• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

Agent Ferris said:
So then wikileaks doesn't bear the responsibility of shifting through the information and only releasing that which would not threaten the lives of Coalition forces and Afghan allies? If they have the right to publish classified material then they have the responsibility to make sure that the material in question doesn't endanger peoples lives, but no they don't assume any responsibility they just take huge loads of intelligence and dump them on the internet without going through them first. That is why an arrest warrant needs to be put out for this ****ing douchebag not because he released classified information but because he put lives in danger because his organization refused to conduct rigorous investigation into the material provided.
Click to expand...

Agent Ferris said:
And WTF does this have to do with releasing the names of Afghan allies? If wikileaks had gone through a rigorous analysis of the data provided they could have kept information that endangered lives from getting to the public, but no they assumed no responsibility for the material and just took it all and dumped it on the internet. They are at the very least guilty of gross negligent endangerment and criminal negligence and if I was one of the names listed in the documents I would sue them for every penny that they have.
Click to expand...

Yea he should of redacted the names of people who could be physically hurt.
He's doing that now with the rest of the 15000 documents.
The damage is already done to some degree.


The fact is that these people already put themselves in danger by becoming informants.

Should we also put the people who possibly lied to us in jail?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No.
They were asking for it, making so much information "secret" and then they left their systems wide open for any informant to take it.

If the army, etc, knows that more eyeballs will be on their actions, that people won't accept the some of the bs stories they've been letting fly the potential for them to be more discriminating with potential targets.

You can't prove that it will save anyone but the potential exists.
Click to expand...


Nope, uh uh, sorry. That doesn't fly. Secrecy during combat is a cornerstone of winning. You can not win anything if all of your information is out there for everyone to see. You talk of the military being more discriminating in who gets killed, that is the total BS line that the anti war goofs have been spouting for ever. It's problem is that every death in a war they attribute to the military's existence. Never once have I seen an honest accounting from these people on who killed who, and their answer is usually when the enemy kills civilians that it is still our fault for being there. It is total crap!


j-mac
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea he should of redacted the names of people who could be physically hurt.
He's doing that now with the rest of the 15000 documents.
The damage is already done to some degree.
Click to expand...

To little to late.

The fact is that these people already put themselves in danger by becoming informants.
Click to expand...

On the condition of anonymity, it is his organization and the man leaking the files who put them in danger through his criminal negligence, he assumes criminal and civil liability and they can sue him for every penny he is worth. Even if they are not killed their lives have been so substantially altered by the release of their names that the damages awarded would be well into the millions of dollars/Euros, and if they are killed or injured he not only faces civil liability claims but criminal liability and prosecution as well.

Should we also put the people who possibly lied to us in jail?
Click to expand...

Lying is only a crime if they were under oath.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea he should of redacted the names of people who could be physically hurt.
He's doing that now with the rest of the 15000 documents.
The damage is already done to some degree.


The fact is that these people already put themselves in danger by becoming informants.

Should we also put the people who possibly lied to us in jail?
Click to expand...


Blaming the victim.....


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Nope, uh uh, sorry. That doesn't fly. Secrecy during combat is a cornerstone of winning. You can not win anything if all of your information is out there for everyone to see. You talk of the military being more discriminating in who gets killed, that is the total BS line that the anti war goofs have been spouting for ever. It's problem is that every death in a war they attribute to the military's existence. Never once have I seen an honest accounting from these people on who killed who, and their answer is usually when the enemy kills civilians that it is still our fault for being there. It is total crap!


j-mac
Click to expand...

I don't think being there will yield any positive outcome.
Wasted tax dollars and a lot of dead people.

The country is still heavily disheveled, corrupt and there is the potential that after we leave a dictatorship or the Taliban will arise.

You can't make people want to be freer.


Agent Ferris said:
On the condition of anonymity, it is his organization and the man leaking the files who put them in danger through his criminal negligent endangerment.
Click to expand...

You can't turn back time and punishing him without punishing official who lie to us would be inconsistent, in my view.

Agent Ferris said:
Lying is only a crime if they were under oath.
Click to expand...

I guess my ethics are higher than those who run the show.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You can't turn back time and punishing him without punishing official who lie to us would be inconsistent, in my view.
Click to expand...

One has nothing to do with the other, through his criminal negligence he has put these peoples lives in danger, for that he assumes criminal and civil liability and they can sue him for every penny he is worth. Even if they are not killed their lives have been so substantially altered by the release of their names that the damages awarded would be well into the millions of dollars/Euros, and if they are killed or injured he not only faces civil liability claims but criminal liability and prosecution as well.


I guess my ethics are higher than those who run the show.
Click to expand...

You would arrest people for lying?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea he should of redacted the names of people who could be physically hurt.
He's doing that now with the rest of the 15000 documents.
The damage is already done to some degree.


