utter nonsense. North Korea definately has WMD, and definately poses some sort of threat to the USA, and they are proven to be involved in at least a few clandestine operations. Why not invade them? Anyway, we had WMD inspectors there who have come forward to say that there was no hint of intelligence about nuclear weapons. 



> But was it all completely baseless? That's my point, the motivation to go there to Iraq, was it all fairy tales? I don't think so. Not for a minute.



Hate to sound so contrary, but it was. I mean, seriously- the reasons that the administration gave have all been false. Prove any of their reasons to be true- can't do it because they were already proven false.



> Was it weak intel, poor judgement and ego tripping? Yeah, I think it was a combination of all three. But the Left would have you believe that it was 110% made up fiction, the work of one man or a small group, who just wanted cheap oil and corporate contracts, kickbacks and payouts. The kind of shit you'd see on the bigscreen in Hollywood for Christ's sake. And the *follow* through on our part once the shit hit the fan was dismal at best. All this "Shock and Awe" nonsense. The bravado. It was stupid.



I don't know what the reason is. I only know that the several reasons that were given by the administration were a) illogical in the first place, and b) not even true. Was it all made up? Well, somebody made it up if it wasn't true, right? How can it not be true unless someone made it up?



> Well honestly, once the WMD's weren't found, did you honestly expect the people in power at the time to just throw up their arms and say "fuck it, you know what? We looked for em', can't find em', screw it, this country is clean, we're pulling out, war's over, everyone go home". And I mean this with respect, so don't take it the wrong way, but no, things don't work that way. There's no way in hell they were going to do that. So yeah, they changed the goal. First WMD's, none found, OK, moving on, 9/11 links and I think that reality was more along the lines of Iraq turning a blind eye to terrorist training camps there moreso than say, Saddam himself giving his holy blessing for a Jihadist movement against the US, or attacking us outright. It was guilt by association. He was complacent with whackos training in his back yard and we decided that was a good enough reason to keep the ball rolling at the time. Was it, in hindsight? No, but hindsight is a motherfucker. Makes complex issues sooooo very easy to pick apart and break down.



Problem with that is that Saddam's government was secular. That's a big part of why the shiites and sunnis hadn't been at each other's throats before. The problem with the guilt by association reasoning is that it doesn't work both ways. And again, the allegations that were made were false, so it doesn't even matter.



> And lastly, the liberating Iraqis is the Top Sirloin outcome. We were hoping for Filet Mignon. We were hoping to find WMD's, not look like idiots, take out Saddam, minimal casualties, in/out, quick n' easy, free the Iraqis from their dictator, install one that we were chums with, gain another ally in the Middle East that we could rely on and call it a day. That was Filet Mignon. Chef couldn't handle that. So we got Top Sirloin instead. We got something that's barely passable as "sufficient". That's where we are today, chewing on old, tired, crappy ass Top Sirloin instead of a nice cut of Filet Mignon. And why? Because we fucked up.



If free is a euphamism for anarchy, then mission accomplished. And again, where is the logic in freeing Iraq versus freeing any other country that has a despot leader? I don't get how the people in Iraq were any less free than the people in North Korea. 



> So to wrap it up, the only difference I think I have with the Left at this point concerning Iraq, is just that I don't believe it was all lies and bullshit and covert plans by Bush and his cronies to dominate the world. I think they went in with reasonable intentions, a LOT of ego and bad information and went nuts. And shit got sticky really fast. And they weren't prepared for things to get "real" and when they did, they didn't know *what* the fuck to do. Now to end it, I'd say, pull the fuck out, close up shop, let the chips fall where they may and be done with it. Game over. Sooner or later they'll realize that they have to cut their losses. You can't fight a conventional war with an enemy that you can't see, that's agile and always moving. I *thought* we learned that in Viet Nam, but the pride and ego of others has shown otherwise.



I'm not saying Bush was any worse than any Democrat president, but just think about it for a second. Regardless of the motive, it was all lies and bullshit. There was no logical reason (true or not) given to invade Iraq that didn't also serve as a logical reason (which actually is true) to North Korea.

My point was, that in hindsight, we tend to rewrite history to emphasize what we like and sweep under the rug what we don't. Sometimes we even make up fairy tales. I don't know what we will come out of this debacle telling our grandkids. But if the press were more involved in pressuring for the truth while the mass media was swallowing a ton of bullshit, maybe we wouldn't have red on our ass. In a way, WikiLeaks is providing some pot-stirring that had always been around until 911, and somehow was temporarily lost.


----------



## orb451 (Dec 1, 2010)

bostjan said:


> I fail to see how having an affair with an intern can compare to starting (not getting involved in, but actually starting) a war with a sovereign nation. I also fail to see how anyone could be soo blundering as to believe such a ridiculous story. I have no proof that there was more to it, but traditional logic fails to support any theory out there, so we will all have our own equally legitimate opinions about that.



It's not a direct comparison. It's only a comparison in terms of the court of public approval. That was my point. That as far as the public was concerned, Clinton's BJ scandal blew over (pun intended) in short order, as compared to W.'s alleged "lies" that have lingered in the court of public approval for far longer. That's all. Not saying they're the same issue or on the same level.




bostjan said:


> Honestly, the entire WMD thing is utter nonsense. North Korea definately has WMD, and definately poses some sort of threat to the USA, and they are proven to be involved in at least a few clandestine operations. Why not invade them? Anyway, we had WMD inspectors there who have come forward to say that there was no hint of intelligence about nuclear weapons.



To *you* and many others it's nonsense. To me, it's not. Read the article I linked to earlier. Saddam himself was saying that he had WMD's but didn't think that US would invade because of them. And that goes back to my point about what he *thought* he had and being surrounded by sycophants. If the guy *thinks* he's got WMD's and our intel, however spurious to you in hindsight, appeared to confirm that, then sorry, but no, it's not "utter nonsense". But right around the point at which you can acknowledge that Saddam may have had (or thought he had) something up his sleeve, W.'s ego tripping and his cabinets' collective ego as well, take over and lead us to the quaqmire we started. Look at it this way, if it was baseless, completely fictional, why pin the whole *reason* for going there in the first place around something so easily proven false? It makes ZERO sense to do so from W.'s standpoint. My honest opinion is that he really, truly *thought* that Saddam had something, as did Saddam himself.

The other issue at work here is, if he had anything substantial, why go into Iraq over *that*. I think that's the point you're trying to make with the comparisons to N. Korea. Again, two things can appear very similar at face value and still be very different. Take cars, take a Hyundai, take a Ferrari. They both have 4 wheels right? Both have engines? Both have doors and electronics, etc? Samie same right? No. Of course not, while they both seem similar on paper, they're made for different things, to accomplish different goals. The same with N. Korea and Iraq. Iraq for example had who exactly backing them up? Anyone? The Saudis? I don't honestly know of any major players out there that would be willing to go to bat for Iraq if they were in trouble. Iran fucking hated them. Israel hated them. Kuwait hated them. Who were their allies?

