• 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!

U.S. nervously awaits next WikiLeaks

RightinNYC said:
In my book, real world consequences are more important than distorted versions of theoretical goals like "increased transparency".
Click to expand...

And wikileaks is one of the real world consequences you get when you have a secretive government.
 
Any Americans involved in this website should be hanged, and any foreign spies that participate in the website should be assassinated as such.

No government should tolerate such brazen, shameless espionage of this sort.
 
Laila said:
If it leads to it, no.

Turkey is gradually becoming more hard lined for many reasons, the population are becoming, thank god more practising Muslims and the side effect is Conservatism. Wouldn't surprise me if religion takes a hold in Turkey over secularism
Click to expand...


That's why your earlier quote of "I don't blame Turkey for pulling away from the Western Axis and moving East if all these allegations are true" might be a good thing.

The alternative of Conservative Muslims officially in the EU would not appear to be a positive for European stability.

It seems they might belong more in the East, and kept at a safe distance.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And wikileaks is one of the real world consequences you get when you have a secretive government.
Click to expand...

Yes, because when I think of secretive governments that deserve to have their misdeeds exposed, I don't think of North Korea, Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia. I don't think of China, Russia, Venezuela, or Cuba. I don't think of Chad, Somalia, the Sudan or Burundi. I think of America, the UK and their allies.

If wikileaks actually gave a **** about improving transparency for the sake of transparency, it would be focusing its energies on other places. It's focusing on America because it's run by a bunch of filthy ****ing hippies who are opposed to the wars in the middle east and get hard at the thought of embarrassing America.
 
Ben K. said:
I would say it's a perfectly logical statement. It's the government in the end, they usually do things stupidly and inefficiently and they like to hide it where they can.
Click to expand...

When you're using the word "usually" you are implying that you have knowledge over every secret (or at least the majority of secrets) that the government keeps from the world public's eyes. Thus you too do not need to rely on what you know, on facts you are aware of, for your opinions to be held, just like Kal'Stang above did not need to rely on facts he is aware of, on what he knows to be true, for his belief about the US government to be held.

Kal'Stang said:
And it is also ignorant and absurd to think that the government doesn't keep secrets that the public should have known about from the get go.
Click to expand...

Never said anything like that so your comment is irrelevent to this discussion. Unless you've tried engaging in a straw man argument, and then it's not only irrelevant but is also inherently misleading.

I've already given a couple of examples of such. While you did address one I notice that you did not answer the other. HCR closed doors. I'll get to the other below where you addressed it.
Click to expand...

I have no wish to address your examples as I am speaking generally here.
Generally what the Wikileaks organization engages in, its "revelations" and its exposure of intel, is revolving the actions of the state's military, the US government specifically.

If your enemy is involved then it is about things that the military needs to be involved in. In which case, yeah sure, keep it secret. But there is no valid reason to keep things like trade agreement talks secret. Or negotiations with your enemy secret.
Click to expand...

And once more, thus you're saying that you do not support Wikileaks and its founder who deliberately exposes secret military intel.

There is a time limit on when military secrets should be kept secret. I've already listed such things but here they are again. Short term - troop movements. Long term - technological advantages.
Click to expand...

And it is up to and only up to the government of the state to decide when it releases such military intel to the public's eyes if it will. It certainly not up to any of the citizens of the country to expose their government's secret military intel, and certainly certainly not up to a foreign individual. People who do expose such secrets have a room kept for them in jail where they should rot for their crimes against the citizens of the country that has had its secret intel exposed.

Give an example and we'll go from there on this one.
Click to expand...

Anything that could cause any level of risk of life to either the civilians of the country or its troops. That would count as every single intel that the military labels secret, from the unit schedule to the war's strategy and including information on informants of the state, of the capabilities of a state's military, locations of facilities, etc.

Again, it depends on what is leaked. Since those at wikileaks seem to be intent on protecting those that may come into danger from this (such as individual military personnel) and their sources there is no harm in my book. Other than humilation for a government that is not keeping the morals of this country.
Click to expand...

So far the Wikileaks organization, while not going too far with its exposures, has indeed risked the lives of informants and several soldiers by leaking information of their details and actions. For that alone the entire organization should be brought down and its members trialed in a court of justice.

