• 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

Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's my deal.
It's the greater good, in my opinion.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No I don't.
I just prefer transparency in government.
Click to expand...

This isn't about transparency in government this is about a specific action taken by a specific individual which needlessly put lives in danger, you can support transparency in government without support this doushe bag.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

The thing is, they accepted a certain risk. We agree on that. However, they did not reasonable expect that their name was going to be published on the internet, in documents from the country they are aiding, identifying them.

We(the US) has to make sure we find all those responsible for releasing these documents, and we have to punish them to the absolute fullest extent of the law, just to have a chance to still get people to come forward and, essentially, help their own country. Those Afghan's identified are doing just that, aiding the US in creating some sort of order in their country.

Whether there is something we can do with the asshole who owns WikiLeaks, I dunno. I hope so, but I doubt it. There is no excuse, none, for releasing the documents unredacted. If any one is killed as a result of his publishing the documents, I hope the US helps the family of them sue the living **** out of him.
 
Agent Ferris said:
This isn't about transparency in government this is about a specific action taken by a specific individual which needlessly put lives in danger, you can support transparency in government without support this doushe bag.
Click to expand...

I'm not supporting him totally but he released secret information that shows we are being had in some areas.
(funding Pakistan even though they are providing material support to the Taliban, it's a rip off.)

It's the greater good.
Should he of redacted names, yes but he didn't and it's in the past now.
 
Last edited:
Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you're going to grant the press the right to publish classified material when it the information within is of substantial public concern that's something I can agree with, but if you grant them that right you must do so on the assumption that they will do so in a responsible manner, and if they don't then they need to be held into account, this guy just took a ****load of raw intelligence and dumped it on the internet, if his organizations would have gone through rigorous investigation of the source material they could have left out the parts that needlessly put peoples lives in danger, but they didn't which is why they are liable for the damages caused by their negligence both civily and criminally.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not supporting him totally but he released secret information that shows we are being had in some areas.
(funding Pakistan even though they are providing material support to the Taliban, it's a rip off.)

It's the greater good, should he of redacted names, yes but he didn't and it's in the past now.
Click to expand...

The problem with stealing and publishing classified material is that you cannot judge whether it should be classified or not, until it has been released. That is not a decision that some guy in Europe should make, or some low paygrade guy in intelligence, or us sitting in our houses.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not supporting him totally but he released secret information that shows we are being had in some areas.
(funding Pakistan even though they are providing material support to the Taliban, it's a rip off.)
Click to expand...

Which could have easily been made available without putting lives in danger.

It's the greater good.
Click to expand...

No it's not, the good of releasing the information which was of substantial interest to the public outweighed the good of not violating the laws related to leaking and publishing classified material, but they could have done that without releasing the names of Afghan allies, and because he and his organization acted in such a reckless and negligent manner they need to be held to account.


Should he of redacted names, yes but he didn't and it's in the past now.
Click to expand...

It's not in the past for those people whose names were released, their lives have been substantially changed forever.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
The thing is, they accepted a certain risk. We agree on that. However, they did not reasonable expect that their name was going to be published on the internet, in documents from the country they are aiding, identifying them.

We(the US) has to make sure we find all those responsible for releasing these documents, and we have to punish them to the absolute fullest extent of the law, just to have a chance to still get people to come forward and, essentially, help their own country. Those Afghan's identified are doing just that, aiding the US in creating some sort of order in their country.
Click to expand...

The guy who took the data was turned in.
He's sitting in a military brig right now and if I'm not mistaken facing life imprisonment.


Redress said:
Whether there is something we can do with the asshole who owns WikiLeaks, I dunno. I hope so, but I doubt it. There is no excuse, none, for releasing the documents unredacted. If any one is killed as a result of his publishing the documents, I hope the US helps the family of them sue the living **** out of him.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a whole lot that can be done because his home country doesn't 100% comply with U.S. law.
I don't agree with his method of release but I think we should have safe havens from prosecution so information can flow freely.
 