Now compare that to N. Korea. Surely most in Southeast Asia see them as a liability at best and a menace/threat at worst. But, the distinction is, that they have one, VERY large, VERY powerful ally that *tolerates* their bullshit. That being China. China has sat idly by as N. Korea "did it's thing" for years and done essentially nothing of substance to curtail or contain their activities. However, if we the US decided to start military action against them, the FIRST thing they'd do is LEVEL S. Korea's capital if not more. So right off the bat, you have a dictator that you're comparing to Saddam in a country you're comparing to Iraq with an itchy trigger finger and a whole lot less to lose in a fight. That's not a valid comparison in the least.

N. Korea would light up as much of S.Korea as humanly possible, as quickly as possible in the event of military action. That's a lot of blood on our hands. Vastly more than we've lost in terms of lives than Iraq. And once their initial fireworks display was over, you'd still have the rest of the country's army to deal with, and then on top of that, you'd have to worry about how China would react, and the degree to which they got involved militarily. Those are all BIG issues that make going to war with N.Korea because they "appear" on paper to be the "same" as Iraq all the harder to stomach and justify.

So basically, I'm going to disagree with you on your comparison. Like I said, they seem at face value to have all the same characteristics, but Iraq and N.Korea are world's apart in almost every sense of the word. That's why we don't invade them, or didn't invade and try to fix or "free" the N.Koreans. The whole fucking country is in the military, and those that aren't, are what? Skeletons? Living on next to nothing, 50 years behind the times in language alone, let alone customs, standard of living, etc. To continue to the arbitrary and silly comparison theme, Saddam's Iraq was like a Rot Weiler that was on the *verge* of biting you. N. Korea is a rabid Pit Bull off it's leash and with Hell's Angel biker gang members as it's owner. You'd think the best course of action would be to put one in between's it's eyes, until you realize that if you miss, you're fucked AND it's owners have the gumption and gusto to put you 6 feet under without batting an eyelash.



bostjan said:


> Hate to sound so contrary, but it was. I mean, seriously- the reasons that the administration gave have all been false. Prove any of their reasons to be true- can't do it because they were already proven false.



Being contrarian doesn't bother me, but proven false by who? You? The mainstream media? I mean it's one thing to *at the time* believe that the information you have *in hand* is accurate or true. It's *another* thing to say AFTER THE FACT, that oh hey look, turns out that information was incorrect, innacurate or misinterpreted. There's a huge fucking difference between the two. And don't get me wrong, I know they had their motivation for going over there and I know that some of that motivation was ego, stupid and/or questionable. But I don't think the latter makes up the bulk of the *real* reason for going. But hey, guess we'll disagree on that. Worse things have happened on the forums .




bostjan said:


> My point was, that in hindsight, we tend to rewrite history to emphasize what we like and sweep under the rug what we don't. Sometimes we even make up fairy tales. I don't know what we will come out of this debacle telling our grandkids. But if the press were more involved in pressuring for the truth while the mass media was swallowing a ton of bullshit, maybe we wouldn't have red on our ass. In a way, WikiLeaks is providing some pot-stirring that had always been around until 911, and somehow was temporarily lost.



History is written by the winners. That's the bottom line. Revisionist history is a whole other ball of wax. What WikiLeaks is doing for government (US' and others) is a disservice. It's pulling back the curtain on a David Blaine magic trick and saying "Hey look! He's NOT actually handcuffed in the clear glass box". And moreover, it's *hoping* by many that by revealing all this "ground breaking" state secrets that somehow the world will be different, and better. The only thing I'm seeing is that it's not serving anyone's interests except the ego's of a few. Stirring the pot for the sake of the stirring it does not, in my book anyway, equal progress and/or change for the better.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 1, 2010)

bostjan said:


> In a way, WikiLeaks is providing some pot-stirring that had always been around until 911, and somehow was temporarily lost.



That's a sentiment I can agree with.



@Orb in RE: 'Why is Bush (W) evil and Clinton not':

I boil it down to politics, and piss poor tactics (in a 'long term' sense) on the part of the GOP lexicon.

Like most of his predecessors, Clinton did _plenty_ of shit that was laudable. The problem is, instead of taking him to task on any of the actual issues like foreign policy, education, economics, etc, they chose to put _all_ their energy into the 2 big scandals; Whitewater and Lewisnky. Granted, there was some other stuff along the way (here's a fun read: The A to Z Guide of Clinton Scandals) but ultimately the GOP and mass media-at-large remember him as a President who led us to a brief moment of prosperity despite catching hummers in the Oval Office.

In stark contrast, Bush (W) was vilified for policies rather than scandals. It wasn't just about leading us to war under false pretenses; the media was all over things like him spending almost his entire pre-9/11 Presidency on vacation, using executive privilege more than 260 some odd times to force his Admin's agenda down our throats, wiretapping our phones amongst other atrocities in the Patriot Act, sitting on his ass while the citizens of New Orleans drowned, and how he ultimately sent us into the worst economic period we've seen in our lifetimes. OH, and all the while, his Admin was busy telling us all that if we didn't _blindly_ support their every whim, we were America hating terrorists ourselves.

I get your point about the whole 'Bush lied, people died' thing, but let's be honest about it: SEVERAL months after it was ABUNDANTLY clear that there were no WMD's there, what was Bush saying? "We were wrong" or "We're still confident we will find them"? 

Clinton (after lying under oath, granted..) looked directly into the nationally broadcast cameras and apologized for fucking up. We will NEVER get such a concession from Bush. That's the distinction, I think.

Sorry I don't have much to contribute to the OT. I'm just not well enough informed about it to have much of an opinion of it.


----------



## orb451 (Dec 1, 2010)

synrgy said:


> That's a sentiment I can agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see where you're coming from, there's PLENTY to be upset at Bush over, a lot of the stuff you cited is why I wouldn't vote for him in 2000 or 2004. And I wouldn't argue that the things you mentioned and others aren't good *reasons* to dislike him as person or leader. My whole point was just that I think in hindsight it's easy to pick apart our decision to go into Iraq. That and that alone is what my focus is on.

And I think new information or information that was ignored, repressed or lost at the time makes it all too easy to just sit back and say we never should have gone there in the first place. I get that sentiment, but I just think egos and bad information were more to blame than some movie-plot reasons and images of Bush or Cheney twirling their moustaches and laughing hysterically as they pushed the "red" button to engage Iraq in a long, protracted, losing battle for... wait for it... nothing. 

It's become a shit sandwich (not even the Top Sirloin I mentioned earlier) that we're forcing down one gulp at a time.


----------



## orb451 (Dec 1, 2010)

synrgy said:


> Clinton (after lying under oath, granted..) looked directly into the nationally broadcast cameras and apologized for fucking up. We will NEVER get such a concession from Bush. That's the distinction, I think.



One more point about the distinction between the two (Clinton/Bush). Clinton looked DIRECTLY into those cameras on one televised broadcast and said he did NOT have sexual relations with that woman. Then, after the proof was laid out, THEN he came on and admitted that yes, he had an affair or inappropriate relationship with her.

I believe that Bush *thought* at the time that he was doing "the right thing" more than "the wrong thing" with respect to what he and his advisors had in hand, at the time. And proven wrong later, is not the same as being in the wrong the first time and lying about it. 