The fact is that these people already put themselves in danger by becoming informants.

Should we also put the people who possibly lied to us in jail?
Click to expand...

And they chose that risk for whatever reason. However, they have just had that risk increased dramatically, through no fault of their own. This is not just a risk to them, it is a risk to their family, their friends, and any one close to them. It is also now going to be harder to recruit more people in Afghanistan, and that makes the mission harder and more risky for our soldiers over there.
 
The release is irresponsible and simply opportunistic. This guy is simply getting huge publicity for his site and is no different than Robert Novak revealing the identity of Valerie Plame. It is what reporters do. I wonder where the hatred is for the military official that leaked the information to this scavanger anyway.
 
Agent Ferris said:
One has nothing to do with the other, through his criminal negligence he has put these peoples lives in danger, for that he assumes criminal and civil liability and they can sue him for every penny he is worth. Even if they are not killed their lives have been so substantially altered by the release of their names that the damages awarded would be well into the millions of dollars/Euros, and if they are killed or injured he not only faces civil liability claims but criminal liability and prosecution as well.
Click to expand...

So be it, if he does.
He took the risk.


Agent Ferris said:
You would arrest people for lying?
Click to expand...

When they operate in an official position of the U.S. government, they are there to protect us and are our representatives to the world.

So yea, when they are acting as an official yep.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You engage in military actions, you are no longer a victim.
Click to expand...

A) The war was a response to the murder of 3,000 of our citizenry by an organization which was part and parcel to the Taliban government.

B) Many of these people have aided the Coalition precisely because they have been the victims of Taliban violence and oppression and now you say that this POS shouldn't bear criminal and civil liability for needlessly putting their lives in danger when rigorous investigation of the source material prior to its release could have easily prevented it?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
When they operate in an official position of the U.S. government, they are there to protect us and are our representatives to the world.

So yea, when they are acting as an official yep.
Click to expand...

Arresting officials of the government for lying? Well I guess Obama and every member of Congress should pack their bags. :roll:
 
Redress said:
And they chose that risk for whatever reason. However, they have just had that risk increased dramatically, through no fault of their own. This is not just a risk to them, it is a risk to their family, their friends, and any one close to them. It is also now going to be harder to recruit more people in Afghanistan, and that makes the mission harder and more risky for our soldiers over there.
Click to expand...

Its a to part problem.
Yes he should of redacted the names, I'll admit that.
I think he got caught in the find and didn't think it through.

However, those people should of well understood that cooperating with what is the enemy, to many people, may bring disastrous results to their lives.

What about the military itself, they share in the responsibility of not securing their data.

I honestly don't think we should be there in the first place, it's totally non productive but I guess that's another issue.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't think being there will yield any positive outcome.
Wasted tax dollars and a lot of dead people.

The country is still heavily disheveled, corrupt and there is the potential that after we leave a dictatorship or the Taliban will arise.

You can't make people want to be freer.
Click to expand...


But I thought that Obama said that Afghanistan was the right war? I am certainly not for nation building but we had to do something after 9/11 right? What would you have? A strongly worded letter?


You engage in military actions, you are no longer a victim.
Click to expand...


So the people that help the US military deserve to be killed? Is that your position?


j-mac
 
Agent Ferris said:
A) The war was a response to the murder of 3,000 of our citizenry by an organization which was part and parcel to the Taliban government.
Click to expand...

Yep destroy the ****ing place and get out.
Don't try to play nice, nice.


Agent Ferris said:
B) Many of these people have aided the Coalition precisely because they have been the victims of Taliban violence and oppression and now you say that this POS shouldn't bear criminal and civil liability for needlessly putting their lives in danger when rigorous investigation of the source material prior to its release could have easily prevented it?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that.

Agent Ferris said:
Arresting officials of the government for lying? Well I guess Obama and every member of Congress should pack their bags. :roll:
Click to expand...

It's an ideal man, I usually argue in favor of ideals.
Yes I'd love to see their asses tossed in jail for misleading the people they are supposed to represent.

If a financial expert does it to his client, it's called fraud.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Its a to part problem.
Yes he should of redacted the names, I'll admit that.
I think he got caught in the find and didn't think it through.
Click to expand...

Which is why he is guilty of criminal negligence and reckless endangerment.

However, those people should of well understood that cooperating with what is the enemy, to many people, may bring disastrous results to their lives.
Click to expand...

They cooperated on the condition of anonymity.

What about the military itself, they share in the responsibility of not securing their data.
Click to expand...

The military is not resposible for the criminal actions of one of its members. That's like trying to blame Coca Cola for one of their employees leaking their secret formula.
 
j-mac said:
But I thought that Obama said that Afghanistan was the right war?
Click to expand...

What the hell does Obama have to do with any of this.
I don't even like the guy.

j-mac said:
I am certainly not for nation building but we had to do something after 9/11 right? What would you have? A strongly worded letter?
Click to expand...

Blow them up, specifically the Taliban government facilities.


j-mac said:
So the people that help the US military deserve to be killed? Is that your position?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Didn't say that but they took the risk.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yep destroy the ****ing place and get out.
Don't try to play nice, nice.
Click to expand...

And that would solve absolutely nothing, you destroy the place, leave the place, and the place is still a safe haven for terrorist organzations.


I didn't say that.
Click to expand...

So then you think he should be prosecuted and sued?

It's an ideal man, I usually argue in favor of ideals.
Yes I'd love to see their asses tossed in jail for misleading the people they are supposed to represent.

If a financial expert does it to his client, it's called fraud.
Click to expand...

And when a politician does it it's called opening their mouth.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
Which is why he is guilty of criminal negligence and reckless endangerment.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if he gets charged so be it.
I don't necessarily want to discourage whistle blowers and the like.

Agent Ferris said:
They cooperated on the condition of anonymity.
Click to expand...

That ain't fool proof.

Agent Ferris said:
The military is not resposible for the criminal actions of one of its members. That's like trying to blame Coca Cola for one of their employees leaking their secret formula.
Click to expand...

The military is responsible for it's data network and storage.
If you read about how the information was obtained, you'll know that the base broke protocol on data safety and security.

The guy who took it sat right in front of other people and recorded the info on disks pretending like he was listening to a Lady Gaga cd.
 
Agent Ferris said:
And that would solve absolutely nothing, you destroy the place, leave the place, and the place is still a safe haven for terrorist organzations.
Click to expand...

See Pakistan.
They are providing material support, those documents show that.
Afghanistan is small potatoes and won't stop Al Qaeda.


Agent Ferris said:
So then you think he should be prosecuted and sued?
Click to expand...

Don't care either way.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Like I said, if he gets charged so be it.
I don't necessarily want to discourage whistle blowers and the like.
Click to expand...

But yet you support actions which discourage Afghans from informing on the Taliban.

That ain't fool proof.
Click to expand...

Not when you have assholes making un-researched and redacted mass intelligence dumps on the internet.

The military is responsible for it's data network and storage.
If you read about how the information was obtained, you'll know that the base broke protocol on data safety and security.

The guy who took it sat right in front of other people and recorded the info on disks pretending like he was listening to a Lady Gaga cd.
Click to expand...

But it is the individuals who intentionally broke the law who are criminally negligent.
 
Agent Ferris said:
But yet you support actions which discourage Afghans from informing on the Taliban.
Click to expand...

No I don't.
I just prefer transparency in government.

Agent Ferris said:
Not when you have assholes making un-researched and redacted mass intelligence dumps on the internet.
Click to expand...

Do you expect people to perfectly good?
We wouldn't be in Afghanistan if that were true.
I can't stop the guy from doing stuff like that and he may not get in trouble for being sloppy with his data dump.

Agent Ferris said:
But it is the individuals who intentionally broke the law who are criminally negligent.
Click to expand...

Probably, that doesn't excuse the military for security protocol laziness.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Like I said, if he gets charged so be it.
I don't necessarily want to discourage whistle blowers and the like.
Click to expand...


Whistleblowers? :shock: This guy [Bradley Manning] was anything but, he is just another liberal activist that was in a position in the army that he shouldn't have been in.

In an apparent swipe at the army, he also wrote: "Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment," and quoted a joke about "military intelligence" being an oxymoron.

snip

Pictures on Mr Manning's Facebook page include photos of him on school trips during his time in Wales and at a gay rights rally, where he is holding up a placard demanding equality on "the battlefield".

snip

His tagline on his personal page reads: "Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!"

Bradley Manning, suspected source of Wikileaks documents, raged on his Facebook page - Telegraph
Click to expand...


This guy is far from any "whistleblower" supposedly doing the 'right thing' here. He is a disgruntled gay activist that was in a position to have access to damaging information, and because of his own weakness, we see what happens.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Whistleblowers? :shock: This guy [Bradley Manning] was anything but, he is just another liberal activist that was in a position in the army that he shouldn't have been in.

This guy is far from any "whistleblower" supposedly doing the 'right thing' here. He is a disgruntled gay activist that was in a position to have access to damaging information, and because of his own weakness, we see what happens.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I don't care about his sexual or political identity.
That is irrelevant.

I admit that I take a bad position on this but I don't think it's wise, to classify large swaths of information as secret.
It's contradictory to the idea of free country.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I admit that I take a bad position on this but I don't think it's wise, to classify large swaths of information as secret.
It's contradictory to the idea of free country.
Click to expand...

That's the sinch of it for me too... I think classification is being abused to keep the public in the dark on way too much. Government has almost completely become its own autonomous entity that is answerable to no one. The general public is just for fundraising, but we don't get a say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom