Jump to content

Wikileaks releases 92,000 classified documents on Afghanistan


Cap'n Refsmmat
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think that we should wait until someone actually dies before criticizing him: they may well not.

 

No, the ends don't justify the means. I don't get to dodge criticism or get a pass for drinking and driving if I don't kill someone. It's wrong because we know it kills people. Ratting out informants, in war of any kind, gets people killed. We already know this. That a consequence doesn't occur this time, is not the least bit compelling.

 

As far as avoidable deaths goes, I think 'out of sight, out of mind' applies here: if this data remains secret, then not only do the government not have to tolerate scrutiny and maybe try a bit harder to avoid civilian deaths, but, to the extent that innocent deaths are kind of unavoidable in war, the less populations understand that the more willing they are to tolerate their countries waging war.

 

Finally, psyops and 'perception management' are an admitted part of war, which is tantamount to the gov' saying "hey guys, we're going to lie to and manipulate you so we can invade another country, OK?". I really don't think that should be tolerated in this day and age, as it could lead to unjustified wars.

 

A few deaths -- if they occour -- could probably be justified, tbh. And, seriously, if the US government is so sure it's right, it should release (redacted) versions of all this data itself. That would both achieve WikiLeaks purpose (allowing scrutiny of the government) and the US militaries (protecting sources).

 

Dak, I'm not sure you're getting my point buddy. Exposing these informants was needless - it serves nothing...well, except it serves those that would murder them.

 

You can still expose government secrets, and should. I like wikileaks for their generalized mission statement. I do not like this naive, thoughtless release method where they pretend to be doing the world a service by getting innocent people, and maybe whole families, murdered for no better reason than not taking the time to filter the names of the innocent before releasing it. It's just that simple.

 

Instead, it's like a teenage boy touching a woman for the very first time - impatient, overly excited and premature...well you know. ( I hope you appreciate that I purposely avoided at least 3 tasteless jokes with that ellipsis.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the ends don't justify the means. I don't get to dodge criticism or get a pass for drinking and driving if I don't kill someone. It's wrong because we know it kills people. Ratting out informants, in war of any kind, gets people killed. We already know this. That a consequence doesn't occur this time, is not the least bit compelling.

 

OK, let me explain better, and slightly change my stance:

 

Some people say that WikiLeaks has put informants at risk.

 

Assuage basically says he hasn't, because they checked the leak first.

 

Why don't we wait until either an informant dies, or someone provides an example of one of the reports that actually reveals an informant, before we judge him? If neither of them happen, then I guess Assuage was right.

 

Also: if there is genuine risk to informants, then you still have to counterbalance the risk to informants due to the leak against the risk to local civilians inherent in unscrutinized wars. Unscrutinized war is what the US (UK, et al) want, and what WikiLeaks wants to avoid by leaking these documents; "some informants might die therefore it's bad" would only neccesarily be true if the alternative -- not leaking, and keeping the war unscrutinized -- was without any inherent risk to innocent lives, which is not the case. You're left having to weigh the pros/cons of leaking vs. not leaking.

 

Finally, bear in mind that the US government could always adopt a policy that, as soon as this information became 'stale' (no longer of strategic use to the enemy), it would be censored to the bear minimum required to protect lives and then publically released. That would most effectively allow public scrutiny of the war whilst protecting sources. If the government aren't going to allow the population 'on who's behalf they work' to scrutinize their actions, thus 'forcing' a 3rd party to leak the information, then they have to accept some of the blame for any ineffective redacting that occurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have secret and top-secret designations at all, then? You seem to want to give whistler-blowers the benefit of the doubt, but I think you're setting up a situation where everyone who doesn't want to follow the rules just claims to be a whistle blower and goes on about their merry way.

 

Once a secret is out, it's out. The damage is done. That's why the law applies to the act of revealing the secret, not the reasons behind the revelation. IMO, the problem isn't with the authority of secret-keeping, but the fact that politicians abuse that authority to hide unpopular, unethical, and illegal actions. What we should be doing is addressing the latter problem, not undermining and important and necessary tool for a safe society.

 

After 9/11 everyone complained about how the CIA no longer had good intel on places like Afghanistan because it had gotten out of the "dirty" side of the business. Well, it's back in that business, and it's producing results -- many terrorists stopped before they commit heinous acts. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have leveraged that capability to the hilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have secret and top-secret designations at all, then? You seem to want to give whistler-blowers the benefit of the doubt, but I think you're setting up a situation where everyone who doesn't want to follow the rules just claims to be a whistle blower and goes on about their merry way.