But I guess the point is moot anyway, people lie, life goes on, Bush was certainly no saint, nor was Clinton, yadda yadda yadda.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 1, 2010)

My point was, WMD or no, there is still no reason to start war. The justifaction that anyone who has WMD but is too much of a threat should be left alone whilst those who we think might have WMD but are not a threat should be destroyed is lost on me for so many reasons. If anyone out there sees that as a valid logical argument for some form of violence, well, I don't know what to say, other than it makes me sad.

I didn't prove the administration's allegations false, that's just silly. The reason I say that the allegations about WMD were proven false was that so many inspectors came forward saying that there were no signs of WMD, and of course, the only reason that matters- that there were no WMD. Anyone who wants to argue that what wasn't there was actually there can feel free to do so, but it's truly pointless after seven years and still not being found. Frankly, I was shocked that some of our guys didn't plant an old Soviet nuke or something just to clear all of that up.


----------



## orb451 (Dec 1, 2010)

bostjan said:


> My point was, WMD or no, there is still no reason to start war. The justifaction that anyone who has WMD but is too much of a threat should be left alone whilst those who we think might have WMD but are not a threat should be destroyed is lost on me for so many reasons. If anyone out there sees that as a valid logical argument for some form of violence, well, I don't know what to say, other than it makes me sad.
> 
> I didn't prove the administration's allegations false, that's just silly. The reason I say that the allegations about WMD were proven false was that so many inspectors came forward saying that there were no signs of WMD, and of course, the only reason that matters- that there were no WMD. Anyone who wants to argue that what wasn't there was actually there can feel free to do so, but it's truly pointless after seven years and still not being found. Frankly, I was shocked that some of our guys didn't plant an old Soviet nuke or something just to clear all of that up.



No problem, I get what you're saying now and for what it's worth I thought I outlined the differences between Iraq and N.Korea and why they appear very similar at face value, but are in fact very different, and thus, that is what keeps us from intervening as much as say, Iraq.

And yeah at face value, invading Iraq for WMD's or *insert reason here* can be tough to stomach or swallow, my thinking is that the reasons are a combination of a lot of things and not *just* one reason or another.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 1, 2010)

orb451 said:


> One more point about the distinction between the two (Clinton/Bush). Clinton looked DIRECTLY into those cameras on one televised broadcast and said he did NOT have sexual relations with that woman. Then, after the proof was laid out, THEN he came on and admitted that yes, he had an affair or inappropriate relationship with her.
> 
> I believe that Bush *thought* at the time that he was doing "the right thing" more than "the wrong thing" with respect to what he and his advisors had in hand, at the time. And proven wrong later, is not the same as being in the wrong the first time and lying about it.
> 
> But I guess the point is moot anyway, people lie, life goes on, Bush was certainly no saint, nor was Clinton, yadda yadda yadda.



This is all a non sequitor. Whether it was a lie or a misunderstanding doesn't matter.

Look, if I said "If A, I will respond with violence," with no logical connection between A and responding with violence, and with no legal reason or precedent of A leading to a violent response, then my response with violence is wrong. The truth or falsehood of A doesn't even matter in that case. But if A turns out false it just adds insult to injury.

Seriously, at the time, I argued with the pro-war people constantly that a) the statement "if Iraq has weapons we invade" is illogical and unprecedented and b) that Iraq didn't have the weapons Bush was claiming that they had and c) that the resulting war would not obtain positive results for us as individuals.

I still stand by all three statements, and I _strongly_ feel that time has vindicated me with all three. The only thing that will change that is if a) the rules of basic logic change, b) the real Saddam jumps out of a time machine with all of the nukes that he had and announces that the guy who hung at the gallows was his clone, or c) I wake up and find out that the last seven years were all a dream, and there really were WMD and they were set to go off in the USA.

Just to level the playing field for Clinton, I think all I have to say is Branch Davidian Siege.

Leading the country is hard. But I do believe that both Clinton and Bush could have done a better job if they had behaved more rationally.  I don't think that either is an evil mastermind, in fact, I do not think either one is even smart enough to be an evil mastermind- now Nixon, he was smart enough to have been an evil mastermind  anyway, I'm just saying that a spoonful of transparency during the Bush administration could have actually lead us to some benefit, that's all I was initially trying to get at.


----------



## orb451 (Dec 1, 2010)

And on topic, what do you guys think of all the stink they're making about Julian Assange the person? As in this article:

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange wanted for sex crimes in Sweden | NowPublic News Coverage

You think it's all baseless allegations meant to smear him and shut him up? Has some truth to it, but the timing is suspect? Something else?

Personally I think the guy, as a person, is a douche nozzle. I think anyone given that much information and that degree of control is bound to have as many "issues" as any world leader we put in place. I think he wants to "appear" unbiased, but I think in reality, he's got an agenda to push and I think that the timing of his sex crime allegations is suspect for sure, I don't think he's as "clean" as he may want to seem.

I mean who's to say that he hasn't received information and then altered in some way? Or easier still, just withheld certain information? About governments, companies, etc? I doubt the people leaking the info would cry foul, or for that matter, even know the full scope of what they're stealing and subsequently sending to him. Little one-sie, two-sie bits of info maybe, but 35,000 or whatever it was cables? 250,000 pieces of classified intel? We're supposed to believe that the guy who grabs that stuff is going through each piece with a fine toothed comb both before, and after it's released to WikiLeaks? To see if there's any changes or omissions? I dunno, somehow I doubt it.


----------



## Trev (Dec 1, 2010)

I would agree that most of the articles within the leaks are pretty inconsequential and the information they provide pretty much already confirmed what many suspected (torture, murder of civilians etc.) Some of them however do have significance like the C.I.A. memo I posted, or the cable that lists Iran as the principle threat in the middle east as a recent pole of arab leadership claimed that 80% thought the biggest threat was Israel and 77% thought it was the U.S., which essentially demonstrates Clinton as an analyst is either wrong or outright lying. THere _are_ much more important things being reported in the midst of this that practically no one in the American press talks about, like the fact they have established that infant mortality, cancer, and leukimia rates are higher in Fallujah than in Hiroshima. No one talks about this.

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East, World - The Independent

Edit: And about Assange's charges, I believe they were dismissed by a swedish court who found a lack of evidence on the accuser's part. ZThey then appealed for aanother trial and the judge issued a warrant for his arrest. I'm not going to say that he didn't do what he's accused of but the timing and the issue of his arrest warrants are certainly convenient for his opponents.


----------



## jeremyb (Dec 1, 2010)

I feel sorry for the American people, you've got a bad enough reputation overseas due to your governments interventions in other countries without these cables getting out in the public domain  Nothing good will come from releasing this info.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 1, 2010)

We'll reap what we sew. This is why I kind of support the leaks. Generally speaking, I think we cover things up because we KNOW that what we're doing is WRONG. If we believed what we were doing was right, we'd do it all out in the open. It's not about security. Safety is an illusion, anyway.

Not trying to open any cans of worms. I'm just saying that if the rest of the World hates us any more post leaks than they already did, it's because we earned/deserve it.