Redress said:
The problem with stealing and publishing classified material is that you cannot judge whether it should be classified or not, until it has been released. That is not a decision that some guy in Europe should make, or some low paygrade guy in intelligence, or us sitting in our houses.
Click to expand...

Hmm, technically it's not stealing because it's government (ie, owned by you and I) data.
It's classified sure.

Don't classify so much material, be truthful and the problem will rarely arise.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Which could have easily been made available without putting lives in danger.
Click to expand...

I already said that was wrong.

:beatdeadhorse

Agent Ferris said:
No it's not, the act of releasing the information which was of substantial interest to the public outweighed the good of releasing classified documents, but they could have done that without releasing the names of Afghan allies, and because he and his organization acted in such a reckless and negligent manner they need to be held to account.
Click to expand...

:beatdeadhorse

Agent Ferris said:
It's not in the past for those people whose names were released, their lives have been substantially changed forever.
Click to expand...


You can't stop something that already happened.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Hmm, technically it's not stealing because it's government (ie, owned by you and I) data.
It's classified sure.

Don't classify so much material, be truthful and the problem will rarely arise.
Click to expand...

You are playing word games. He released data that was not his to release. When you sign up for the military, you take an oath. Some of us took it seriously. Not taking it seriously is a sign of a lack of...honor maybe, or ethics.

The problem is he put politics over his oath. He was not qualified to judge whether the documents should have been classified, he released them because of his political beliefs. That is unacceptable. The fault does not lie, in any way, with the government, but with the person who took it upon himself to make a judgment he is not qualified to make.
 
Redress said:
You are playing word games. He released data that was not his to release. When you sign up for the military, you take an oath. Some of us took it seriously. Not taking it seriously is a sign of a lack of...honor maybe, or ethics.
Click to expand...

What about the ethical problems with the political leaders and military officers?
They aren't without fault on this specific issue.
They knew stuff, didn't tell us and/or lied.

They have a duty to serve us in the best capacity and not hide their transgressions.

Redress said:
The problem is he put politics over his oath. He was not qualified to judge whether the documents should have been classified, he released them because of his political beliefs. That is unacceptable. The fault does not lie, in any way, with the government, but with the person who took it upon himself to make a judgment he is not qualified to make.
Click to expand...

Some of that material shouldn't have been classified in my eyes.
A lot of key stone cop **** going on with the military.

Sorry but they are partially at fault.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Hmm, technically it's not stealing because it's government (ie, owned by you and I) data.
It's classified sure.

Don't classify so much material, be truthful and the problem will rarely arise.
Click to expand...


Government owned does not necessarily mean that you have any need what so ever to the information being classified. The only reason you want information like this to be privy to the population as a whole is to bitch and moan about what the military does in the execution of the war. It would be far more damaging if everything was known, and no secrets existed. My thought is that we wouldn't exist as a nation right now if that were true.

You say don't classify so much? Who are you? Why do you need to know?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Government owned does not necessarily mean that you have any need what so ever to the information being classified. The only reason you want information like this to be privy to the population as a whole is to bitch and moan about what the military does in the execution of the war. It would be far more damaging if everything was known, and no secrets existed. My thought is that we wouldn't exist as a nation right now if that were true.

You say don't classify so much? Who are you? Why do you need to know?


j-mac
Click to expand...

I'm an owner of this place.

Who are they to withhold the information from me?
 
This is another of those strange bedfellows threads, where you can't tell by some ones lean what their position probably will be.

Just thought I would mention that, after seeing that I got thanked by J-Mac.
 
Redress said:
This is another of those strange bedfellows threads, where you can't tell by some ones lean what their position probably will be.

Just thought I would mention that, after seeing that I got thanked by J-Mac.
Click to expand...


Still love ya red! ;)


j-mac
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm an owner of this place.

Who are they to withhold the information from me?
Click to expand...

No, you are 1/300,000,000th owner of this place, and you vote to be represented, giving up your supposed right to screw things up.


j-mac
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I haven't voted to give up my right to information, that my taxes pay for.
They are mine too.

"Screwing things up" is subjective.
Click to expand...


Well then follow the rules and apply through FOIA! But don't advocate some gay solider with a chip on his shoulder just releasing information wholesale, when it puts lives in danger, then say Oh well, when it is done....That is just insane.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well then follow the rules and apply through FOIA! But don't advocate some gay solider with a chip on his shoulder just releasing information wholesale, when it puts lives in danger, then say Oh well, when it is done....That is just insane.


j-mac
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant that he is gay.

I prefer transparency.
They could of done it better but I want people to find classified information and I want them to publish it in a reasonable manner.

I don't care if people break the law, in this regard.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's irrelevant that he is gay.
Click to expand...


Nope, and I showed you why.


I prefer transparency.
They could of done it better but I want people to find classified information and I want them to publish it in a reasonable manner.
Click to expand...


Even if it aids the enemy in a time of combat.


I don't care if people break the law, in this regard.
Click to expand...

Then I am sorry to say Harry, but in this regard you are just as dangerous as the enemy, because you would do things that aid them.


j-mac
 
Agent Ferris said:
If you're going to grant the press the right to publish classified material when it the information within is of substantial public concern that's something I can agree with, but if you grant them that right you must do so on the assumption that they will do so in a responsible manner, and if they don't then they need to be held into account, this guy just took a ****load of raw intelligence and dumped it on the internet, if his organizations would have gone through rigorous investigation of the source material they could have left out the parts that needlessly put peoples lives in danger, but they didn't which is why they are liable for the damages caused by their negligence both civily and criminally.
Click to expand...

First of all it's not a granted right. If anyone obtains classified information there is nothing stopping them from giving it to the press. The point of classifying information is not to take away a public right, but to increase security in order to reduce the potential of the information falling into public hands. Once the public has it, they have the freedom to do what they want with it.

The source of this leak is not wikileaks, but someone in the military. That makes it an internal military problem. It's not the public's problem if the military security was breached.

Lastly... as far as I know, in the upcoming release of more documents, Wikileaks is editing out key names of deployed troops and is taking a more cautious stance on the personal information released.

The info got leaked, now the public might as well read into it. We really are not given much information about how this war is really going and I think it would be useful info to know.
 
j-mac said:
Nope, and I showed you why.
Click to expand...

You didn't show me anything.
He was mad and gay, alright the info still got released.

I doesn't matter why he did it, he did it.


j-mac said:
Even if it aids the enemy in a time of combat.
Click to expand...

It won't.

j-mac said:
Then I am sorry to say Harry, but in this regard you are just as dangerous as the enemy, because you would do things that aid them.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I just don't buy the "it's classified, that's all you need to know" reason.
Sounds like an excellent way to abuse their power.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You didn't show me anything.
He was mad and gay, alright the info still got released.

I doesn't matter why he did it, he did it.
Click to expand...


It certainly does matter why he did it, so that the military can prevent this mess from occurring in the future. I think we need to look at why.


It won't.
Click to expand...


Well, I feel so much better then....Oh wait....

A spokesman for the Taliban is quoted by a British broadcaster saying they are combing through the documents looking for names of Afghan informants. "We know how to punish them," Zabihullah Mujahid told Channel 4 News.

Pentagon Search WikiLeaks Documents to Protect Sources From Taliban Revenge - ABC News
Click to expand...

Yeah, they won't.....


Well, I guess I just don't buy the "it's classified, that's all you need to know" reason.
Sounds like an excellent way to abuse their power.
Click to expand...


Oh brother....Ok then tell us what you would do if you had access to everything classified then?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
It certainly does matter why he did it, so that the military can prevent this mess from occurring in the future. I think we need to look at why.
Click to expand...

Because he's gay right....:roll:

j-mac said:
Oh brother....Ok then tell us what you would do if you had access to everything classified then?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Release it based on actually need for secrecy.
You know stuff that would actually aid people that seriously intend to physically harm others.

Withholding information on Pakistan when they are taking our tax money and sending it to the purported enemy is not right.
Afghan police vehicles, that we gave them, showing up in the hands of the Taliban, is a waste.
Military members accidentally killing journalists, should be shown as true and not run through the spin machine by higher officers.

Things like that should be let loose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom