Assange Speaks to UN

cpwill · Oct 1, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
When it comes to the government? No. As I said before the only things that should be classified is military movement/stratagies, and military technology.

Interesting. For example the military keeps all of my personal information on file, to include my social security number, birthdate, etc. Currently, this data is considered classified and it is illegal for someone to pass it out to the public.

Should that be available to anyone who asks of it? what about videos of my face or identifying information that would allow nutjob jihadists to target my family and home?

If the United States is spying on another government in order to determine its' movement/strategies and military technology so that we can shape our own movement/strategy and technology accordingly, should that be classified? Or should we ask the Chinese pretty please to describe to us precisely their capability and intentions?

If another power passes us information with the request that we keep it secret (for example, say, if the Brits have an agent in Moscow), should we abide by those treaty obligations and do so? Or out the agent, possibly get him killed, and degrade national security?

When you say "military technology", do you mean how the planes fly? Or do you also include how we collect? If information could only have come to us from classified technology, can that information be classified as well, or should we de facto describe our classified technology to everyone via it's capabilities?

I ask more out of curiosity at this point - you've already admitted you do not understand the classification procedures or the relevant laws and oversight governing them.

Kal'Stang · Oct 1, 2012

OldWorldOrder said:
That's not a qualification on its own. I have another question: why would you talk about classification requirements if you clearly know nothing about them?

It is a high qualification. One that IS considered. Or did I read it wrong and its not considered at all?

I know enough to know that the government does it far more than it should.

OldWorldOrder said:
No. It's a warzone. If they have the time inclination? Cool, go ahead. If they don't? That's cool, too.

Under our supposed morals, yes they should. Otherwise they're being hypocritical.

OldWorldOrder said:
That was me. I still don't see any 'misdeeds'. Mistakes made in war aren't 'misdeeds'. I mean, unless we want to just back it absurd: a random ND in the chowhall would be a 'misdeed'. A guy cheating on his wife with some slutty E-4 is a 'misdeed'. If someone is trying to defend Manning, though? No, there's no real 'misdeed'.

A "misdeed" is doing something that was wrong. And again, it is not the mistake itself that I am talking about. (for the third time) It is the covering it up instead of at the very least apologizing for it that was wrong. I find it very disturbing that you think that it is perfectly OK to make a mistake that costs lives and not have to, at the very least, apologize for that mistake.

cpwill · Oct 1, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
No it doesn't. You just think it does.

Actually it does. That is, in fact, why we have Ambassadors there in the first place, to present our policies to them, and then to present them to us, with on-the-ground analysis for policy makers here in the states to take advantage of. Analysis which is and must be classified in order to be effective or useful.

OldWorldOrder · Oct 1, 2012

cpwill said:
Interesting. For example the military keeps all of my personal information on file, to include my social security number, birthdate, etc. Currently, this data is considered classified and it is illegal for someone to pass it out to the public.

A small quibble: unless you were/are "closed" (and you'd know if you were) that information is most assuredly U/FOUO. Even if you are "closed", that information is probably still just U/FUOU.

Otherwise, I agree. If Sri Lanka, for example, knew everything that the US knew about it's military, it'd be pretty easy to shape TTPs for maximum effectiveness. That's just as bad for the US as Sri Lanka knowing about troop movements.

Kal'Stang · Oct 1, 2012

cpwill said:
Interesting. For example the military keeps all of my personal information on file, to include my social security number, birthdate, etc. Currently, this data is considered classified and it is illegal for someone to pass it out to the public.

That is your personal information. Thats a far cry from an Apache helicopter killing innocent civilians. It also falls under the catagory of your right to privacy. However I would advocate that your name and rank and your performance record be divulged.

cpwill said:
Should that be available to anyone who asks of it? what about videos of my face or identifying information that would allow nutjob jihadists to target my family and home?

Read above.

cpwill said:
If the United States is spying on another government in order to determine its' movement/strategies and military technology so that we can shape our own movement/strategy and technology accordingly, should that be classified? Or should we ask the Chinese pretty please to describe to us precisely their capability and intentions?

Spying would fall under the "strategy" part of my exception.

cpwill said:
If another power passes us information with the request that we keep it secret (for example, say, if the Brits have an agent in Moscow), should we abide by those treaty obligations and do so? Or out the agent, possibly get him killed, and degrade national security?

This would fall under both movement and strategy.

cpwill said:
When you say "military technology", do you mean how the planes fly? Or do you also include how we collect? If information could only have come to us from classified technology, can that information be classified as well, or should we de facto describe our classified technology to everyone via it's capabilities?

Any and all military technology period. At least until such time as the government deems that it can be declassified.

OldWorldOrder · Oct 1, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
It is a high qualification. One that IS considered. Or did I read it wrong and its not considered at all?

I know enough to know that the government does it far more than it should.

No, it's not. Lesser qualifications need to exhibit- by an original classification authority- that they fall under that. And a general "This is a cover up!" isn't going to do it. Seriously, you don't know about this, at all, so why are you arguing about it? People can do that **** on Coast To Coast AM, but I thought this was a rather serious format.

Under our supposed morals, yes they should. Otherwise they're being hypocritical.

There are no morals in war. Just win.

A "misdeed" is doing something that was wrong. And again, it is not the mistake itself that I am talking about. (for the third time) It is the covering it up instead of at the very least apologizing for it that was wrong. I find it very disturbing that you think that it is perfectly OK to make a mistake that costs lives and not have to, at the very least, apologize for that mistake.

Then missing the target was also a 'misdeed', because it was a mistake. Are you sure you want your criteria to be "things done wrong"? People die. Ostensibly, you have zero experience with war. You may want to consider going full pacifist, because it seems as if the whole concept of war is distasteful to you.

Kal'Stang · Oct 1, 2012

cpwill said:
Actually it does. That is, in fact, why we have Ambassadors there in the first place, to present our policies to them, and then to present them to us, with on-the-ground analysis for policy makers here in the states to take advantage of. Analysis which is and must be classified in order to be effective or useful.

Why must it be classified?

cpwill · Oct 1, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
It is a high qualification. One that IS considered. Or did I read it wrong and its not considered at all?

I know enough to know that the government does it far more than it should.

evidently you do not, as you do not even understand (by your own admission) the guidelines, nor the legal precedent or logic backing them. You seem to have approached this question with some kind of loose intelletually libertine notion of free information with very little consideration of the second and third order effects of deliberately inhibiting security and diplomatic functions oversees.

Under our supposed morals, yes they should. Otherwise they're being hypocritical.

you have no idea what you are talking about, and are making yourself look like an idiot to those who do. a warzone is not the same as diddy-bopping down your home street, and troops are legally required only to follow their orders and ROE's. Our "supposed morals" include the right to self defense, which is what you do when you think someone is pointing a weapon at you in combat.

A "misdeed" is doing something that was wrong.

A misdeed is deliberately doing something wrong. If I am in combat and you jump around a corner with something large and blocky on your shoulder and point it at me, you deliberately did something wrong, and sadly it is probably going to cost you your life.

ecofarm · Oct 1, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
I find it very disturbing that you think that it is perfectly OK to make a mistake that costs lives and not have to, at the very least, apologize for that mistake.

Was it a mistake? A rogue (location unknown) journalist uses a human shield van and gets popped. I think the helicopter did everything right there. If there were mistakes, it was those who allowed themselves to be used as a human shield and the rogue journalist that took advantage of that human shield.

We don't really know exactly what happened there. Do you believe in apologizing for the suicide of others?

cpwill · Oct 1, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Why must it be classified?

Because otherwise we would be unable to conduct effective diplomacy. Diplomats are expected to provide honest assessment of host-nation intentions and capabilities, including when that is unflattering. As an ambassador, to publicly send back the message that the current president of Yemen (making this up) appears to be losing his grip, but that you think if a coup happens perhaps we can make a deal with the new commander of the air force to keep the country from descending into another civil war would be incredibly destructive to not only US diplomacy, but regional stability. You can't exactly (as an ambassador) make public statements to the effect that your chinese hosts told you that they were behaving themselves in Tibet, but that information available seems to suggest that they are instead lying, blood-thirsty little bastards, and expect to be able to fulfill the duties as Ambassador afterwards. Our diplomats will be too busy constantly being kicked out of their host nations to ever have a second meeting with the host government. Diplomats are also expected to be privy to US negotiating strategies, which are also classified, not least to keep us from getting rolled and often in the hopes of avoiding conflict. Their communications will reflect that, as well as information gathered through classified means.