----------



## willy petro (Dec 1, 2010)

Wiki leaks is horrible. They truely are putting many things at risk. I mean i get the idea of informing the public. But to me its not worth losing so much in the process. Many people are at danger, not only their lives but also their lively hood. This should be put to a stop immediately.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 1, 2010)

jeremyb said:


> I feel sorry for the American people, you've got a bad enough reputation overseas due to your governments interventions in other countries without these cables getting out in the public domain  Nothing good will come from releasing this info.


 
If you want to feel sorry for us, feel sorry for us because other nations look down us as an entire people because of poor decisions made by the privileged few who are in power.


----------



## jeremyb (Dec 1, 2010)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> If you want to feel sorry for us, feel sorry for us because other nations look down us as an entire people because of poor decisions made by the privileged few who are in power.



Yarrr thats what I was getting at in a round about way


----------



## daemon barbeque (Dec 1, 2010)

Wikileaks Rock!
Not against the U.S. actions, but all dirty laundry in Europe and Middle-East is out. That is a good thing. BTW, they don't put lives on danger, the actions of the Governments did. And now it's paying time.


----------



## leandroab (Dec 1, 2010)

World War III people?

Vladimir Putin is already pissed at the US for "not minding their own business".

Let the games begin!!!


----------



## JamesM (Dec 1, 2010)

^Well considering considering one of the most sensitive areas of the Cold War was to stay OUT of WWIII, I certainly hope that wouldn't have been in vain. Especially not something this small (in comparison to indefinite possibilities).


----------



## MSalonen (Dec 2, 2010)

It aggravates me to see the kind of naive and/or outright immature responses and outlooks on how the world works being occasionally presented here, as they undoubtedly are far more common and present in reality than the confines of this internet forum.

But then I'm relieved by those, like Orb, Quamba, and Randy, who actually (regardless of differing opinions) handle this topic articulately and intelligently.



leandroab said:


> World War III people?
> 
> Vladimir Putin is already pissed at the US for "not minding their own business".
> 
> Let the games begin!!!



I'm personally more than a bit unsettled by the possible repercussions of hostile international relations being trivialized.

Games are fun. The taking away of human life is not, and is no joking matter, to any degree let alone the catastrophic level brought by worldwide war.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Dec 2, 2010)

Meshugger said:


> That would be quite boring. Russia, China and the others are the 'bad guys', everything related to them wouldn't be much of a surprise anyway + they are way more closed societies. When it comes to the good guys messing up (=the west) it is much more interesting, since it is actually difficult to be a nice guy.





QuambaFu said:


> Good point, I think a lot of people forgot that the UN inspectors in the late 90s and early 2000s said that Iraq more than likely had WMDs. Bill Clinton even said so during his presidency and the CIA agreed. I know they found about 100 missiles that are classified as WMD but that wasn't what they were referring to in the sanctions and as a justification for invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you. If other countries baggage were revealed the US wouldn't look so bad when we fuck up. As much as I'm suspect of our government, regardless of which party is in control, I still believe that as the most charitable nation in the world we still kick ass and that the world is better off with us around. I could do without some of the interventionism though. Economically, I'm a globalist, but militarily I'm probably like Pat Buchanan.




Exactly, Chinese rule would be pretty fucking shitty.


----------



## IDLE (Dec 4, 2010)

I'm not sure what he is doing that is so horrible. He isn't leaking any information that other governments or bad people couldn't get. If he can get it spies sure as hell could get it, he is just giving it to the public. Personally I don't really care, I already know that our government, most other governments, and most major corporations are evil mother fuckers. I don't need to wade through 500 pages of shit to find that out.


----------



## The Somberlain (Dec 4, 2010)

My understanding of wikileaks is the diplomatic equivalent of someone writing about how much they hate their boss on facebook only to find out that their boss is on their friends list.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Dec 5, 2010)

The Somberlain said:


> My understanding of wikileaks is the diplomatic equivalent of someone writing about how much they hate their boss on facebook only to find out that their boss is on their friends list.


 
And saying their boss hates all the other managers at their workplace.


----------



## Dan (Dec 5, 2010)

If various governments hadn't wanted this information out, regardless of it being on the internet it would have been stopped long ago and people would have been taken out. IMO these documents have been 'leaked' as part of something bigger. 

Plus if the Russians were so annoyed they'd have started with action rather than words, we've seen it before and no doubt we will see it again. Anyone notice that this has all been blown WAY out of proportion a few days before Iran is having a conference with the UN about its nuclear program? Just coincidence yeah? 

*replaces tinfoil hat*


----------



## The Somberlain (Dec 5, 2010)

The tinfoil hat is unnecessary, for you are a wise man


----------



## Survival101 (Dec 5, 2010)

For a while I was mostly like "meh," let him publish the big high school slam book to the world... 
And then I saw this 
BBC News - List of facilities &#039;vital to US security&#039; leaked

And now... fuck. 
The other information was just diplomatic shit talking, it seemed (from my admittedly naive viewpoint), but publishing things like this seems to just be inviting a disaster.


----------



## Prydogga (Dec 5, 2010)

Prediction: Assange dies before 2012. I don't know who it will be, but I'm pretty darn sure someone's going to try. 

Anyways, I was reading the paper the other day at work, and I read something along the lines of 'they denied claims that a bank CEO's hard drive was stolen."

Uhh... Yeah... I'm kind of way against this kind of stuff. The end does not justify the means.


----------



## Dan (Dec 6, 2010)

Survival101 said:


> For a while I was mostly like "meh," let him publish the big high school slam book to the world...
> And then I saw this
> BBC News - List of facilities &#039;vital to US security&#039; leaked
> 
> ...




Why would the BBC post the cable for the whole world to see in the article if it involves places of great importance to our allies in the US? It makes no logical sense, whilst out country is pretty good for freedom of speech this contradicts national security protocol. 

Now the UK has been keeping these leaks out of the media, giving it the 'meh itll blow over, not really awesome news' treatment, but then this happens. I just find it a bit strange that all these leaks are appearing a little too quickly and the media is jumping on the hype bandwagon. Before long i would imagine fictional cables will go up and there are people who will believe them because 'wikileaks put it up' 

All happening too much too soon. Somethings afoot i tell you!

*starts building tinfoil suit*


----------



## Tones (Dec 6, 2010)

People have the right to know. Why should we hide things? If our government is so just, what's to hide? I saw a leaked video of American soldiers killing innocent civilians in Iraq from the view of an Apache Attack helicopter (i believe)
People need to open their eyes and stop being so ignorant. What our government is doing behind our backs is sickening.
Maybe this is just what United States need: To get our asses kicked.


----------



## Dan (Dec 6, 2010)

Tones said:


> People have the right to know. Why should we hide things? If our government is so just, what's to hide? I saw a leaked video of American soldiers killing innocent civilians in Iraq from the view of an Apache Attack helicopter (i believe)
> People need to open their eyes and stop being so ignorant. What our government is doing behind our backs is sickening.
> Maybe this is just what United States need: To get our asses kicked.



There is a very big difference between a government hiding human cruelty of its soliders for no reason and hiding places of importance to the security of their nation. If they were completely open about that kind of stuff people would take advantage for personal gain. FACT.

There is always going to be governments bitching about other governments, its playground ethics; everything boils down to it. However in this case someone finding out about the bitching wont result in the weedy kid getting his ass kicked because he isnt big or strong enough to take on the jock. It'll end up in millions of unwarranted deaths, nuclear fallout and collapse of a safe, free society.

