Wikileaks to release more info

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As usual, the military/state Dept. are not people of their word.

Hypergeneralize much? I'll admit it: When I see a statement like this, I assume the speaker is speaking from significant bias, not facts, and is therefore not worth paying attention to.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

However, up to this point, I haven't seen anything that would actually rise to the level of putting people or the US as a whole in danger.

This may well be true, so far at least. My problem is that I have absolutely no confidence in someone like Assange making judgments about what might or might not put people at risk. At least the military and the State Department are the people who, in our system, have been given the responsibility for making the judgments, and who have (or should have) access to all information relevant to making an informed judgment.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Hypergeneralize much? I'll admit it: When I see a statement like this, I assume the speaker is speaking from significant bias, not facts, and is therefore not worth paying attention to.

Well, the statement was rhetorical rather than a statement of fact. And suggesting that the government lies to its people (and often) is something we know is a fact.

I can't imagine how we can really function as a free and Republican society if the government is not held accountable for lying to the people.

As far as the comment, it seems to be the case that back in August, one of your chief objections to the Iraq documents leak was that it would put soldiers in harm's way. It hasn't been documented to have done that yet, so wouldn't it be prudent to label the government's predictions for gore and death due to these leaks was more spin than reality?

This may well be true, so far at least. My problem is that I have absolutely no confidence in someone like Assange making judgments about what might or might not put people at risk. At least the military and the State Department are the people who, in our system, have been given the responsibility for making the judgments, and who have (or should have) access to all information relevant to making an informed judgment.

To hell with the system. If the system is not serving our interests, it's not a system worth having.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well, the statement was rhetorical rather than a statement of fact. And suggesting that the government lies to its people (and often) is something we know is a fact.

I can't imagine how we can really function as a free and Republican society if the government is not held accountable for lying to the people.

As far as the comment, it seems to be the case that back in August, one of your chief objections to the Iraq documents leak was that it would put soldiers in harm's way. It hasn't been documented to have done that yet, so wouldn't it be prudent to label the government's predictions for gore and death due to these leaks was more spin than reality?



To hell with the system. If the system is not serving our interests, it's not a system worth having.

Or it's entirely possible we haven't heard anything because the powers that be adapted to the situation and avoided any potential pit falls.

The system is absolutely serving our interests if its protecting us, and that includes sometimes withholding information.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

Or it's entirely possible we haven't heard anything because the powers that be adapted to the situation and avoided any potential pit falls.

What did they even have to adapt to? We have the cables in their entirety. Surely someone would have talked about this by now?

The system is absolutely serving our interests if its protecting us, and that includes sometimes withholding information.

What are they protecting us from? Situations created by our own foreign policy?

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What did they even have to adapt to? We have the cables in their entirety. Surely someone would have talked about this by now?



What are they protecting us from? Situations created by our own foreign policy?

I was going to write out a long response but then read both MC and ASTalumna's posts and they said what I'm thinking...so...what they said.

Except for yes, situations created by our own foreign policy. Backtracking and CYA are fine when safety is the issue.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

We have the cables in their entirety.

do we know that this is the entire extent of communications between our foreign posts? there are other documents that wikileaks weren't privy to and couldn't release.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As far as the comment, it seems to be the case that back in August, one of your chief objections to the Iraq documents leak was that it would put soldiers in harm's way.

No, my objection was that it might put soldiers (or others) in harm's way and that I do not trust someone like Assange to make the decisions about whether that outcome is likely or not or possible or not.

It hasn't been documented to have done that yet, so wouldn't it be prudent to label the government's predictions for gore and death due to these leaks was more spin than reality?

No, I don't think that's prudent. I think that's more dismissive and biased than prudent.

To hell with the system. If the system is not serving our interests, it's not a system worth having.

If we determine that the system isn't serving our interests, then we change the system. We don't, I hope, rely on vigilantes with no accountability to anyone.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As far as the comment, it seems to be the case that back in August, one of your chief objections to the Iraq documents leak was that it would put soldiers in harm's way. It hasn't been documented to have done that yet, so wouldn't it be prudent to label the government's predictions for gore and death due to these leaks was more spin than reality?

So your logic reads:

The government told us that a possible outcome was this.
This didn't happen.
Therefore, the government is full of shit.

That's like saying to a skydiver, "If you jump out of this plane, you might die."
The skydiver doesn't die.
Then he comes back bitching at you because you supposedly lied to him.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

So your logic reads:

The government told us that a possible outcome was this.
This didn't happen.
Therefore, the government is full of shit.

That's like saying to a skydiver, "If you jump out of this plane, you might die."
The skydiver doesn't die.
Then he comes back bitching at you because you supposedly lied to him.

No.. more like this:

The church told us that the Earth was flat, so that if we tried to circumnavigate it, we'd fall off the edge of the Earth.
We sailed around the Earth and it turned out to be round.
Then we came back bitching because we were supposedly lied to.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No.. more like this:

The church told us that the Earth was flat, so that if we tried to circumnavigate it, we'd fall off the edge of the Earth.
We sailed around the Earth and it turned out to be round.
Then we came back bitching because we were supposedly lied to.

You're comparing something that's physical to something that's situational. If I told you that a ball isn't round, you'd tell me I was crazy, and clearly lying. And even if you didn't know, you could do your research, find a ball and prove me wrong. But if I told you that when I throw a ball to you, you'll always catch it, that's not something I can predict, and not something that you can say with any certainty, will always happen.

Apples and oranges, dude... apples and oranges.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No.. more like this:

The church told us that the Earth was flat, so that if we tried to circumnavigate it, we'd fall off the edge of the Earth.
We sailed around the Earth and it turned out to be round.
Then we came back bitching because we were supposedly lied to.

Actually, no. Aside from the apples to oranges comparison already noted, unless the church also knows that the Earth is round, there is no lie involved. It is a mistake or ignorance (even willful ignorance), not a lie. As I remind my children, it's not a lie unless there is intent to deceive.

It's really like this:

You advise your client, who is trying to negotiate a property settlement, of the possible scenarios and risks involved in going to trial, making sure your client understands the possible worst-case outcome. Your client, against your advice, goes to trial. You do your best at trial, and your client gets a more favorable result than the settlement would have provided or than you had predicted as likely.

Did you lie to your client? Was your advice more spin than reality? Or were you doing what your client paid you to do? Only someone in the the-only-good-lawyer-is-a-dead-lawyer camp would say it was "prudent" to label your advice as more spin than reality, or as lies.