Thread: Wikileaks...

First he leaks classified information then he gets arrested for raping two CIA agents.

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

First he leaks classified information then he gets arrested for raping two CIA agents.

Incorrect. He published classified material. He did not leak it. He was charged overnight in Westminster Magistrates Court on one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape.

Turns out the lockerbie bomber was released because the British caved in to the thuggish threats of a two-bit dictator who threatened their commercial interests in Lybia. Translation - mass murderer's go free if business is threatened.

fuckers.

WikiLeaks cables: Lockerbie bomber freed after Gaddafi's 'thuggish' threats | World news | The Guardian

Andrew

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Are personal message between diplomats not personal information?

Not if some of these people think it should be released.

Of course, I find it interesting that a lot of people eating up these leaks are also the same ones that were screaming when the ClimateGate memos were leaked.

One thing I rarely expect is consistancy from other people. They can even read quotes by the founder of Wikileaks claiming that their goal is Transparency, then say that is not what they are after at all.

Doublespeak is alive an well.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Not if some of these people think it should be released.

Of course, I find it interesting that a lot of people eating up these leaks are also the same ones that were screaming when the ClimateGate memos were leaked.

One thing I rarely expect is consistancy from other people. They can even read quotes by the founder of Wikileaks claiming that their goal is Transparency, then say that is not what they are after at all.

Doublespeak is alive an well.

You are a bit of a slow learner eh?

The goal is transparency in government, not 100% transparency as was implied by you. They are not after peoples personal and confidential information as you suggested. You are simply confused.

In regards to climategate why are all the people who are opposed to wikileaks who are calling for Assange to be assassinated or imprisoned not likewise calling for the hackers who stole those emails to be assassinated or arrested. In fact that subject was never broached by you guys. Wow, what a surprise.

You also seem to forget that those of us who who argued for science on the climategate debate did not do anything but defend the science, and we were absolutely correct.

Its amazing the short memories and pure devotion to the secrecy of the state you sheep have.

Andrew

Originally Posted by noahath

. . . There still has been nothing in any of the cables thus far that are of any serious national security issue, . . .

I'm not so sure of that, e.g.,

Posted on Tue, Dec. 7, 2010

U.S. calls a WikiLeaks posting a hit list for al-Qaeda

By Andrew Zajac
Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - U.S. officials expressed alarm Monday over a WikiLeaks posting of a confidential State Department list of facilities in foreign countries that are considered vital to national security.

The list includes a rabies-vaccine maker in Germany, a cobalt mine in Congo, an undersea communications-cable station in Australia, and the Panama Canal.

All are potential targets of extremist attacks that are outside the United States but would hurt the United States if they are crippled.

Because of a WikiLeaks posting of confidential State Department cables, the full list - hundreds of potential targets in more than 60 countries - is now as easy to get as the nearest Internet connection.

. . .

The February 2009 note instructed diplomats to focus on key energy and telecommunications links, sites that produce hard-to-get goods or raw materials important to U.S. industry, as well as maritime bottlenecks.

The 2008 list, which was part of the cable, includes graphite, tungsten, and rare-earth metal mines in China; military components manufacturers in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Israel; and a Siemens plant in Germany described as responsible for "essentially irreplaceable production of key chemicals."

It also mentions key ocean passageways, including the Panama Canal, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Straits of Malacca, and the landing points of numerous undersea telecom cables crisscrossing the globe. Also on the list are oil and gas pipelines, including Russia's Naydm Gas Pipeline Junction, described as "the most critical gas facility in the world."

The list underscores the heavy U.S. dependence on foreign pharmaceutical firms for vaccines, among them rabies-vaccine producers in Germany and France; a whooping-cough vaccine producer in France; a typhoid-vaccine manufacturer in Switzerland; Swiss and French flu-vaccine producers; and a Danish smallpox-vaccine facility.

U.S. calls a WikiLeaks posting a hit list for al-Qaeda | Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/07/2010

Some of the targets seem obvious like strategic waterways, but depending on the details not being discussed to draw further publication with further explanation but contained within the leaked material, it leads to how best to do so. The more specific stuff like certain factories, facilities, pipes and mines, etc, in certain nations, etc, is much more damaging.

Originally Posted by Porras

To call them either is absolutist, but for a German citizen, it would be a point in the good column.

And just why would it be "a point in the good column"for me, if the USA use traitors in our Government and political parties to spy on us ?

Alright, every country does that. No exceptions.
Nevertheless it is and remains spying.

To shift the blame to the exposer is a bit lame IMO.
It would have been better for the USA to have used experts in storing and transmitting the data collected.

To combine Pentagon and diplomatic mails in one and the same archive was probably the idea of Rumsfeld.
It was plain stupid nevertheless.

Originally Posted by Steve

What I would want to know; and there probably isn't any way to know this, is whether or not Manning, or anyone else providing information, has received compensation, of any kind, from Wikileaks. If so, then I believe it does raise it to the level of espionage...

No, it does not.

Every newspaper pays for info.

It´s called journalism and practised world-wide.

Edit:

That Manning was spying is a fact and not disputed.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I'm not so sure of that, e.g.,



U.S. calls a WikiLeaks posting a hit list for al-Qaeda | Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/07/2010

Some of the targets seem obvious like strategic waterways, but depending on the details not being discussed to draw further publication with further explanation but contained within the leaked material, it leads to how best to do so. The more specific stuff like certain factories, facilities, pipes and mines, etc, in certain nations, etc, is much more damaging.

Hitting such targets is not really AQ's MO.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Hitting such targets is not really AQ's MO.

Andrew

Why wouldn't it be? It's certainly something not above them to do and the motive is there. AQ is also an inspirational movement. It has organised and inspired aspects. You might see a group more organised in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc, but then there are the rogue converts and clique people who jump on the bandwaggon, etc.

I also thought the US government's claim on this was far more limited than it should be. Quite frankly, anyone wishing to do harm to the US could attack any such places. They don't have to be AQ or even Muslim. They could be hostile agents from hostile nations like Iran or North Korea, or even just some groups or some rogues ideologically wishing to do such harms for any myriad of malevolent reasons or even misguided ones, e.g., in comical jest with a point:



"Damn it, I told those animal activist yahoos to leave the experimental monkeys alone."

Originally Posted by stillalive

And just why would it be "a point in the good column"for me, if the USA use traitors in our Government and political parties to spy on us ?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Exposing a German official giving secrets to the American government would be a 'point in the good column' for the German citizenry. (Assuming that the citizenry disagreed with such information being provided. There's nothing so extreme happening now, but I'm sure that a Nazi official giving secrets to the allies in the forties would have been looked upon favorably by many.)

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Why wouldn't it be? It's certainly something not above them to do and the motive is there. AQ is also an inspirational movement. It has organised and inspired aspects. You might see a group more organised in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc, but then there are the rogue converts and clique people who jump on the bandwaggon, etc.

I also thought the US government's claim on this was far more limited than it should be. Quite frankly, anyone wishing to do harm to the US could attack any such places. They don't have to be AQ or even Muslim. They could be hostile agents from hostile nations like Iran or North Korea, or even just some groups or some rogues ideologically wishing to do such harms for any myriad of malevolent reasons or even misguided ones, e.g., in comical jest with a point:
]

Right. It is a list of places that are allegedly important to US national interests. Anybody could come up with this list, not just US diplomats - its not as if any of these locations are secret, or that there is any special magic used to compile such a list.

It is unfortunate that we would even be discussing something so benign rather than the revelation that the UK essentially let loose a mass murderer because not doing so (under threat from a paranoid delusional thug no less) would have interfered with their commercial interests.

Business is apparently more important than justice for mass murderers. This is not a surprise, but now we know it is a fact.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Porras

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Exposing a German official giving secrets to the American government would be a 'point in the good column' for the German citizenry. (Assuming that the citizenry disagreed with such information being provided. There's nothing so extreme happening now, but I'm sure that a Nazi official giving secrets to the allies in the forties would have been looked upon favorably by many.)

The fact that the governement is playing the case down for diplomatic reasons does not mean it isn´t highly controversial. Actually even politicians from the ruling coalition have demanded the US ambassador to be sent home and the media is debating the issue. Is that serious enough ?

Should He Stay or Should He Go?: US Ambassador Seeks to Limit Fallout from Cables - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International