Wikileaks to release more info

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't. I have a problem with a person (Assenge) or an organization (Wikileaks and the news organizations that have worked with it) that elects itself as the arbiter, without any check, of what classified documents should be made public.

Let me clarify, I do not think it's OK that someone leaked/hacked this confidential information. I just meant I think some of the contents are amusing, and that in regards to some of the info, it seems counterproductive to me that it was ever kept secret instead of the associated parties discussing their feelings publicly.

[pshsx1]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't. I have a problem with a person (Assenge) or an organization (Wikileaks and the news organizations that have worked with it) that elects itself as the arbiter, without any check, of what classified documents should be made public.

But hey, at least Wikileaks is busy enough with all this that maybe it's not posting certain other esoteric/secret information anymore.

This.

[Tulip86]

The Netherlands is in uproar, because according to the leaked files, the U.S. is storing Nuclear Weapons here. And there's is a very anti- nuclear weapons stance here.
People are going to get fired over this.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Tulip86

The Netherlands is in uproar, because according to the leaked files, the U.S. is storing Nuclear Weapons here. And there's is a very anti- nuclear weapons stance here.
People are going to get fired over this.

The U.S. has nukes all over the world. I haven't looked it up, but I'm guessing Russia does, too. And I'm sure the countries who house them know about it and are getting something for it.

ETA: I didn't realize NATO encourages "nuclear sharing." Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

"Nuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which involves member countries without nuclear weapons of their own in the planning for the use of nuclear weapons by NATO, and in particular provides for the armed forces of these countries to be involved in delivering these weapons in the event of their use.

As part of nuclear sharing, the participating countries carry out consultations and take common decisions on nuclear weapons policy, maintain technical equipment required for the use of nuclear weapons (including warplanes capable of delivering them), and store nuclear weapons on their territory.

Of the three nuclear powers in NATO (France, the United Kingdom and United States) only the United States has provided weapons for nuclear sharing. As of 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are still hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy.[1][2] Canada hosted weapons until 1984,[3] and Greece until 2001.[1][4] The United Kingdom also received U.S. tactical nuclear weapons such as nuclear artillery and Lance missiles until 1992, despite the UK being a nuclear weapons state in its own right; these were mainly deployed in Germany.

In peace time, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by U.S. soldiers; the codes required for detonating them are under U.S. control. In case of war, the weapons are to be mounted on the participating countries' warplanes. The weapons are under custody and control of USAF Munitions Support Squadrons co-located on NATO main operating bases who work together with the host nation forces.[1]"

Soooooo, yeah, this has been public knowledge for a while.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Hey MC, do you know if Wikileaks can be prosecuted for releasing classified data?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I agree. The hypocritical part is that Assenge is conveniently unable to be located.



If only occupying their time was so easy. They are probably excellent multitaskers.

Assange just spent a ton of time with the "we're charging you with rape, no we're not, well maybe we are, no nevermind" thing. Although last news states that he is now wanted by Interpol for the Swedish rape charges. Although he's supposedly in London. I'm not sure about these charges, it's entirely possible that the accusers were serious, they recanted for fear of publicity or the prosecutors waffled, but the way it's been handled is very strange.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Yeah, but they're posting so many government documents, I'm hoping they decide they don't have space for documents related to . . . say . . . non-political organizations for college students and alumni.

If they had them, they'd probably post them. The fact that they don't go looking for them is really the only reason they're not all up there.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Hey MC, do you know if Wikileaks can be prosecuted for releasing classified data?

Without being a lawyer, the fact that the creator of the site and the site's servers are not in the US would make a huge difference.

[Psi U MC Vito]

IDK. Why I was asking MC, but I would think that the law when it comes to classified information isn't limited to the USA.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

IDK. Why I was asking MC, but I would think that the law when it comes to classified information isn't limited to the USA.

Oh yeah, I understand, I'd like to hear from him on it too. I'm just basing my thoughts on what I've read. Since Assange portrays himself as a journalist and the government doesn't like to prosecute journalists for publishing what is leaked to them, I think it's unlikely they'll do much. Since they were American files leaked by an American to him, I don't know if other countries' laws would apply or not. *waits on MC*

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Hey MC, do you know if Wikileaks can be prosecuted for releasing classified data?

My understanding is that it would be very difficult, but that USDOJ is looking into it carefully.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If they had them, they'd probably post them. The fact that they don't go looking for them is really the only reason they're not all up there.

They do have them and they have posted them -- quite a few of them. They have heard from some inter/national HQs about it and received letters from lawyers on behalf of GLOs about it. But when I checked recently, they did not seem to be available anymore -- hence my hope that all these leaks of classified documents have them devoting their time and/or server space to other things.

[Ghostwriter]

How about we kidnap his sorry butt and throw him in Guantanamo for the time being? I know this is a knee jerk reaction but the poison pill threat has ticked me off.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12...nce-file-shut/

Bradley Manning may be in a world of do do. He could be up on a treason charge and I wouldn't have a problem with them lining him up and shooting him if he is found guilty.

[starang21]

someone needs to leak his location.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wik...ex.html?hpt=T1

[Kevin]

I'm perfectly alright with WikiLeaks. The guy deserves a Nobel Prize.

[Alumiyum]

Leaking confidential information can put some people and even the actual government in a vulnerable position. As far as I'm concerened, there are some things the government should absolutely keep confidential, and as citizens we should accept that. They should be more discerning in what they "leak" (and if the government should be more discerning about who has access to certain information).

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

Leaking confidential information can put some people and even the actual government in a vulnerable position. As far as I'm concerened, there are some things the government should absolutely keep confidential, and as citizens we should accept that.

I think this is very well said - and I'd say it's even self-evident, although others would disagree with me.

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. Whether the "poison pill" does that or not obviously remains to be seen, but as of now, most of the information seems like stuff that it would be convenient to have secret, and not anything that would be required to prevent injury or etc. For me, convenience isn't good enough - and might actually be a hindrance to overall safety.

For example - the lists of key locations, entities, etc.? I mean, obviously we don't want major communications hubs or underwater pipelines being destroyed by terrorists, but if our best efforts to keep those areas safe were "hope the enemy doesn't know/figure out the importance!" then the areas were never truly safe to begin with.

In that way, and somewhat in accordance with Kevin and what I discussed before, this might actually be a good thing, in a perverse way.

[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.