That being said, we've yet to see what the next leak is about, and if it is even more damaging than the previous ones as the US claims it is then it only calls for further attention.

Lord Tammerlain said:
Turkish media have reported finding US arms in the hands of PKK terrorists that it captured or killed. The Turkish government has complained about US support of the PKK publically. I am sure that any turk who pays any attention to current events believes the US has been supporting the PKK. Somethng reported in Der Spiegel is not going to change it. At most confirm it. The greatest effect will be in public opinion of europeans and Americans
Click to expand...

Like Ben K and Kal'Stang above you too have proven that you do not need to rely on facts for your opinions to be held.
There is no proof that I'm aware of which might even imply that the US has been training and/or arming Kurdish terrorists. Claims by one government or another are merely claims, and if Iran claims that America was behind the killing of some professor from 2 years ago or so then that doesn't imply it was.

Bottom line if you do not rely on facts and rely entirely on your beliefs than your contribution is meaningless and nonexistent, and your comments irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
When you're using the word "usually" you are implying that you have knowledge over every secret (or at least the majority of secrets) that the government keeps from the world public's eyes. Thus you too do not need to rely on what you know, on facts you are aware of, for your opinions to be held, just like Kal'Stang above did not need to rely on facts he is aware of, on what he knows to be true, for his belief about the US government to be held.
Click to expand...

No, from what I am aware of and is out in the open, the public sector runs things poorly and secrets that are kept and eventually revealed by media investigation or released by governments after the fact tend to reflect poorly on decisions made. It is quite logical to have a suspicion that the national security sector is simarly inefficient and attempts to hide the screw ups where they can since they're bound to be as poorly managed as any other sector run by government. The endorsed obfuscation that goes along with this particular government wing will naturally lead it to be more poorly run than any other, since mistakes can be more easily swept under the rug. A lack of transparency hardly encourages good work in any field, public or private. This goes for any country in the world as well.

That said, it would be a mistake to see Wikileaks as anymore trustworthy with how they distribute the information they've found.
 
Brace yourselves because your about to see a side of America they condemn and say does not exist.
 
I want to know when these leaks are released...

If there was more info as to whether there were WMDs would definitely interest me.
 
Ben K. said:
No, from what I am aware of and is out in the open, the public sector runs things poorly and secrets that are kept and eventually revealed by media investigation or released by governments after the fact tend to reflect poorly on decisions made. It is quite logical to have a suspicion that the national security sector is simarly inefficient and attempts to hide the screw ups where they can since they're bound to be as poorly managed as any other sector run by government. The endorsed obfuscation that goes along with this particular government wing will naturally lead it to be more poorly run than any other, since mistakes can be more easily swept under the rug. A lack of transparency hardly encourages good work in any field, public or private. This goes for any country in the world as well.

That said, it would be a mistake to see Wikileaks as anymore trustworthy with how they distribute the information they've found.
Click to expand...

Through the recognition that what you are aware of might not even be the slightest of what makes the collective of secrets that - due to the nature of secrets - the state does not share with the entire world, one must realize that your claims about this collective of secrets and your belief that those secrets must be accessable by every single human being on planet Earth are dependent on neither logic nor reality itself.

kaya'08 said:
Brace yourselves because your about to see a side of America they condemn and say does not exist.
Click to expand...

Area 51?
 
People are not entitled to knowing such secrets?
 
Apocalypse said:
Through the recognition that what you are aware of might not even be the slightest of what makes the collective of secrets that - due to the nature of secrets - the state does not share with the entire world, one must realize that your claims about this collective of secrets and your belief that those secrets must be accessable by every single human being on planet Earth are dependent on neither logic nor reality itself.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't seem to understand what constitutes logic. Deductions about how things work generally can be made without knowing all the facts based on facts we do know if they relate to what we are trying to deduce. You can refer to the scientific method if you wish, in which things can be deduced about how things work generally without knowing every single fact relating to that thing. Governments make poor decisions a great deal of the time, they attempt to hide these mistakes as often as possible, any government agency that is encouraged to keep things secret will naturally run itself even more inefficiently than one in which obfuscation is not expected. Of course there is no chance of maintaining national security without obfuscation. It is a necessary evil. However, it is quite logical to assume that the reasons for obfuscating are more often than not illegitimate ones.
 