Kal'Stang · Oct 1, 2012

OldWorldOrder said:
No, it's not. Lesser qualifications need to exhibit- by an original classification authority- that they fall under that. And a general "This is a cover up!" isn't going to do it. Seriously, you don't know about this, at all, so why are you arguing about it? People can do that **** on Coast To Coast AM, but I thought this was a rather serious format.

Again, they wouldn't deem it officially as a "cover-up". They would find a loop hole (which "interests of national security" is one HUGE loophole) to place it under.

Tell you what...why was that video deemed classified? Explain it to me. It showed no tactical advantage. It showed nothing beyond the fact that civilians were killed.

OldWorldOrder said:
There are no morals in war. Just win.

If the US government followed that mantra then I would agree with you. But the US government does not follow that mantra.

OldWorldOrder said:
Then missing the target was also a 'misdeed', because it was a mistake. Are you sure you want your criteria to be "things done wrong"? People die. Ostensibly, you have zero experience with war. You may want to consider going full pacifist, because it seems as if the whole concept of war is distasteful to you.

Yes missing a target is a misdeed. But not one worthy of critisizing.

The concept of war should be distasteful to anyone. Are you saying that you WANT war? That you are happy when we are at war?

Kal'Stang · Oct 1, 2012

cpwill said:
Because otherwise we would be unable to conduct effective diplomacy. Diplomats are expected to provide honest assessment of host-nation intentions and capabilities, including when that is unflattering. As an ambassador, to publicly send back the message that the current president of Yemen (making this up) appears to be losing his grip, but that you think if a coup happens perhaps we can make a deal with the new commander of the air force to keep the country from descending into another civil war would be incredibly destructive to not only US diplomacy, but regional stability. You can't exactly (as an ambassador) make public statements to the effect that your chinese hosts told you that they were behaving themselves in Tibet, but that information available seems to suggest that they are instead lying, blood-thirsty little bastards, and expect to be able to fulfill the duties as Ambassador afterwards. Our diplomats will be too busy constantly being kicked out of their host nations to ever have a second meeting with the host government. Diplomats are also expected to be privy to US negotiating strategies, which are also classified, not least to keep us from getting rolled and often in the hopes of avoiding conflict. Their communications will reflect that, as well as information gathered through classified means.

I can accept this. For the simple fact that it is about strategy. So long as it only pertains to strategy only.

cpwill · Oct 1, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
I can accept this. For the simple fact that it is about strategy. So long as it only pertains to strategy only.

Dude, it pretty much all pertains to position and strategy. that's what diplomacy is. warfare without shooting.

Sarcogito · Oct 1, 2012

apdst said:
So, what your sayinh is that there are no controls in place to protect this information and there is no such thing as "need to know"?

There are controls but they can vary from place to place and obviously they weren’t good enough. As you can imagine some changes were implemented as a result of this incident. As for need to know? That is a much broader term than it was pre-9-11. One of the issues that came up in the 9-11 Commission was the various intel agencies weren’t communicating with each other. So access was broadened. You still had to have a security clearance, but if you work in intel it is assumed you have a need to know. All the information on the SIPR and JWICS networks is “decompartmented” information. Which means that other than having the appropriate clearance and a logon you do not need to demonstrate a separate need to know to view it. SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) is information that you must have as specific need to know in order to access. It often involves sources and methods. To the best of my knowledge no SCI information was included in the wikileaks dump. That is the kind of information that could do damage and get people killed and has tighter controls.

OldWorldOrder · Oct 1, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Again, they wouldn't deem it officially as a "cover-up". They would find a loop hole (which "interests of national security" is one HUGE loophole) to place it under.

Tell you what...why was that video deemed classified? Explain it to me. It showed no tactical advantage. It showed nothing beyond the fact that civilians were killed.

Because it could be used to piece together a whole bunch of ****. In no order:

#1- The distance the optics on the bird can see. If you know how fast an Apache can comfortably go (already online, probably thanks to people who think like you do), all you have to do is some high school math using the amount of time it took to complete an orbit to see how far away they were. Now you know: in 2006/2007, that's how far away a helicopter could be from a site to engage it. Do you think that's useful?

#2- You can now start to piece together what birds look for and what process they go through to engage. You can start to avoid some practices or engage in others specifically to dissuade their attacking you while you engage in nefarious activities.

If the US government followed that mantra then I would agree with you. But the US government does not follow that mantra.

Sure it does. All governments do. And then they try to sell their populace on morality, and the moralists among us (you?) want to believe it. So some of you do.

Yes missing a target is a misdeed. But not one worthy of critisizing.

It depends on who you are. If you're supposed to be providing me overwatch and you miss repeatedly because of your own shortcomings, I'll feel okay criticizing you from my hospital bed.

The concept of war should be distasteful to anyone. Are you saying that you WANT war? That you are happy when we are at war?

I am, because I get paid more when I'm overseas. But you seem to have problems with the very fundamental aspects of war. Perhaps you should engage in some introspection.

TurtleDude · Oct 1, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Assange Speaks to UN - YouTube

Assange speaks to UN panel and calls on US, UK and Sweden and speaks to respect free speech, and protect whistle blowers, and to free Bradly Manning. Ecuador and others try to convince the US, UK, and Sweden to allow safe passage and go back to Sweden to try to clear up these "sexual acts" allegations.

our military should have made that clown "disappear"

OldWorldOrder · Oct 1, 2012

Well, TurtleDude, that's the whole other issue behind all of this: if the US wanted Assange gone, it would've made him go away. Waiting until he's in Sweden on flase charges to try to extradite him (although it would've been easier in the UK, but whatever) would obviously be shady and then would beg the question: why not just take care of him in an actual illicit way, that wouldn't have left a smoking gun in their hand?

Assange conspiracy theorists can never answer that question. So they'll always pretend as if it doesn't exist. But it's important: there's really no motive for their to be a conspiracy to get him to the US.

TurtleDude · Oct 1, 2012

OldWorldOrder said:
Well, TurtleDude, that's the whole other issue behind all of this: if the US wanted Assange gone, it would've made him go away. Waiting until he's in Sweden on flase charges to try to extradite him (although it would've been easier in the UK, but whatever) would obviously be shady and then would beg the question: why not just take care of him in an actual illicit way, that wouldn't have left a smoking gun in their hand?

Assange conspiracy theorists can never answer that question. So they'll always pretend as if it doesn't exist. But it's important: there's really no motive for their to be a conspiracy to get him to the US.

He should disappear with no trace of him every surfacing again. He contributed to some of our people being compromised

DaveFagan · Oct 1, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Again, they wouldn't deem it officially as a "cover-up". They would find a loop hole (which "interests of national security" is one HUGE loophole) to place it under.

Tell you what...why was that video deemed classified? Explain it to me. It showed no tactical advantage. It showed nothing beyond the fact that civilians were killed.

If the US government followed that mantra then I would agree with you. But the US government does not follow that mantra.

Yes missing a target is a misdeed. But not one worthy of critisizing.

The concept of war should be distasteful to anyone. Are you saying that you WANT war? That you are happy when we are at war?

KalStang, you deserve a medal.. You have argued valiantly against ignorance, ingrained mental constipation, military style brain washing, believers, and just plain nonsense to no avail except to highlight the aforementioned atributes or shortcomings, depending on myopic lack of insight caused by conservatives not taking their mental laxatives. Nice job. Keep on truckin'.

ecofarm · Oct 1, 2012

DaveFagan said:
...ignorance, ingrained mental constipation, military style brain washing, believers, and just plain nonsense to no avail except to highlight the aforementioned atributes or shortcomings, depending on myopic lack of insight... not taking their mental laxatives.

Do you consider yourself a CTer?

Kal'Stang · Oct 1, 2012

cpwill said:
Dude, it pretty much all pertains to position and strategy. that's what diplomacy is. warfare without shooting.

What a particular person eats for lunch is not.

Kal'Stang · Oct 1, 2012

OldWorldOrder said:
Because it could be used to piece together a whole bunch of ****. In no order:

#1- The distance the optics on the bird can see. If you know how fast an Apache can comfortably go (already online, probably thanks to people who think like you do), all you have to do is some high school math using the amount of time it took to complete an orbit to see how far away they were. Now you know: in 2006/2007, that's how far away a helicopter could be from a site to engage it. Do you think that's useful?

Not really since those were known long before that video. Not to mention you couldn't tell from that video if they were at minimum range, medium range or long range before they started shooting. And if you think that other people, including terrorists, don't have that type of optical capability then you are seriously underestimating them.

OldWorldOrder said:
#2- You can now start to piece together what birds look for and what process they go through to engage. You can start to avoid some practices or engage in others specifically to dissuade their attacking you while you engage in nefarious activities.

lol yeah...camera men. :roll: As for the process...its the same process thats been used for decades. Again, you're underestimating your opponent. Always a bad move for any strategist.

OldWorldOrder said:
Sure it does. All governments do. And then they try to sell their populace on morality, and the moralists among us (you?) want to believe it. So some of you do.

If this were true then people wouldn't continue to try and make more precision type weapons. They'd just go in there and use a nuke or napalm or some other mass destruction weapon....sure as hell would be cheaper in the long run to do so.

OldWorldOrder said:
It depends on who you are. If you're supposed to be providing me overwatch and you miss repeatedly because of your own shortcomings, I'll feel okay criticizing you from my hospital bed.

Sure, if you repeatedly miss then yeah, you deserve to be criticised. But just once or twice? Not exactly front page news wouldn't you say?

OldWorldOrder said:
I am, because I get paid more when I'm overseas. But you seem to have problems with the very fundamental aspects of war. Perhaps you should engage in some introspection.

So you care more for money than not shooting people and mass destruction. Good to know. Think i'm going to start taking your posts far less seriously.

OldWorldOrder · Oct 2, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Not really since those were known long before that video. Not to mention you couldn't tell from that video if they were at minimum range, medium range or long range before they started shooting. And if you think that other people, including terrorists, don't have that type of optical capability then you are seriously underestimating them.

LOL what? You immediately knew a distance at which it was possible. Apparently, that's not important to you. Well, no ****: you aren't in the military. Who cares if other folks die.

lol yeah...camera men. :roll: As for the process...its the same process thats been used for decades. Again, you're underestimating your opponent. Always a bad move for any strategist.

Same process? You don't know it, clearly.

If this were true then people wouldn't continue to try and make more precision type weapons. They'd just go in there and use a nuke or napalm or some other mass destruction weapon....sure as hell would be cheaper in the long run to do so.

Uhhh...why? Precision weapons mitigate collateral damage and thus get less retards like you whining about it. That's a good thing. The morality behind it? Who cares?

Sure, if you repeatedly miss then yeah, you deserve to be criticised. But just once or twice? Not exactly front page news wouldn't you say?

No mistakes in a warzone are front page news.

So you care more for money than not shooting people and mass destruction. Good to know. Think i'm going to start taking your posts far less seriously.

You should take it more. Most policists are more about cost/benefit than someone random and subjective version of good v. evil. Dare I say all of them.

Most everyone understands that mistakes happen in war, and innocents are killed, and don't march against war. Where are you?

DaveFagan · Oct 3, 2012

ecofarm said:
Do you consider yourself a CTer?

I don't think so. I don't even watch or listen to Rash Limpdick. Apocalyptic visions and doomsday scenarios seem a part of the Republican platform and it's all caused by women's private parts and wellies. It's those poor people who wonder where their next gallon of gas is coming from that are driving us off that Carbon cliff. Don't you think? You needn't answer.

Zyphlin · Oct 3, 2012

Mr. Invisible said:
It was admitted by the Pentagon that the info he allegedly released did little to no damage whatsoever.

Edit: Added in "little to"

And if I unload an AK-47 into a nursery, but manage to hurt little to no children in the process, it doesn't change the fact that I wantonly unloaded rounds into a place with a reasonable notion that harm could come from it.

We have a method for which people can be whistleblowers in this country...he chose to forgo that and steal an extremely large amount of data and provide it for all to see, including our enemies...potentially not just causing militaristic but also diplomatic damage. The fact it was not as bad as it could've been is only minorly relevant to the overall action.

Assange Speaks to UN

cpwill

Kal'Stang

cpwill

OldWorldOrder

Kal'Stang

OldWorldOrder

Kal'Stang

cpwill

ecofarm

global liberation

cpwill

Kal'Stang

Kal'Stang

cpwill

Sarcogito

OldWorldOrder

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

OldWorldOrder

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

ecofarm

global liberation

Kal'Stang

Kal'Stang

OldWorldOrder

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

Zyphlin