Fair enough, but respecting the secret and top-secret designations entirely implies absolute honesty on the part of those who classify the documents, and that's simply not plausible.

 

I'd suggest a middle ground: If there's evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the government, it's ethical to leak documents that demonstrate that. However, when one does leak documents, one must be sure not to create more damage than the government's dishonesty is already causing.

 

After 9/11 everyone complained about how the CIA no longer had good intel on places like Afghanistan because it had gotten out of the "dirty" side of the business. Well, it's back in that business, and it's producing results -- many terrorists stopped before they commit heinous acts. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have leveraged that capability to the hilt.

Have there been any numbers on terrorists stopped before committing crimes? Sure, many alleged terrorist leaders have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they were never tried in a court of law. There's been a few groups captured and tried in the US, but only a small fraction appeared sufficiently competent and prepared to carry out an attack.

 

I'd love to see some CIA report on how well their tactics are working, but of course it'd be classified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's play a game of conspiracy theory. Anyone else want to play? Here goes:

 

The war still has too much popular support to be ended easily. Therefore, Obama gets someone to release the documents via Wikileaks, to remind people of the atrocities of war. Obviously, the names of informants have been changed to those of suspected terrorists, so that this saves the US the trouble of killing these people. </conspiracy>

 

Anyhow, the point is we don't really know if the informants are actually at risk, even if there is enough information to implicate a specific person as an informant. In fact, editing at least some of the informants info to another person is probably a good choice rather than trying to eliminate every reference to the informant since there are so many and some may be missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but respecting the secret and top-secret designations entirely implies absolute honesty on the part of those who classify the documents, and that's simply not plausible.

 

I'd suggest a middle ground: If there's evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the government, it's ethical to leak documents that demonstrate that. However, when one does leak documents, one must be sure not to create more damage than the government's dishonesty is already causing.

 

Interesting. Perhaps if we had a third party to make the determination. Something along the lines of Heinlein's old "fair witness" concept.

 

But where's the pressing need for change? The judgment of history seems to suffice for informing the public, and even an Assange-style release comes long after the decisions are made.

 

 

Have there been any numbers on terrorists stopped before committing crimes? Sure, many alleged terrorist leaders have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they were never tried in a court of law. There's been a few groups captured and tried in the US, but only a small fraction appeared sufficiently competent and prepared to carry out an attack.

 

I'd love to see some CIA report on how well their tactics are working, but of course it'd be classified.

 

Well sure, but we can never have that level of evidence no matter how many Julian Assanges there are. We may doubt their word when they announce a new detainee at Guantanamo or when they put a crew of pathetic-looking, would-be domestic plotters on trial, but would exposing a few pieces of paper really change anything? It's the old "can't prove a negative" problem -- the only value is in a piece of paper that says the opposite of what the officials say, and even that's suspect.

 

Not that I blame you for your expression of distrust; I'm just saying there's only so much we can ever do in the end. We're always going to be pawns to some degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Perhaps if we had a third party to make the determination. Something along the lines of Heinlein's old "fair witness" concept.

 

But where's the pressing need for change? The judgment of history seems to suffice for informing the public, and even an Assange-style release comes long after the decisions are made.

How is history sufficient for informing us about what is happening right now?

 

If the government is doing something wrong and classifying it to hide their tracks, the judgment of history cannot inform the public of what is going on. An Assange-style release may come a few years after the deed, but it is still timely enough to perhaps cause changes in procedures or even prosecutions.

 

Well sure, but we can never have that level of evidence no matter how many Julian Assanges there are. We may doubt their word when they announce a new detainee at Guantanamo or when they put a crew of pathetic-looking, would-be domestic plotters on trial, but would exposing a few pieces of paper really change anything? It's the old "can't prove a negative" problem -- the only value is in a piece of paper that says the opposite of what the officials say, and even that's suspect.

This isn't really proving a negative; the CIA doesn't have to prove to me that there are no terrorist plotters. They should demonstrate that their efforts have thwarted some, by showing terrorists captured or killed, plots thwarted through additional security measures, and terrorist cells infiltrated and fed misinformation.

 

Of course, many of those details couldn't be released without compromising the operations. But I'd love to know.

 

Not that I blame you for your expression of distrust; I'm just saying there's only so much we can ever do in the end. We're always going to be pawns to some degree.

The idea is to, er, reduce the pawnage as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the government is doing something wrong and classifying it to hide their tracks, the judgment of history cannot inform the public of what is going on. An Assange-style release may come a few years after the deed, but it is still timely enough to perhaps cause changes in procedures or even prosecutions.

 

I don't know that "timeliness" is important. I don't know that such a change would be more effective than one that comes from the judgment of history, and not just more reactionary.

 

 

The idea is to, er, reduce the pawnage as much as possible.

 

Why?

 

 

 

----------------

 

Here's a great example of information that doesn't need to "be free".

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40771.html

 

The Secret Service declined to discuss any details about the President’s travel plans, which they say fall under “ways and means”—information that, if made public, could threaten the President’s safety. Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said that Obama decided to fly instead of drive to the sign factory “probably because it's easier than [taking] a motorcade through the city in the middle of the day.”

 

The right would LOVE to have a Julian Assange-like figure get their hands on the Secret Service's travel plans and pass them along to "the people". Moderates would trumpet the high cost of shuttling the president around to Democratic Party fundraisers. Extremists and terrorist would go a lot farther.

 

And when the president's helicopter ends up lying in a burning ruin, I'm thinking the person who revealed that data would not be anybody's hero just because his motivation was that "information wants to be free" or because he wanted people to pay more attention to the administration's economic policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that "timeliness" is important. I don't know that such a change would be more effective than one that comes from the judgment of history, and not just more reactionary.

The judgment of history doesn't benefit from knowing secret things.

 

Look, a leak about Afghanistan while we're in the war can reveal bad things about it. Suppose it turns out in some of the documents that we have committed terrible atrocities and stolen money from Afghanistan. The public approval of the war would drop. We'd demand withdrawal. In the next election, a president who based his platform on getting out of all our wars would have a better chance of winning.

 

Why?

Because the entire idea of a representative government is to not be pawns of the leaders?

 

The right would LOVE to have a Julian Assange-like figure get their hands on the Secret Service's travel plans and pass them along to "the people". Moderates would trumpet the high cost of shuttling the president around to Democratic Party fundraisers. Extremists and terrorist would go a lot farther.

 

And when the president's helicopter ends up lying in a burning ruin, I'm thinking the person who revealed that data would not be anybody's hero just because his motivation was that "information wants to be free" or because he wanted people to pay more attention to the administration's economic policies.

Wikileaks is not about mundane secret information:

 

WikiLeaks helps every government official, every bureaucrat, and every corporate worker, who becomes privy to embarrassing information that the institution wants to hide but the public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, WikiLeaks can broadcast to the world.

 

From their About page.

 

Assange has already stated that he has a harm-minimization policy to prevent something like, say, the President's travel plans being leaked. In any case, if you want to trumpet the costs, just leak the Secret Service's budget.

 

But this example isn't really relevant; remember my criteria:

 

I'd suggest a middle ground: If there's evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the government, it's ethical to leak documents that demonstrate that. However, when one does leak documents, one must be sure not to create more damage than the government's dishonesty is already causing.

 

It clearly does not fit the criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, a leak about Afghanistan while we're in the war can reveal bad things about it. Suppose it turns out in some of the documents that we have committed terrible atrocities and stolen money from Afghanistan. The public approval of the war would drop. We'd demand withdrawal. In the next election, a president who based his platform on getting out of all our wars would have a better chance of winning.

 

Sure, I'm just unclear why this danger makes it necessary to no longer allow secrets (because anyone with an agenda of any kind will immediately reveal them), given the additional costs that that carries with it (like not being able to conduct ANY modern war very effectively, even when we have an honest government).

 

 

Because the entire idea of a representative government is to not be pawns of the leaders?

 

Is it? I thought the idea of a representative government was to accept a certain degree of "pawnness" in exchange for not having to participate in every single decision that's made.

 

Isn't the conducting of a war one of those decisions that we don't want every single citizen involved in? Aren't the reasons for this obvious?

 

It does not seem necessary or desirable to me to eliminate pawnage (good term).

 

 

Assange has already stated that he has a harm-minimization policy to prevent something like, say, the President's travel plans being leaked. In any case, if you want to trumpet the costs, just leak the Secret Service's budget.

 

And you trust him in spite of this glaring mistake because you like his ideology better than some right-winger with a hard-on about socialism instead of war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, a leak about Afghanistan while we're in the war can reveal bad things about it. Suppose it turns out in some of the documents that we have committed terrible atrocities and stolen money from Afghanistan. The public approval of the war would drop. We'd demand withdrawal. In the next election, a president who based his platform on getting out of all our wars would have a better chance of winning.

 

<Devil's Advocate> You're making his point for him. That's "reactionary". Suppose for a second we actually agree that the Iraq war is noble and necessary, say, we're literally freeing millions from concentration labor camps. This disproportionate, thoughtless reactionary exercise will have undermined that greater good. Atrocities and stolen money don't indict the cause of the war effort, yet that's the effect. </Devil's Advocate>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's "reactionary". Suppose for a second we actually agree that the Iraq war is noble and necessary, say, we're literally freeing millions from concentration labor camps. This disproportionate, thoughtless reactionary exercise will have undermined that greater good. Atrocities and stolen money don't indict the cause of the war effort, yet that's the effect.

 

Well put, and whether one agrees with it or not, there is a demonstrable greater good to continuing the war in Afghanistan. In fact there are probably several, ranging from women's advocacy to drug addiction to poverty. I have no doubt whatsoever that if we had not invaded Afghanistan during the Bush administration then the far left today would be pressuring President Obama to do something about the Taliban, and Julian Assange would be releasing documents that "reveal" how much the past two administrations "really knew" about "what's going on over there".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I'm just unclear why this danger makes it necessary to no longer allow secrets (because anyone with an agenda of any kind will immediately reveal them), given the additional costs that that carries with it (like not being able to conduct ANY modern war very effectively, even when we have an honest government).

You're misrepresenting me. The "bad" secrets are ones that cover up government wrongdoing, such as violations of international law or corruption. Secrets about things you merely disagree with -- "they should never have given him a contract! He has such a rascally beard!" -- don't count.

 

Is it? I thought the idea of a representative government was to accept a certain degree of "pawnness" in exchange for not having to participate in every single decision that's made.

 

Isn't the conducting of a war one of those decisions that we don't want every single citizen involved in? Aren't the reasons for this obvious?

 

It does not seem necessary or desirable to me to eliminate pawnage (good term).

Better than letting the pawnage increase unchecked.

 

And you trust him in spite of this glaring mistake because you like his ideology better than some right-winger with a hard-on about socialism instead of war?

If a right-winger discovers an evil government plot to create a socialist world government, I wouldn't mind that being leaked either.

 

<Devil's Advocate> You're making his point for him. That's "reactionary". Suppose for a second we actually agree that the Iraq war is noble and necessary, say, we're literally freeing millions from concentration labor camps. This disproportionate, thoughtless reactionary exercise will have undermined that greater good. Atrocities and stolen money don't indict the cause of the war effort, yet that's the effect. </Devil's Advocate>

The appropriate reaction to atrocities and stolen money is to demand an end to atrocities and stolen money, rather than demanding an end to the good as well.

 

Perhaps my example was poor. If there were systematic problems in Afghanistan -- routine civilian casualties, rampant corruption from US contracts, etc. -- the right thing would be to leave. If it were found that, say, one US unit had committed a major crime and covered it up, then the correct reaction is to deal with that unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I'm just unclear why this danger makes it necessary to no longer allow secrets (because anyone with an agenda of any kind will immediately reveal them), given the additional costs that that carries with it (like not being able to conduct ANY modern war very effectively, even when we have an honest government).

 

If the government is honest, then they can afford to be open (after a delay, and with some redactions, obviously).

 

And you trust him in spite of this glaring mistake because you like his ideology better than some right-winger with a hard-on about socialism instead of war?

 

What is this glaring mistake? The alleged dangerous data that the leak presumably contains?

 

from WL:

 

We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from the total archive as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source. After further review, these reports will be released, with occasional redactions, and eventually in full, as the security situation in Afghanistan permits.

 

So... they obviously checked through well-enough to find some 15,000 documents that aren't suitable for release right now. Why assume that they made a mistake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A video interview by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox Business News blows this scandal wide open. When asked by Judge Napolitano why he should not be held responsible for potential deaths caused by the leak, Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, answered that he contacted the White House about the leaks before they were released and asked them to review them.

 

The White House’s response? Nada.

 

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/tag/wikileaks/

 

With all due respect to the office of President or it's current holder, the Administration or members of it, likely guilty parties in much of what's been going on by the executive today and should be question. I'll go out on the limb here and suggest (not knowing exactly whom) 'Assange' DID contact someone and that "whom" or his/her superior, even if the President himself, made the decision to ignore the request. Before asked, YES I would take Assange's accusation/comment, over what in my opinion is currently a dysfunctional Administration/Federal Government, today.

 

Rather than start a new thread, will place on this one...for now.

 

I would not be surprised to find that the WH could not make any response or recommendation. The documents are classified. How can the government tell anyone it's OK to release any of them? Surely Julian Assange was aware that the documents were classified, and what that means.

 

 

I've always wondered what the antonym is to "hates war"? Are their people out there, in any large numbers, that actually "love war" or would refuse to negotiate a settlement.

 

 

True. And as a corollary somewhat relevant to this discussion, a "more transparent/open government" is not one with no secrets or classified documents whatsoever. The position (attributed to Assange) that there should be no secrets whatsoever is, to me, incredibly naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be surprised to find that the WH could not make any response or recommendation. The documents are classified. How can the government tell anyone it's OK to release any of them? Surely Julian Assange was aware that the documents were classified, and what that means.[/Quote]

 

swansont; Well the "WH" did respond to an apparent set up to release additional leaks, saying they want all classified material returned and not posted. However I'm serious, when mentioning a "dysfunctional administration". I'm totally lost where to place the cause, Obama off campaigning, fund raising, playing golf or whatever and may not be being advised of everything going on, people in the administration that should have been dismissed or never confirmed, people leaving for no apparent reason, people saying they have contacted that WH, without getting a response from anyone and themselves VIP or just the directional attitude of the WH, being the end all of all things important.

 

True. And as a corollary somewhat relevant to this discussion, a "more transparent/open government" is not one with no secrets or classified documents whatsoever. The position (attributed to Assange) that there should be no secrets whatsoever is, to me, incredibly naive. [/Quote]

 

I hope you aren't expecting an argument from me on this. I do think Assange, is being used as a escape goat on this and there is more than one young solder involved, in all those original leaks. Since I don't believe the US Military is dysfunctional, certainly hope not, then it's coming from inside the Federal Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "bad" secrets are ones that cover up government wrongdoing, such as violations of international law or corruption. Secrets about things you merely disagree with -- "they should never have given him a contract! He has such a rascally beard!" -- don't count.

 

Sure, but the example I gave earlier was that a right-winger might object to the way the economy is being run -- hardly a trivial example.

 

 

It does not seem necessary or desirable to me to eliminate pawnage (good term).
Better than letting the pawnage increase unchecked.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

 

What is this glaring mistake? The alleged dangerous data that the leak presumably contains?

 

It's been widely reported that there are names in the documents. The only thing we don't know yet is whether those individuals are in danger, safe, already dead, etc. But obviously if we don't know then Julian Assange doesn't know either, so he obviously either he considered the release of these documents to be more important than protecting their identities, or he simply made a mistake.

 

A mistake is not acceptable because this is not his job, and in fact he's specifically barred from this job (by every single country in the world) because of the danger that he might make exactly this sort of mistake.

 

 

However I'm serious, when mentioning a "dysfunctional administration". I'm totally lost where to place the cause, Obama off campaigning, fund raising, playing golf or whatever and may not be being advised of everything going on, people in the administration that should have been dismissed or never confirmed, people leaving for no apparent reason, people saying they have contacted that WH, without getting a response from anyone and themselves VIP or just the directional attitude of the WH, being the end all of all things important.

 

(sigh) Come on, Jackson, you thought the administration was dysfunctional before it even took office. You'd think he was playing too much golf if he even looked at a club, and you'd think he was ill-advised if aliens from Alpha Centauri landed and handed him a copy of Encyclopedia Galactica. Be fair, man. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pangloss, being somewhat involved during campaigning and opposed to Obama, both against Clinton, then McCain, to a degree you might be correct, at least to the potential.

 

In a now off line (gone/disappeared???), Conservative Forum I wrote a longer piece on what would be, indicating this chaos (opinion) or what could be and very favorable to Obama. I think I've indicated it here on a thread or two, but Obama simply by winning the election and having been Internationally accepted could have done wonders for the not only race/ethnic/religious relations around the World or in the US, but could had been given credit for turning an economy, I honestly believe should have turned early in 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be surprised to find that the WH could not make any response or recommendation. The documents are classified. How can the government tell anyone it's OK to release any of them? Surely Julian Assange was aware that the documents were classified, and what that means.

 

The government can't say it's OK to release any of the classified documents, as you say. I suppose it could declassify the less dangerous ones if it really wanted to, but that would probably be a process that would take too long to do. What it could however do, is specify which of the documents would endanger an individual were they to be released, and ask nicely that those in particular not be released. Or, it could say don't release any to force Assange to do his best at checking, delaying his release and then trying to blame him when he inevitably misses something, so they can decry leakers as unethical.

 

True. And as a corollary somewhat relevant to this discussion, a "more transparent/open government" is not one with no secrets or classified documents whatsoever. The position (attributed to Assange) that there should be no secrets whatsoever is, to me, incredibly naive.

 

As you say, it is a position attributed to Assange. However it is doubtful that he himself holds that opinion. For example, I doubt he would be willing to release the schematics for our most advanced airplanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government can't say it's OK to release any of the classified documents, as you say. I suppose it could declassify the less dangerous ones if it really wanted to, but that would probably be a process that would take too long to do. What it could however do, is specify which of the documents would endanger an individual were they to be released, and ask nicely that those in particular not be released. Or, it could say don't release any to force Assange to do his best at checking, delaying his release and then trying to blame him when he inevitably misses something, so they can decry leakers as unethical.

 

 

I see no reason why the White House would want to declassify any of the documents even if it could. It would be a bad precedent, and would also look bad (take your pick for the more important motivation). Security people would almost certainly take the position that releasing any classified information endangers people, and that the leakers are by definition unethical, as they no doubt signed a binding agreement not to disclose classified information.

 

 

swansont; Well the "WH" did respond to an apparent set up to release additional leaks, saying they want all classified material returned and not posted. However I'm serious, when mentioning a "dysfunctional administration". I'm totally lost where to place the cause, Obama off campaigning, fund raising, playing golf or whatever and may not be being advised of everything going on, people in the administration that should have been dismissed or never confirmed, people leaving for no apparent reason, people saying they have contacted that WH, without getting a response from anyone and themselves VIP or just the directional attitude of the WH, being the end all of all things important.

 

 

Your suspicions aside, not responding does not constitute evidence of it, IMO. Would any WH have responded, other than to tell Wikileaks to pound sand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

swansont; It's my suspicions, that drive my opinions. They tell me, for some unknown reason, some in the administration, if informed, decided to ignore, not respond, thinking international and US opinions might be favorable to themselves...

 

Having said that; YES, in my opinion most every previous administration, likely on many issues this one, anything seen as adverse to the goals or agenda of Government/Country, WILL be addressed. We would never know of it and frankly the populace has no need to know of anything concerned with National Security, Diplomatic Relations or a number of issues. Our representatives (Congress) and the Executives (administrators) are chose to do this for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

swansont; It's my suspicions, that drive my opinions. They tell me, for some unknown reason, some in the administration, if informed, decided to ignore, not respond, thinking international and US opinions might be favorable to themselves...

 

Having said that; YES, in my opinion most every previous administration, likely on many issues this one, anything seen as adverse to the goals or agenda of Government/Country, WILL be addressed. We would never know of it and frankly the populace has no need to know of anything concerned with National Security, Diplomatic Relations or a number of issues. Our representatives (Congress) and the Executives (administrators) are chose to do this for us.

 

I'm curious. Which administrations do you think would have said it's OK to publish some of the classified documents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been widely reported that there are names in the documents. The only thing we don't know yet is whether those individuals are in danger, safe, already dead, etc. But obviously if we don't know then Julian Assange doesn't know either, so he obviously either he considered the release of these documents to be more important than protecting their identities, or he simply made a mistake.

 

See, this is what I meant when I said maybe we should actually wait to see whether anyone actually dies before condemning him. We don't know that anyone's at risk, and we don't know whether Assuage does or doesn't.

 

A mistake is not acceptable because this is not his job, and in fact he's specifically barred from this job (by every single country in the world) because of the danger that he might make exactly this sort of mistake.

 

Again, I think this falls under "if the government want it done safely, then the government should do it".

 

Otherwize, we're left with no-one doing it and us not knowing what's going on.

 

tbh, I think that to agree with you i'd either have to accept that the government safely being more open isn't an option (which I don't), or that if the government don't want to be open then we have to just accept that, and no-one should force transparency upon them (which I also don't accept).

 

Basically, I'm happy to see this done over and over again until our governments learn that it's going to get out anyway so they may as well release it themselves, even if some people die in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.