That and all the Bacon and Toblerone will be eaten


----------



## IDLE (Dec 6, 2010)

Survival101 said:


> For a while I was mostly like "meh," let him publish the big high school slam book to the world...
> And then I saw this
> BBC News - List of facilities &#039;vital to US security&#039; leaked
> 
> ...



There is really nothing in there that a person couldn't figure out with a little common sense. It's mostly just an attempt to demonize them. You can be assured that terrorists already know pipelines, ports, and mines are good targets.

I think Plug is right, it really could be subterfuge. Either that or our government is massively retarded to let all of that sensitive data leak out.

I think it's important to remember that wikileaks didn't actually leak any of the data they just host it. It can't even be considered copyright infringement because the documents weren't copyrighted. Like I said, I don't see it as a huge deal. I don't think the world is going to explode or governments are going to fall because of this. Apathy will reign supreme.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 6, 2010)

So, thanks to the Facebook I've been reading a lot about this today.

I'll lead with a fun point that a friend of mine posted:



> If the Governments of the world treated Bin Laden like they are now treating Julian Assange (the founder of Wikileaks), he would of been caught. It seems a bit ridiculous.



Now for an amusing bit of cat and mouse:

1.) Cat tries to catch mouse -- Assange's lawyer confirms talks with UK police

2.) Mouse escapes and sits on the other side of the glass door to taunt the cat -- Massive Release of Raw WikiLeaks Files Threatened by Julian Assange's Lawyer


----------



## bostjan (Dec 7, 2010)

I was expecting more discussion here after Assange's arrest today.

Do you guys think he will be extradited eventually to the USA? The UK is expected to extradite him to Sweeden for sex crimes, and Sweden could extradite him to the USA, under a nearly-fifty year old agreement.


----------



## The Somberlain (Dec 7, 2010)

bostjan said:


> I was expecting more discussion here after Assange's arrest today.
> 
> Do you guys think he will be extradited eventually to the USA? The UK is expected to extradite him to Sweeden for sex crimes, and Sweden could extradite him to the USA, under a nearly-fifty year old agreement.



Well, I wonder what his sentence would be for now endangering all of NATO.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 7, 2010)

bostjan said:


> I was expecting more discussion here after Assange's arrest today.
> 
> Do you guys think he will be extradited eventually to the USA? The UK is expected to extradite him to Sweeden for sex crimes, and Sweden could extradite him to the USA, under a nearly-fifty year old agreement.



His being arrested actually has nothing to do with wikileaks. He's allegedly a naughty guy.

Assange arrested in Britain - Boing Boing


----------



## bostjan (Dec 7, 2010)

Yeah, all I heard was that two Sweedish women had accused him some time ago, and the case was dropped, but now the case has suddenly and mysteriously reopened, and that he's being charged with rape, molestation, and some other charge.

If it's true that the case was dropped, I wonder why it was dropped in the first place. No one seems to be saying.


----------



## QuambaFu (Dec 7, 2010)

Here's an op-ed by Assange published by The Australian.
Media Diary Blog | The Australian

I can't find anything I disagree with in what he writes. The current administratoin preached transparency during the last presidential campaign. Hillary spoke about internet freedom back in January. Whether they like it or not they are getting transparency and internet freedom! It's a perfect example of "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

The front page of Drudge was pretty good today:
ASSANGE UNDER ARREST: 
_'HE DIDN'T WEAR A CONDOM'_


----------



## Randy (Dec 7, 2010)

Yeah, they're insistent on assassinating this guy's character when everybody already knows he's an asshole. That doesn't change the relevance of what his site does or the content of the document they release.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 7, 2010)

Hmm, thanks for the links.

So one of his accusers is an author of "Seven Steps to Legal Revenge?" Hmm...could be interesting, or maybe not.


----------



## orb451 (Dec 7, 2010)

Randy said:


> Yeah, they're insistent on assassinating this guy's character when everybody already knows he's an asshole.



I don't think enough people *can* know that this guy's a turd. I think if you're going to put up a site like WikiLeaks with the claims that it's a safe haven for leaked information and that it represents transparency and altruistic goals, that it be *just* that. An information repository. However, starting with that WikiLeaked chopper video, they started putting their own "spin" on things. "Collateral Murder"... Riiiiiiight. They're trying to be another news organization. A source for what they think is important, hyping themselves up, and at the same time, offering their own take on what happened. That wouldn't be so bad if they said from the outset that that's what their goal was. And I think this Assange character *should* have thought long and hard about damned near *every* life choice he's ever made, before trying to act as though he's on some kind of moral or ethical crusade to reveal the wrong doings of shit he has no idea about.

He's horribly short sighted. Dangerous even.



Randy said:


> That doesn't change the relevance of what his site does or the content of the document they release.



While nothing but editors can actually change the content released, it absolutely changes the relevance of the information leaked in that he's doing this for fame and fortune. Not some altruistic notion of doing the "ethically" correct thing. But of course that's not what he'd have you believe. And now that's he's turned himself in, it's protests and outrage. I give him props, he's playing the martyr card, very very well. And when he's offed, it'll be all the more grandiose. People falling all over themselves trying to reveal the evils of big brother. Way to go Captain Myopia, you showed *them* 

Here's a link from John Young of Cryptome that's worth reading:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/cryptome_on_wikileaks/


----------



## Randy (Dec 7, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Not some altruistic notion of doing the "ethically" correct thing.









Look at that man. Was anybody honestly under the illusion that guy did anything for the sake of being ethical?


----------



## orb451 (Dec 7, 2010)

Randy said:


> Look at that man. Was anybody honestly under the illusion that guy did anything for the sake of being ethical?



Oh come on Randy, I know you're being funny, but seriously, the guy's whole modus operandi has been money and a name for himself. Sure he looks like the kind of guy that would stroll into a Dateline NBC special. My point was that if you're going to make it *seem* like you really want transparency and are doing the *right* thing in the face of all the naysayers, then at least have the god damned common decency to admit what your goals *really* are.

And moreover, be sure to have a 110% clean as the Virgin Mary's Hairy Honeypot, backstory, or life story. Don't be a fuckup diddling chicks in Sweden of all places with some warped Rape laws where you put yourself at risk. That is, avoid the *appearance* of impropriety at ALL costs. Then you can stand on your soapbox, telling the Obama administration (whom you know I think litte of) how their transparency claims are all for show, etc etc.

In other words, the motivations for their spokesperson (Assange) are dubious at best. That's a liability. If you want real change from all the shit you're releasing Mr. Assange, why all the draconian control over your staff? Ego? Why make yourself the focal point? Why give *anyone* any good reason to *make* you the focal point? It *should* be about the data, it *should* be about what's released. Instead, because this guy's an idiot, it'll be about him. And the data itself is propped up by WikiLeaks own spin and hype machine. If the data was that impressive, it'd speak for itself. And it doesn't. It's much ado about nothing. 

Like shit's going to change. Makes me laugh... and then cringe.


----------



## Randy (Dec 7, 2010)

orb451 said:


> And the data itself is propped up by WikiLeaks own spin and hype machine. If the data was that impressive, it'd speak for itself. And it doesn't. It's much ado about nothing.



I'd argue that has 1000% to do with the media's love affair with this thing because it sounds like a James Bond movie.


----------



## orb451 (Dec 7, 2010)

Randy said:


> I'd argue that has 1000% to do with the media's love affair with this thing because it sounds like a James Bond movie.



Agreed  The Right is screaming bloody murder, and the Left is saying this information will alter our reality for the better overnight.

Methinks somewhere in between those two is what's *really* going to happen. Like I said in an earlier post, I see this doing more harm than good, because it's essentially *known* and redundant information. And the repercussions for the release will be slow, in terms of harm, or good. It shouldn't be sensationalized to the degree to which it is. Is it surprising though? No.


----------



## Prydogga (Dec 7, 2010)

Guess he had some secrets of his own. Hypocrite.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 7, 2010)

@Randy&Orb in RE: reactions vs merit -- In that regard, I'm already ready for this story to blow over it's 'hot-button-of-the-day' phase. As much as I can't stand our media, I have to admit that I preferred it during election season when they were discussing theoretical issues that are pertinent to our lives today. (Today, as opposed to any many varied hypothetical future we apparently need to be fearful of..)

I've had some time to stew this, though in the interest of full disclosure I've only been sitting on the sidelines with casual interest so I still don't think any opinions I'm about to offer carry much weight as I'm still just not well enough informed about this one. (I guess I just don't care enough.)

In terms of issues with our National Security this may raise, I call 'fear campaign'. As I understand it, the people and places that it names were never secret. 'Johnny Terrorist' knowing whether or not said people/places are important to us doesn't increase or decrease the potential of there being attacks on people/places of American interest. Honestly, just because you and I and all the other average private citizens don't bother to look up where we have diplomatic or military installations across the globe doesn't mean that the information wasn't already available. Going back to my first paragraph's point, I feel like America LOVES a scapegoat, and our government LOVES a free smoke-screen. I mean, we were so busy eating popcorn while Slick Willy got crucified over some scully that we barely noticed he was bombing the shit out of half of the rest of the world.

In a greater philosophical sense, I'm stoked. For longer than I've been alive, the ne'er do well's of our government have been able to rest easy on the knowledge that there is a period of multiple decades between when anything they do happens and when whatever they did becomes public knowledge. It gives them the legal freedom to get away with murder (which I mean in the metaphoric sense, though I'm sure they've done it literally also..) and I think one of the benefits we really _ought_ to be reaping of the information age is that which allows us to hold these fucks accountable NOW, in the present. Do I think WikiLeaks is the solution? Of course not, but it's a step in a direction I've been yearning for the collective conscious to go.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I think there's a shadow conspiracy or that I think everyone in our government is up to no good. That said, I do think that there's a lot that we just never hear about because it gets buried under bureaucracy and/or whatever other 'hot-button-issue-of-the-day' is. I think (or hope, anyway) that this will ultimately prove to be nothing more than a peek under the lid of Pandora's Box, and only the first of several small steps on the way to a better life within it.

I know, I know. I need to get over my urges to see humanity reach a Utopian state of social interaction on a Global scale, but I can't help myself. I just figure, if everybody ultimately knows everything about everybody, it becomes virtually impossible for anybody to fuck over anybody else, and even if they try (or succeed) we could at least rest easy knowing they'd be accountable. I guess maybe I think that Big Brother needs a Big Brother. 

Granted, half of that doesn't apply directly to WikiLeaks at all, but I'm just thinking out loud here, as per usual.


----------



## silentrage (Dec 8, 2010)

I'm not understanding why people are criticizing Assange for being imperfect while exposing disgraceful acts on the part of the US government, first of all, isn't it just super convenient how all this damaging acusations came out after his big dump?
And secondly, I've never played basketball professionally but I can still say with completely confidence that the Vancouver Grizzlies was one of the worst teams in the history of sports, 
are you saying that if I've ever committed a crime or wrong-doing of any kind in my life that I'm here-on-in forbidden to point out or stop someone else from any kind of wrong-doing?


----------



## orb451 (Dec 8, 2010)

silentrage said:


> I'm not understanding why people are criticizing Assange for being imperfect while exposing disgraceful acts on the part of the US government, first of all, isn't it just super convenient how all this damaging acusations came out after his big dump?
> And secondly, I've never played basketball professionally but I can still say with completely confidence that the Vancouver Grizzlies was one of the worst teams in the history of sports,
> are you saying that if I've ever committed a crime or wrong-doing of any kind in my life that I'm here-on-in forbidden to point out or stop someone else from any kind of wrong-doing?



You as a person are free to think and criticize whomever you want. When you get a big enough microphone and audience, as Assange has, the game changes a bit. He's in the public spotlight and from what I've read from people that know him, he likes it. He wants the attention. The line is blurred heavily between the attention he's seeking to "right wrongdoings" and the attention for "hey! look at me! I'm famous! I'm *changing* things for the better".

Point being, if you're going to go in the spotlight and be the figurehead and/or focal point for a group that seeks to do good, and you end up on damned near everyone's Radar, pissing a lot of people off mind you, that you damned well better have a SPOTLESS background. Leave NO room for people turn *your* life choices into the focal point. That's why the goal of WikiLeaks, or at least as far as Assange's involvement is concerned, is a sham. If they wanted to disseminate all this information, there's zero need to editorialize it. Just shut up and put it out there without all the added commentary and let the leaked information speak for itself. If it can't, it's a non-issue.

So yeah, his background and motivations *do* have something to do with things. Should they in a perfect world? No. But we don't live in one.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 8, 2010)

Meh, this guy has no more of a besmirged background than your average politician. Look at Bill Clinton (whitewater, anyone?), Bush (AWOL, drug charges, DUI, etc.), or any congressmen, then Assange seems like a pretty average guy in comparison. The difference is that Assange rose to his status by his dealings with wikileaks, and these political asshats get voted into office. Compared to an actual average guy, Assange is an unscupulous jerk, but then none of us really want to be in the public eye as a spokesperson.


----------



## JamesM (Dec 8, 2010)

Randy said:


> I'd argue that has 1000% to do with the media's love affair with this thing because it sounds like a James Bond movie.



Look at him! He even LOOKS like a Bond villian!


----------



## orb451 (Dec 8, 2010)

Compared to most politicans he *is* spotless. I'll grant you that. But that's the trouble with the kind of information he has, and the position that he's in. If you or I had stockpiled a grip of "secret" information and wanted to get it out to the public, in a world where WikiLeaks didn't exist, the idea is, you could find ways to get it out there without making *yourself* the focus of attention. Whether it's Nixon/Deepthroat style, or what have you, I don't know, but it can and has been done in the past. 

But the difference with Assange is that he *wants* the fame. He *wants* the attention. But he wants it for the same reason that Manning idiot wanted it, because they thought, naively, that this kind of stuff being released would force some kind of changes. Maybe even a revolution. I'm sure the rest of the people still working for WikiLeaks very *much* believe that they're saving the planet or some such thing. 

When money and fame are the driving force behind your "crusade", don't be surprised when every little piddly thing you've ever done in life is called into question when you start pissing people off. Like another poster said, this Assange guy is not long for this world. I don't give him to 2012 though, that's being generous. I think it'll be a lot sooner that he gets whacked given the number of people he's pissing off.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 8, 2010)

Agreed. 

I think it takes a certain type of personality to really promote something like this, though, and that personality is along the lines of Assange.

If a person like me came into possession of information like this, it'd be a fluke, and I certainly wouldn't see it as an opportunity to make it big. I certainly wouldn't consider risking my life to get the information out there, unless not doing it had some serious consequences for my close friends or family.


----------



## Necris (Dec 8, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Like another poster said, this Assange guy is not long for this world. I don't give him to 2012 though, that's being generous. I think it'll be a lot sooner that he gets whacked given the number of people he's pissing off.


 At this point even if he choked to death while eating dinner everyone and their mother would be screaming "Government Hit, oh my god!". I'd love to see how the fallout from that would be dealt with.


----------



## CFB (Dec 8, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Point being, if you're going to go in the spotlight and be the figurehead and/or focal point for a group that seeks to do good, and you end up on damned near everyone's Radar, pissing a lot of people off mind you, that you damned well better have a SPOTLESS background. Leave NO room for people turn *your* life choices into the focal point. That's why the goal of WikiLeaks, or at least as far as Assange's involvement is concerned, is a sham. If they wanted to disseminate all this information, there's zero need to editorialize it. Just shut up and put it out there without all the added commentary and let the leaked information speak for itself. If it can't, it's a non-issue.




I can't see why one would need a spotless background to release the kind of information wikileaks does. Sure it's nice to have the head of an organisation be a totally politically correct and polished individual but I don't see why it demands it. I don't even like the guy. To me the information is not of any less relevance just because he did some bad shit



orb451 said:


> this Assange guy is not long for this world. I don't give him to 2012 though, that's being generous. I think it'll be a lot sooner that he gets whacked given the number of people he's pissing off.



Who is going to kill him? I doubt that any private individual will go out and murder him as a response of these recent leaks. Is the united states going to assasinate him because he's pissing them off? Doesn't sound very plausible to me.


----------



## orb451 (Dec 8, 2010)

CFB said:


> I can't see why one would need a spotless background to release the kind of information wikileaks does. Sure it's nice to have the head of an organisation be a totally politically correct and polished individual but I don't see why it demands it. I don't even like the guy. To me the information is not of any less relevance just because he did some bad shit



I wouldn't say it's a prerequisite, having a pristine background, but it would certainly help. As you can see from this fiasco, the media, opponents of the release for embarrassment reasons, etc, *want* or strike that *love* any bit of information that helps paint this guy in a negative light. The old "kill the messenger" bit. If he had been spotless, or for that matter, nameless, which is in my opinion the *key* to doing this kind of thing, then you have no one to go after. Instead, by his indiscretions *and* history of control/ego/power/fame hungering, he's made it *easy* to be known as the "kiddie diddler that tried bringing the whole show to a grinding halt". It's all for not. When people are focused on YOU and not the MESSAGE, it's game over. Fail. That's what I think he's doing, maybe only partly because of his own ego, he's failing to make the message more important. And the reason? Not *just* because his opponents want to impale him, but because he's *allowed* himself to become an easy target. As I said, if you want to release this kind of information you can do so without being a Christ-like martyr figure.

In other words, he *may* want to be remembered as the guy who did all these great things in the face adversity, but because of his checkered background, he'll be remembered as the guy that released a bunch of information that didn't end up changing things a whole lot (or made them better) and as a result, paid for his naivete with his life. And that goes back to the relevance of his background with respect to releasing this information. To me at least, if you stand on a soapbox and say "hey, look over there, that government (or guy) is a PHONY! A BIG FAT PHONY!" and you do it loud enough, make sure that *you* aren't a phony. Make sure you're not craving money, attention and the spotlight, under the auspices of some kind of moral "high ground". In other words, don't say to government's of the world "you reap what you sow" and when found to be a douche nozzle, be surprised when people call you on it. That's why this guy *shouldn't* be involved in any of this shit. He's the absolute wrong kind of figurehead/leader to have. And most importantly, don't act as though you're this beacon of truth in information, shining in the darkness, if you have a habit or history of making stupid personal decisions. They *will* come into play and they *will* further discredit you, and what you're trying to do.



CFB said:


> Who is going to kill him? I doubt that any private individual will go out and murder him as a response of these recent leaks. Is the united states going to assasinate him because he's pissing them off? Doesn't sound very plausible to me.



A private individual would have no motivation to do so you're right, but at the behest of someone or some other group or interest, that individual *could* very well find enough *green* reasons to do it. And with that, they'd be a patsy and a hitman in one convenient package. So no, I don't think the government's going to do it directly. But some corporation or other government he's pissing off just might have an investor or two, or chairman or boardmember, parliament member, etc that *knows* someone who *knows* someone that would have no qualms making this guy "go away".

And if/when he ends up in prison, he's all the easier to get rid of.


----------



## CFB (Dec 8, 2010)

You make some very strong points, I respect you for that +rep


----------



## tacotiklah (Dec 8, 2010)

Necris said:


> At this point even if he choked to death while eating dinner everyone and their mother would be screaming "Government Hit, oh my god!". I'd love to see how the fallout from that would be dealt with.




While I'm not a consipiracy nut, I wouldn't put it past a government or corporation to remove him from the living and blame it on some sort of "accident". I would imagine the fallout would be similar to Jimmy Hoffa; lots of theories, but until something credible comes out, only the killer and Assange would know.


----------



## McKay (Dec 9, 2010)

This thread is full of uninformed opinions. Holy shit.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 9, 2010)

McKay said:


> This thread is full of uninformed opinions. Holy shit.



Care to elaborate? If you know something we don't know, I'm sure we'd like to hear it.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Dec 10, 2010)

Letter from Anonymous:


Good information about what is happening for YOU who don't know about it yet.


----------



## LUCKY7 (Dec 10, 2010)

WikiLeaks bunker: Julian Assange's subterranean Bond villain den | Mail Online


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 10, 2010)

I didn't read the thread yet, so before I do, I'll throw out that I've heard from a few sources that a good portion of the wikilinks information is carefully constructed disinformation


----------



## Customisbetter (Dec 10, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I didn't read the thread yet, so before I do, I'll throw out that I've heard from a few sources that a good portion of the wikilinks information is carefully constructed disinformation



This is my belief.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 10, 2010)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Letter from Anonymous:
> 
> 
> Good information about what is happening for YOU who don't know about it yet.




Did real life just become a bad movie from the early 90's?

Awesome!!


----------



## 74n4LL0 (Dec 10, 2010)

I work in the field of information security and data protection.
Let me give you my perspective on Wikileaks.
IMO Wikeleaks is a good thing regarding the trasparency of the goverments.
Since I'm not from the States I find quite interesting that the content of secret documents is different from the information available to the public (in particular I'm thinking about the information regarding Europe).
IMO again Wikileaks doesn't have any responsability on people's lives in danger.

In the US Goverment Information Security framework (NIST, etc) secret documents (Top Secret, Secret, Confidential) should be conserved according to some security measures (i.e electronic documents saved in cripted archives) and a lot of "treatments" are forbidden (e.g. condivision, printing) exept where authorized.
Each information have an owner that is responsible of the information. The owner may authorize the additional treatments, in this case additional security measures must be taken (e.g. cripted mails, person waiting at the printer for printed the document).
So if there are some documents on Wikileaks it means that those security measures were not taken.
Since there is an owner, it's his fault for the lives in danger.
Wikileaks is just "freedom of speech"


----------



## Randy (Dec 10, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I didn't read the thread yet, so before I do, I'll throw out that I've heard from a few sources that a good portion of the wikilinks information is carefully constructed disinformation



At what level? So far, the State Department hasn't claimed any of what's been released to be untrue or doctored.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Dec 10, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I didn't read the thread yet, so before I do, I'll throw out that I've heard from a few sources that a good portion of the wikilinks information is carefully constructed disinformation



So why is goverment afte Assange then?


----------



## CapenCyber (Dec 10, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I didn't read the thread yet, so before I do, I'll throw out that I've heard from a few sources that a good portion of the wikilinks information is carefully constructed disinformation



Oh bollocks it is. Ironically I'd say it was much more likely that the "wikileaks is a CIA op" story may itself be a US gov made up story.It reminds me of all the 9/11 "truthers" who can't pull their heads out of their arses for long enough to see that OMG, the US fucked up!



The information is real, face it.


----------



## tacotiklah (Dec 11, 2010)

bostjan said:


> Care to elaborate? If you know something we don't know, I'm sure we'd like to hear it.




I could always use a little enlightenment in my life.....


----------



## guitarplayerone (Dec 12, 2010)

there's a bumper sticker that reads
"chemists don't die, they just reach equilibrium"

it's important to ask ourselves, if in the first world (outdated term, I know), we enjoy our much improved lifestyle compared to the developing world.

Because this survives based on a LACK of equilibrium.

Our bodies are a great analogy- the laws of thermodynamics aren't violated as we produce more than enough disorder and biological waste to compensate for the lack of entropy associated with our lifestyles.

perhaps some sort of philosophical arguments could be extracted to ask ourselves, if we truly dislike the idea of screwing others over around the world, should we not simply push for a less commercial society and accept a lower standard of living?

In that sense our government is helping us out after all..

I'm an avid supporter of wikileaks for a few simple reasons:
a) time-sensitive documents are not leaked until bodily harm has been averted
b) more and more we have seen the 'big brother' attitude/expansion of government and censorship occur in the past few years especially. We don't like to talk about censored journalism or even the coming of a censored internet over here in the us and a, but it's here folks. It is within the spirit of the constitution to have a well-informed populace, and our recent administrations have just been flat-out lying to us. This is the reason behind the sizable public support for wikileaks.
c) I will admit, a good chunk of what has been leaked should help the terrorists, or at least is propaganda (having skimmed through some random articles). But ultimately, this is no reason not to leak this information. I'm sure there are many arguments which can be made against this, but there are reasons why we don't see the Finnish government having any leaked documents about some subversive international policies.

And to finish, contradicting myself as we are all allowed to, spewing what I am free to spew from my mouth as we all are, I ask that we consider this:

We are typing all of this right now on computers.
These were made somewere.
And brought with the asymmetry of resources that we possess compared to the rest of the world.
They were made in poorer parts of the world.
Anything made by people was done by people with far less than we have..

And we enjoy this
and banter about wikileaks and our important opinions about it...
and continue the asymmetric cycle which fuels both terrorism and our government's perceived exploitation of international labor and resources.

like it or not, wikileaks brings the world closer to equilibrium

time to study for that thermo final tomorrow


----------



## guitarplayerone (Dec 12, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I didn't read the thread yet, so before I do, I'll throw out that I've heard from a few sources that a good portion of the wikilinks information is carefully constructed disinformation



Some documents, for sure, hint of disinformation and propaganda.

But then one could argue that what you are referring to is a standard rebuttal for the public backlash which results from information contained in leaked documents, SOP you might say


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 12, 2010)

I don't actually agree with those who say it's disinformation. In fact, I haven't even read what you could call a relatively small portion of the leaked documents, and I'm going to go ahead and say that nobody else here has either.

However, based on the assumption that the leaked information is all legitimate, I'm all for it.


----------



## CFB (Dec 12, 2010)

What are these sources you have? I've never heard anyone claim that wikileaks produce false information. Not even Fox goes that far.


----------



## Randy (Dec 13, 2010)

You'll probably never hear me say this again, but Ron Paul makes a decent point here:





> WikiLeaks release of classified information has generated a lot of attention in the past few weeks. The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news. Despite what is claimed, the information that has been so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing our grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.
> There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and that this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government. This emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did. It has been charged by experts that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason and execution, or even assassination.
> But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government should prosecute an Australian citizen for treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.
> ADVERTISEMENT
> ...



Ron Paul Defends WikiLeaks On House Floor (VIDEO)


----------



## synrgy (Dec 13, 2010)

Randy said:


> You'll probably never hear me say this again, but Ron Paul makes a decent point here:



I'm actually a big fan. He was quite simply one immigration policy short of my vote when he ran for President. I agreed with him across the board on every other issue I heard his stance on, but disagreed with his immigration ideas enough that I couldn't bring myself to vote for him.

Still have a LOT of respect for the man, and wish there were more people in politics who were as unafraid to call out their colleagues as he is.


----------



## Randy (Dec 13, 2010)

synrgy said:


> Still have a LOT of respect for the man, and wish there were more people in politics who were as unafraid to call out their colleagues as he is.



And that's one thing I'll definitely give him credit for, and it's a big one. He doesn't go "lock step" with other people on *anything*. There's just too much libertarianism in his overall message for me to be comfortable with. His independence overall and the grass-roots campaign that grew up around him are two things I envy, however.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Dec 14, 2010)

Randy said:


> You'll probably never hear me say this again, but Ron Paul makes a decent point here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanx for the link randy. I like his attitude and logic. He might not my hero or something (nobody is), but he is mostly rational and open.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Dec 14, 2010)

Julian assange granted bail: WikiLeaks: Julian Assange Is Released On Bail With Strict Conditions | World News | Sky News

Thank you for all who support Wikileaks!

E: The accuser complained to higher court. Assange will be held in prison in Britain till the next one.


----------



## tacotiklah (Dec 14, 2010)

daemon barbeque said:


> Thanx for the link randy. I like his attitude and logic. He might not my hero or something (nobody is), but he is mostly rational and open.




Agreed. While I may disagree with the man on some issues, I have to say that he is 100% correct on this one. MOST of the cables I've read (which aren't too many) are boring summaries or assessments of foreign diplomats. Nothing of any real interest. OCCASSIONALLY you'll run into something that might raise an eye. I fail to see how that could actually put someone in direct harm.

The worst case fallout that I could see from this is that foreign dignitaries will be less willing to talk to us.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Dec 14, 2010)

Well if you're heard of operation leakspin, you'd know how bad this is going to hurt the gov.

It's an operation where people actually search for the cables that might be interesting and make videos, blogs, sites, pictures of them, so that everyday people can go w00t on them. And yes, I've seen a few really bad leaks already.


----------

