• 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

There wasn't anything of any real shock released the last time. I'm starting to wonder if the U.S. government isn't just feeding this guy a buncha crap, to keep him occupied.

Actually, there WAS something of real shock issued the last time. Wikileaks compromised the lives of Afghanis who were helping us, and exposed them to assassination.

I stongly believe that holding our government accountable is a very good thing. However, Wikileaks crossed the line when they put lives at risk, and in my honest opinion, the owner of Wikileaks should be rotting in prison for doing that.
 
Actually, there WAS something of real shock issued the last time. Wikileaks compromised the lives of Afghanis who were helping us, and exposed them to assassination.

I stongly believe that holding our government accountable is a very good thing. However, Wikileaks crossed the line when they put lives at risk, and in my honest opinion, the owner of Wikileaks should be rotting in prison for doing that.

Fair enough.

But the question I always ask when talking about Torture by the United States is "What about the innocents?". And I always get told "What Innocents?" Or "Link to abuse of an innocent".

Can you name one person who's been affected by this? Is there a story on it.

To be honest if there was I'd love to see it, because I think he should be held accountable.
 
Fair enough.

But the question I always ask when talking about Torture by the United States is "What about the innocents?". And I always get told "What Innocents?" Or "Link to abuse of an innocent".

Can you name one person who's been affected by this? Is there a story on it.

To be honest if there was I'd love to see it, because I think he should be held accountable.

It wasn't just one informant that was outed. It was hundreds of them.
 
I explained it several times.

Yes, and I don't agree.

Don't really know how I can make it any clearer.

It was clear, I just don't agree.

Like I said - incredibly simplistic. If you really believe this, then there's no point in discussing this any further.

Human behaviour is simplistic at its root. :shrug:

And I'm pointing out that in the real world, we can't all live like you think we should.

Who is this "we"? Take responsibility for your own beliefs. The world is what you make of it. You have been crystal clear on what you think the world is like and should be. Just because I don't have the same belief as you, does not make me delusional. But please keep invoking the pathos all you want.
 
I'm saying that although most intelligent people are aware that countries do things like this behind the scenes, that doesn't mean that the specifics should be bared to the world.

Why? (please keep in mind what I have already stated in this thread)

Everyone knows that everyone poops. Does that mean that you wouldn't have a problem with everyone you know watching you poop? Everyone knows that everyone lies. Does that mean that you wouldn't object to every one of your lies being categorized and exposed to the world?

And like I said, most people are already aware of this. It's just how society works. We can't all live in a fantasy world where everything is smiles and handshakes.

I don't think that anyone here even remotely thinks that everything is smiles and handshakes. I do think that we just want our government to not lie to us. There is never a time that lying is a good thing. And yes if my wife asks me if she is fat I will tell her straight up that yes she is. She knows me well enough that I always speak the truth. When she does tell me that I didn't have to tell her that I just ask her "you don't want me to lie do you?" She of course says no.

It's actually pretty sad that it has become acceptable (or even expected) to lie in this society. I don't lie to people and I sure as hell expect them to not lie to me also. And once they do my trust in them is gone and may never come back.
 
I could honestly care less about wiki leaks. It does not take a genius to figure out that the American government does shady things.
 
I don't think that anyone here even remotely thinks that everything is smiles and handshakes. I do think that we just want our government to not lie to us. There is never a time that lying is a good thing.

And I think this is wildly unrealistic.
 
I wonder if an interesting discussion would be should the US government put an end to wikileaks out of national security?
If I trusted politicians and govt I would not have any qualms about such an action.
But, since I don't, the question, imho, is which side to err on, because doubtless there will be errors. Is it better to allow politicians and the govt too much power to cover things up? Or is it better to allow citizens too much power to expose govt secrets even if those secrets can be secrets of necessity? The best answer would be neither. But sadly, as fallible beings, it's not one of our choices.
 
I could honestly care less about wiki leaks. It does not take a genius to figure out that the American government does shady things.
Maybe you meant to say that you could NOT care less about wikileaks?
 
The United States Constitution offers great rights to its citizens, however, those rights can only be taken advantage of when there is an open and honest Government. A Government's morality is correlated and intrinsically linked to the information that its people are afforded. What is the purpose of a democratic and free society without widespread availability of information? Wikileaks is redefining what it means to be a free and open society!
 
The United States Constitution offers great rights to its citizens, however, those rights can only be taken advantage of when there is an open and honest Government. A Government's morality is correlated and intrinsically linked to the information that its people are afforded. What is the purpose of a democratic and free society without widespread availability of information? Wikileaks is redefining what it means to be a free and open society!

That's a highly idealistic view that one considers, when thinking about informants that are certain to be systematically murdered and tortured.

The truth shall set free, but sometimes condemns others to death.

I wish the truth to be out and open, but sometimes, and I mean sometimes, you have to do a bit of evil, to get a little more good.
 
Through the recognition that we do not live in an ideal world where everyone is friends and through the recognition that states have enemies that are actually willing to cause harm to the state(unbelievable right?), one must thus also recognize that states would have to keep some things from being opened to public, specifically, from being accessible by their enemies. (Even more unbelievable)

Hence and therefore, it is not automatically a "good thing" when an organization is somehow placing its hands on an information that the state and its military decide to keep in secret from its enemies and makes it open for its enemies and everyone to see. One must be fully aware that there is no difference at all between such action and between simply directly supplying the intelligence to enemy officials and organizations, there is no difference between such actions and the action of spying for an enemy.

Now that we've cleared this notion by some that what states do (specifically the US) behind the public's eyes must be accessible by every single human being on earth lest we'd all be doomed, concerning the Wikileaks organization, if it would indeed release security related secret information, then by all means do arrest the person and close the organization for by all means, it is endangering human lives; soldiers and civilians alike.
 
Through the recognition that we do not live in an ideal world where everyone is friends and through the recognition that states have enemies that are actually willing to cause harm to the state(unbelievable right?), one must thus also recognize that states would have to keep some things from being opened to public, specifically, from being accessible by their enemies. (Even more unbelievable)

Hence and therefore, it is not automatically a "good thing" when an organization is somehow placing its hands on an information that the state and its military decide to keep in secret from its enemies and makes it open for its enemies and everyone to see. One must be fully aware that there is no difference at all between such action and between simply directly supplying the intelligence to enemy officials and organizations, there is no difference between such actions and the action of spying for an enemy.

Now that we've cleared this notion by some that what states do (specifically the US) behind the public's eyes must be accessible by every single human being on earth lest we'd all be doomed, concerning the Wikileaks organization, if it would indeed release security related secret information, then by all means do arrest the person and close the organization for by all means, it is endangering human lives; soldiers and civilians alike.

Hmm...I'm getting the feeling that there are quite a few people on this forum that doesn't read all the posts.....I seem to be repeating myself more and more lately :p

From one of my previous posts in this thread.....

Perhaps you didn't read the part that I wrote that I now bold to bring to your attention? Since they seem intent on it I see no reason to worry about it. And if it does happen...well to be brutally honest...collateral damage. So long as it doesn't become something that happens regularly I'm willing to let it go.

I'm tired of our government hiding anything and everything because they want to line their pockets. If this is what it takes to start making them honest, then so be it.

I understand that there are some things that should be kept out of the public for short periods of time (when it comes to troops and troop movements) or even long term (when it comes to technological advantages for our military). However there is a lot that our government has been doing of late that should have been made available to the public AS they were talking about it. Example: Health care reform should have not had closed doors....AT ALL. Diplomatic talks should also be made available to the general public as we would have to abide by anything that was agreed upon.

And many more things.

In other words not everything that the government keeps secret should be kept secret. In fact I would have to say most of what they keep secret and we then later find out about they should not be keeping secret.

I mean seriously...is there ANY good reason to keep things other than I have already mentioned secret? What was the ponit of having closed doors when they were discussing the HCR? The ONLY things that should be kept secret are those relating to our military. Everything else should be left open for the People. After all, this is OUR country. NOT the governments country. Don't we have a right to know how our government is conducting itself?
 
In other words not everything that the government keeps secret should be kept secret. In fact I would have to say most of what they keep secret and we then later find out about they should not be keeping secret.

That specifically is a very ignorant and absurd statement as you have no knowledge at all as to what constitutes as the majority of what the state keeps in secret from the world population, and when you assume that "most of what they keep secret" is this and that you are admitting that you do not need to rely on what you know, on facts you are aware of, for your opinions to be held.

I mean seriously...is there ANY good reason to keep things other than I have already mentioned secret?

Abso****inglutely. Secret agreements between countries need to be kept in secret, else enemy entities and nations will be aware of the agreement and will act against it.
Letting your enemy know of your next move is endangering your side - again, unbelievable, right?

What was the ponit of having closed doors when they were discussing the HCR? The ONLY things that should be kept secret are those relating to our military.

So you do not count as a supporter of the Wikileaks organization and its actions since it does leak information that mainly deals with the military and its actions.
Nevertheless as pointed above the notion that only military related intel are to be kept in secret is almost as absurd; see the example of secret agreements between nations for diplomatic related leaks.

Everything else should be left open for the People. After all, this is OUR country. NOT the governments country. Don't we have a right to know how our government is conducting itself?

Your most important right is the right to safety and life, and that should be the top priority of the state and the government.
Thus when letting you know something also means letting the state's enemies know something and thus means a risk of lives for you, the citizens of the state, the state must keep this 'something' in secret else it would be committing a crime against its own civilian population which it exists to protect.

Likewise, when a third party, and not the state itself, is the one to let the civilians and the entire world know of those things that are kept in secret, it is engaging in an equal crime against the citizens of said state and must be held to justice by the state.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough.

But the question I always ask when talking about Torture by the United States is "What about the innocents?". And I always get told "What Innocents?" Or "Link to abuse of an innocent".

Can you name one person who's been affected by this? Is there a story on it.

To be honest if there was I'd love to see it, because I think he should be held accountable.


Moazzam Begg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Binyam Mohamed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I understand that some have been outed.

My point is, have any deaths occured because of it?

Probably not. When those few hundred names came out the Taliban made a public comment that they were comparing the names to those on a hit list of some 10,000 people. That tells me two things:

1. They are probably had all those names on their list already.
2. They are not good at assassinating people they want dead anyway.

Of course, even if the U.S. government was 100% aware that none of the people named were unknown to the Taliban it would still claim their lives were put in danger. Wikileaks could reveal a classified cable discussing cooking recipes and the U.S. government would say revealing it puts lives in danger. Like I said, the CIA wanted to bring down Wikileaks well before it leaked anything that could even remotely be spun as damaging.
 
The Wikileaks affair shows that Obama's America can't keep its affairs secret. American intelligence is a joke.
 
That specifically is a very ignorant and absurd statement as you have no knowledge at all as to what constitutes as the majority of what the state keeps in secret from the world population, and when you assume that "most of what they keep secret" is this and that you are admitting that you do not need to rely on what you know, on facts you are aware of, for your opinions to be held.

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.
 

"While Begg admits spending time at two Islamic militant training camps in Afghanistan, supporting militant Muslim fighters, buying a rifle and a handgun, that he "thought about" taking up arms in Chechnya, and being an acquaintance of people linked to terrorism (most notably, Khalil al-Deek, Dhiren Barot, and Shahid Akram Butt), he denies the remainder of the U.S.'s allegations".


Born in Ethiopia, Mohamed came to United Kingdom in 1994, where he lived for seven years, sought political asylum and was given leave to remain while his case was resolved.[7]

"In June 2001, Mohamed travelled to Afghanistan. The reasons for the trip are in dispute. British and U.S. authorities contend, and the US Military-appointed Personal Representative's Initial Interview notes state, that Mohamed admitted to receiving paramilitary training in the al Farouq training camp.[8] Mohamed's supporters contend that he had gone to conquer his drug problems and to see Muslim countries "with his own eyes". It should be noted that Mohamed contradicted this with his own statement in March 2005.[2] On 10 April 2002, Mohamed was arrested at Pakistan's Karachi airport by Pakistani authorities as a suspected terrorist, while attempting to fly to the UK using a false passport".

Captives told to claim torture - Washington Times
 
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.

The problem, Ben K, is that many people are very keen to see problems occur for the United States and their Allies in the WOT while no such criteria of honesty exists for the Islamic terrorists. In fact, if we at all mention what these many Muslims are up to the cry of "Islamophobia" arises.

Let's hold all the democracies responsible for their actions but whenever there is any benefit of the doubt to be given, let's not give it to radical muslims. Check out
taqiyya and you'll get a better idea of what the West faces.
 
What a shocker that people who aren't Americans are giddy at the prospect of something that could embarrass America and undermine our security.

I read the CBC report and this report here on the BBC and the message seems to come across far more clearly that the shocks, embarrassment and undermining of security is on those who think the US is their ally.

Why else would there be reports that the UK, Turkey, Israel, Denmark and Norway have been warned to expect potential embarrassment from the leaks?

But then, it's not a shocker that some Americans and Yankee Canadians care only about the embarrassment that will fall on the US, and not on her allies.
 
I read the CBC report and this report here on the BBC and the message seems to come across far more clearly that the shocks, embarrassment and undermining of security is on those who think the US is their ally.

Why else would there be reports that the UK, Turkey, Israel, Denmark and Norway have been warned to expect potential embarrassment from the leaks?

Because the leaks will include conversations with both sides where they will be saying things that they would prefer not to be made public.

But then, it's not a shocker that some Americans and Yankee Canadians care only about the embarrassment that will fall on the US, and not on her allies.

Nowhere have I claimed that this would only negatively affect the US. The point is that because the cables are US cables, the US will be involved in all of the cables, while other countries will only be involved in a portion.
 
Back
Top Bottom