RightinNYC said:
Yes, because when I think of secretive governments that deserve to have their misdeeds exposed, I don't think of North Korea, Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia. I don't think of China, Russia, Venezuela, or Cuba. I don't think of Chad, Somalia, the Sudan or Burundi. I think of America, the UK and their allies.

If wikileaks actually gave a **** about improving transparency for the sake of transparency, it would be focusing its energies on other places. It's focusing on America because it's run by a bunch of filthy ****ing hippies who are opposed to the wars in the middle east and get hard at the thought of embarrassing America.
Click to expand...

This shows how little you know of wikileaks. I mean I just heard about it from this thread and it appears that I've done more homework than you already and all it took was a look at wikipedia. (though I hate using wikipedia most of the time it is normally good for things that can be verified through other sources)

To list some of what they have leaked in the past...

Apparent Somali assassination order signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys
Daniel arap Moi family corruption a former Kenyan leader
Scientology
Climatic Research Unit emails
Internet censorship lists for several countries in Australia
Peru Oil Scandal
Toxic dumping in Africa: The Minton report


And more.

So perhaps before trying to make out like they are purposely ignoring the rest of the world and just "get hard at the thought of embarrassing America" you should read up on them and try to get to know them a little before you pass judgement.
 
Ben K. said:
Again, you don't seem to understand what constitutes logic. Deductions about how things work generally can be made without knowing all the facts based on facts we do know if they relate to what we are trying to deduce. You can refer to the scientific method if you wish, in which things can be deduced about how things work generally without knowing every single fact relating to that thing. Governments make poor decisions a great deal of the time, they attempt to hide these mistakes as often as possible, any government agency that is encouraged to keep things secret will naturally run itself even more inefficiently than one in which obfuscation is not expected. Of course there is no chance of maintaining national security without obfuscation. It is a necessary evil. However, it is quite logical to assume that the reasons for obfuscating are more often than not illegitimate ones.
Click to expand...

I completely understand what you're getting at Ben; you're saying that because the "government secrets" that were exposed so far 'usually' fit the standrads you pose for secrets that could be shared with the entire world, then it is logical to assume that the collective of those secrets usually fit the same standards.

In other words, you're saying that by knowing the truth value of some of the sentences in a system or group of sentences, you may claim to know the truth value of every single one or the majority of the sentences in that group - while not even knowing the amount of sentences that make the members of that group - and this is not a logical attitude, this is an illogical and an irrational attitude.
 
Apocalypse said:
Like Ben K and Kal'Stang above you too have proven that you do not need to rely on facts for your opinions to be held.
There is no proof that I'm aware of which might even imply that the US has been training and/or arming Kurdish terrorists. Claims by one government or another are merely claims, and if Iran claims that America was behind the killing of some professor from 2 years ago or so then that doesn't imply it was.

Bottom line if you do not rely on facts and rely entirely on your beliefs than your contribution is meaningless and nonexistent, and your comments irrelevant.
Click to expand...

If the US government supported Bin Laden during the Cold War why would there not be a repeat of such actions in a different country?

Bottom line is when there are hints of something going on and no concrete evidence you have to look to the past and see if it is possible that such a thing is happening. Then you go out and find those hard facts. Trusting that the government will always make the right choices and will always think of your (the citizens) welfare is like trusting a rapist in a room full of tied down naked women and him having the only key to the 10ft thick concrete front door.
 
Jetboogieman said:
That's a pretty serious charge there buddy. Got any evidence to back this up?
Click to expand...

Got another theory as to how this person accessed this much classified info, without getting arrested, or bumped off?

How about an explanation--your opinion that is--as to why the Obama administration doesn't seem to all that freaked out about the leaks? The administration's reaction was to warn everyone about how embarressing the leaks would be; as if they already know exactly what's going to be leaked.

This guy is being fed information and it's not coming from some GS-level bureaucrat, either.

If he wasn't being fed this info from the highest levels of our government; why hasn't our government taken step to prevent further leaks?

That leaves one of two options; 1) Obama's people are allowing this info to be splattered all over the internet, or 2) they just too ****ing incompetant to stop it.
 
Laila said:
No but I want to know when my soldiers are ****ing up and it is hidden and alot HAS been hidden from the public which should have been released such as the fact a British Rifleman shooting dead an 8 year old Iraqi Girl for playing in the street. Oh I'm so sure she was such a security threat. Only after it was made public did the British Military launch an investigation. Bastard soldier probably would have got off scot free :roll:

Wikileaks is something I will support
Click to expand...

What makes you think the shooting was intentional?
 
Apocalypse said:
I completely understand what you're getting at Ben; you're saying that because the "government secrets" that were exposed so far 'usually' fit the standrads you pose for secrets that could be shared with the entire world, then it is logical to assume that the collective of those secrets usually fit the same standards.

In other words, you're saying that by knowing the truth value of some of the sentences in a system or group of sentences, you may claim to know the truth value of every single one or the majority of the sentences in that group - while not even knowing the amount of sentences that make the members of that group - and this is not a logical attitude, this is an illogical and an irrational attitude.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't understand what I'm saying. I never claimed to know the truth value of every sentence in the paragraph or whatever analogy you choose to use. I claim that based on whatever group of senteces that is exposed to me (or becomes exposed to me despite the best intentions of the author) out of a contiguous paragraph (or has some other flaw best suited to the analogy), if the majority of those sentences are untruthful, it is logical for one to assume the rest of the paragraph has the same problem. It is simply irrational to believe otherwise.
 
RightinNYC said:
If wikileaks actually gave a **** about improving transparency for the sake of transparency, it would be focusing its energies on other places. It's focusing on America because it's run by a bunch of filthy ****ing hippies who are opposed to the wars in the middle east and get hard at the thought of embarrassing America.
Click to expand...

And you accused me of oversimplifying. :roll:
 
Kal'Stang said:
This shows how little you know of wikileaks. I mean I just heard about it from this thread and it appears that I've done more homework than you already and all it took was a look at wikipedia. (though I hate using wikipedia most of the time it is normally good for things that can be verified through other sources)

To list some of what they have leaked in the past...

Apparent Somali assassination order signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys
Daniel arap Moi family corruption a former Kenyan leader
Scientology
Climatic Research Unit emails
Internet censorship lists for several countries in Australia
Peru Oil Scandal
Toxic dumping in Africa: The Minton report


And more.

So perhaps before trying to make out like they are purposely ignoring the rest of the world and just "get hard at the thought of embarrassing America" you should read up on them and try to get to know them a little before you pass judgement.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of what wikileaks used to do. If you read the wikileaks wiki page, I'm sure you noticed that none of those things happened within the past year. That's because they've changed their mission to almost exclusively focus on the US and the wars in the middle east.

But hey, don't take my word for it:

[A] number of former members say that the website's obsession with pursuing the US military has resulted in Wikileaks losing sight of its founding principle that all leaks should be made available to the public no matter how large or small. ... At least a dozen key supporters of the website are known to have left in recent months. They say Wikileaks has ignored reams of new exposés because so much attention has been paid to the Iraq and Afghan conflicts.

...

According to former supporters, the submission section is down because a number of key personnel have fallen out with Assange over the direction of the website and his behaviour. "Outside of the Iraq and Afghan dossiers, Wikileaks has been incapacitated by internal turmoil and politics," Smari McCarthy, a former Wikileaks volunteer and freedom of information campaigners from Iceland, told The Independent. "Key people have become very concerned about the direction of Wikileaks with regard to its strong focus on US military files at the expense of ignoring everything else."
Click to expand...

Part of the problem for Wikileaks has been the huge amount of data it has had to mine in processing the Afghan and Iraq war logs, which comprised tens of thousands of field reports written in dense military jargon. But some of those who have grown uncomfortable with the direction of the website say more attention should still have been paid to leaks from outside of the US military – specifically the dramatic increase in submissions from whistleblowers within closed countries, dictatorships and corporations.


...

Last month the website's second most visible face after Assange – a German spokesperson who went by the name Daniel Schmidt, but whose real name is Daniel Domscheit-Berg – broke ranks to disclose that he had quit after being suspended by Assange for unspecified "bad behaviour". Like others who have since left Wikileaks, he cited both the website's direction and Assange's behaviour as motivating factors behind his leaving. "This one-dimensional confrontation with the USA is not what we set out to do," Mr Domscheit-Berg told Der Spiegel.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Got another theory as to how this person accessed this much classified info, without getting arrested, or bumped off?

How about an explanation--your opinion that is--as to why the Obama administration doesn't seem to all that freaked out about the leaks? The administration's reaction was to warn everyone about how embarressing the leaks would be; as if they already know exactly what's going to be leaked.

This guy is being fed information and it's not coming from some GS-level bureaucrat, either.

If he wasn't being fed this info from the highest levels of our government; why hasn't our government taken step to prevent further leaks?

That leaves one of two options; 1) Obama's people are allowing this info to be splattered all over the internet, or 2) they just too ****ing incompetant to stop it.
Click to expand...

It seldom gets much clearer then that, great post and right on point.

I learned today from a former CIA agent on "FOX NEWS," not one of the pundit shows, that our Government has the ability to shut down Wikileaks Computers servers before they can post another word, and keep them shut down. But Obama has chosen not to.

Why is that. We hear loads of Bovine Scatology coming from the White House and yet they won't lift a finger to shut it down, and it is as simple as the use of one finger.

Obama has been the number one "Firster." (a Firster is one who blames the America he hates for all the ills of the world) Since he came on the scene and began to go to work on destroying our economy, and right off the mark he set out on his Apology tour he kisseing the asses of people who support to terrorism all over.

He just days ago gave the Palestinian Terrorists $200 million, and dig anyone call him on it? Hell no, because they know they would have heard that he gave the money to help people who are in need. However he gave the money to the Government and that is Hamas and they are known terrorists.

You give a group that has been identified as terrorists $100 dollars and see what happens to you.

I am forbidden to use the language required to show the contempt this Obama "person."

As a Christian I am supposed to hate the sin and not the sinner but it's getting to be a real challenge.

Conservatives should have no illusions about using your freedom of speech no with Obama having his enemies list because through use of Carnivore they can pick up on key words and phrases used in posts and or E-mails they have admitted what they once laughed at and called a conspiracy theory thought up by nuts. So welcome to the list. I was on it long ago I suspect right after the first time I called Obama a Socialist/Marxist way before the election. But now it's been proven in his own words.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Nothing to do with just disliking America.
I'd be the same if it was British reports which will also be leaked by wikileaks as it was just on my news Whitehouse has given No. 10 a alert in regards to the leaks and British Government has classed it as a 'national security threat'
Apparently it shows corruption between our two countries and the "special relationship" will be put to the test ..... imagine that? Including the Libyan bomber and Kurdish terrorists which US has allegedly been funding against its own ally Turkey.

I want to know what my Government has been up too and also it says that corrupt politicans will be named and shamed. Who are not only American. Don't blame the leader of wikileaks, they didn't make up the information. It was Americans (and probably British individuals if the reports are accurate) who have shamed their nation. If these revelations is damaging to US and UK's reputation, we deserve it for our actions if it is proved to be true

I just hope Wikileaks turns on Europe as well. Can't wait to see what has been behind closed doors of the "EU project"
Click to expand...

There no longer is a special relationship between America and the UK.

Turkey is neither friend nor ally to America.

To the extend the Wikileaks affair weakens Obama, so much the better.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
There no longer is a special relationship between America and the UK.

Turkey is neither friend nor ally to America.

To the extend the Wikileaks affair weakens Obama, so much the better.
Click to expand...

Literally the definition of partisan. Other people are mad because leaking classified military info could put lives at risk, but hey it's ok as long as it hurts Obama right?
 
Deuce said:
Literally the definition of partisan. Other people are mad because leaking classified military info could put lives at risk, but hey it's ok as long as it hurts Obama right?
Click to expand...


Obama would not get hurt. He has security for life, both physical and financial.

We needn't worry about him one way or another.
 
Deuce said:
Literally the definition of partisan. Other people are mad because leaking classified military info could put lives at risk, but hey it's ok as long as it hurts Obama right?
Click to expand...

You can think it's good if you want, but I don't.
 
Deuce said:
Literally the definition of partisan. Other people are mad because leaking classified military info could put lives at risk, but hey it's ok as long as it hurts Obama right?
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm referring to Obama in his representative capacity. Obama is the living, breathing embodiment and incarnation of Leftist Governance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom