WIKILEAKS the gift that keeps giving

[ez bake]

That's small potatoes, soap opera BS. When our foreign assets are tortured to death or an RPG takes out the whole family and the word gets out, that's the time when we find ourselves cut off from the world unable to prevent action against the US.
Choices have to be made. Do we want to be isolated with no one trusting us, or to be able to function as a nation.

Small potatoes says who? The point of classifying information in compartmentalization once you get above Top Secret is to keep "soap opera BS" from reaching points outside of the "need to know" crowd.

Who says we can't have both a trustworthy use of government assets as well as a safe and secure use of classified information so that our troops remain protected?

It is the best government,military, and intelligence, system in the world, I say we have every right to demand that "classified" does not automatically mean "no accountability" when it gets to the point of being ridiculous.

I've done the military clearance thing and worked as a Government Contractor with a clearance back in the day - I know how things work and I know that average joe citizen doesn't need to know everything that goes on in the world of super-secret military / intel, but that's a far cry from flat out abuse or incompetence that leads to endangering US citizens or military personnel (and that happens a lot more than you think).

 

[Dave70968]

Simply put, I'm against anything that puts the lives of military or innocent civilians at an unnecessary risk, regardless of the reasons why.

I'm not saying anyone has to agree, and many won't.

Well, without debating the necessity of going to Iraq in the first place (Afghanistan was righteous), who decides what is necessary? Battlefield commanders? Senior brass? Civilian leadership? Courts? By what standards do they render a decision? If we're fighting for freedom, and the 1st Amendment is a core tenet of our freedom, then is it necessary to risk a few lives for a greater principle?

What about criminal activity? Should we ignore any crimes committed, from the 11B to the President, if investigating that crime would risk another soldier? Does avoiding retribution justify keeping My Lai secret, rather than prosecuting the evildoers?

These are not easy questions, and they cannot be answered with a duckspeak soundbite like "no risk, no matter what."

 

[Dave70968]

You know, hanging traitors and spies was accepted practice in the past, I don't see any reason why that presidence chould be altered.

Well, the director of Wikileaks is an Aussie, so it'd be hard to claim he's a traitor to the US; calling him a spy is also a stretch.

Incidentally, convicting somebody as a traitor--that is, convicting him of treason--has a pretty high bar. You might want to review the Constitution and see what it has to say on the matter.

 

[KillShot]

...who decides what is necessary? Battlefield commanders? Senior brass? Civilian leadership? Courts? By what standards do they render a decision? If we're fighting for freedom, and the 1st Amendment is a core tenet of our freedom, then is it necessary to risk a few lives for a greater principle?

That is the $10,000,000 question.

What about criminal activity? Should we ignore any crimes committed, from the 11B to the President, if investigating that crime would risk another soldier?

You misunderstood what I meant, but it was my fault for failing to clarify my statement. I believe that criminals should be dealt with, that goes without saying. What I meant was that I'm against the declassification of any documents when it endangers the lives of military or civilians, such as what we're seeing with WikiLeaks.

These are not easy questions, and they cannot be answered with a duckspeak soundbite like "no risk, no matter what."

Again, I agree. I should've been more specific in my last comment.

 

[Nraman]

Small potatoes says who?

I do.
Whether Tillman died from friendly fire or enemy fire means nothing. The guy is a hero that gave everything. That some people tried to get all the mileage they could from it as they did with that girl in 2003, as they have always done to maintain their image, is indeed extremely small potatoes not worth the distraction from the main topic that has to do with “incredible damage to our nation’s security and our ability to do our job of protecting the nation. More importantly, it could jeopardize lives. For this reason, such leaks cannot be tolerated.”
You know like many may have already been killed (we would never advertise it unless it gets leaked).
Extremely small potatoes, served with red herring.

 

[donner]

I do.
Whether Tillman died from friendly fire or enemy fire means nothing. The guy is a hero that gave everything. That some people tried to get all the mileage they could from it as they did with that girl in 2003, as they have always done to maintain their image, is indeed extremely small potatoes not worth the distraction from the main topic that has to do with “incredible damage to our nation’s security and our ability to do our job of protecting the nation. More importantly, it could jeopardize lives. For this reason, such leaks cannot be tolerated.”
You know like many may have already been killed (we would never advertise it unless it gets leaked).
Extremely small potatoes, served with red herring.

Isn't it hard to establish 'trust' when other nations think we dragged them into a war on bad intel?

Also, how does a war that depletes our resources, drives our nation into deeper debt and taxes our military (mentally, physically and in overall numbers) not do 'incredible damage to our nation's security'?

 

[ez bake]

I do.
Whether Tillman died from friendly fire or enemy fire means nothing. The guy is a hero that gave everything. That some people tried to get all the mileage they could from it as they did with that girl in 2003, as they have always done to maintain their image, is indeed extremely small potatoes not worth the distraction from the main topic that has to do with “incredible damage to our nation’s security and our ability to do our job of protecting the nation. More importantly, it could jeopardize lives. For this reason, such leaks cannot be tolerated.”
You know like many may have already been killed (we would never advertise it unless it gets leaked).
Extremely small potatoes, served with red herring.

Oh, well if you say so, then I'm sorry about that. Forgive my ignorance in believing that it doesn't happen a whole lot more and you just didn't know about it since information compartmentalization (a concept that is clearly being missed as Red Herring is now turning into Pot / Kettle) by definition would pretty much mean that you couldn't know about all of the instances where our own folks are being sent into missions unprepared, or decisions are being made at a political level that do damage to our own troops, or incompetence is attributable to more damage to our own troops than say WikiLeaks leaking of data for the whole world to see.

That's not a concept that anyone can back with any credibility.

The fact is, Wiki-Leaks isn't a good concept (I'd never defend it as completely good), but it is that one wild-wild-west component of the internet that keeps some in our own government accountable (there have actually been several newsworthy investigations launched that have come up with hard facts about how our nation is filled with folks who love dodging accountability behind the curtain of "national security" all the while doing damage to our own.

To bury our heads in the sand and ignore that is not acceptable.

 

[KillShot]

Isn't it hard to establish 'trust' when other nations think we dragged them into a war on bad intel?

Also, how does a war that depletes our resources, drives our nation into deeper debt and taxes our military (mentally, physically and in overall numbers) not do 'incredible damage to our nation's security'?

I don't wanna hijack the thread but I want to interject here. Whether or not Saddamn had WMD's is nil when he was killing off his own citizens with chemical experiments and only God knows whatelse. If for no other reason than that, the U.S. was right in removing him from power. No, I don't think it's wise for the U.S. to act as the world police force, but there's no place in this world for a dictator such as Saddam.

I am and will forever be indebted and grateful for our troops laying their lives on the line, and those who have paid the ultimate price, to protect and defend freedom around the globe. That being said, no one said 'war' is easy or pleasant. Each soldier knew what was at stake when signing the dotted line. That doesn't mean that I have no compassion or sympathy, it's just that going to war for whatever reason, whether you disagree with it or not, is part of the territory when you've given your life to Uncle Sam.

Now that I've said my piece, feel free to flame and ridicule me at will if you disagree.

 

[ez bake]

I don't wanna hijack the thread but I want to interject here. Whether or not Saddamn had WMD's is nil when he was killing off his own citizens with chemical experiments and only God knows whatelse. If for no other reason than that, the U.S. was right in removing him from power. No, I don't think it's wise for the U.S. to act as the world police force, but there's no place in this world for a dictator such as Saddam.

I am and will forever be indebted and grateful for our troops laying their lives on the line, and those who have paid the ultimate price, to protect and defend freedom around the globe. That being said, no one said 'war' is easy or pleasant. Each soldier knew what was at stake when signing the dotted line. That doesn't mean that I have no compassion or sympathy, it's just that going to war for whatever reason, whether you disagree with it or not, is part of the territory when you've given your life to Uncle Sam.

Now that I've said my piece, feel free to flame and ridicule me at will if you disagree.

I won't disagree (and since this thread is so off-track, I won't worry about hi-jacking), but there are always lots of dictators that need removing and many were more evil than Sadaam (whom we helped put into power).

Had we really wanted to strike a blow for the funding of terrorism, we would have marched straight into Saudi and removed the folks who supported both the Taliban and Bin Ladin's terror - but we had political ties to Saudi - that's where I have a problem with the Government's involvement in wars nowdays, its no longer about a little bit of politics and a lot of what needs to be done, its the opposite.

And I would never blame or hold any troop responsible for the actions (be they misguided) of their superiors, so I'm with you on supporting the troops regardless of how crappy their situation is politically.

I'll also say this - you don't start a war (regardless of justified reason or not) and not finish it - we will regret what we've done in Iraq by making every attempt to basically end things "opened" and I hope we're not creating another Bin Ladin situation in the future like we love to do by making allies with enemies and then pulling the rug out from under them.

 

[LtCCMPUnit42]

Well, the director of Wikileaks is an Aussie, so it'd be hard to claim he's a traitor to the US; calling him a spy is also a stretch.

Incidentally, convicting somebody as a traitor--that is, convicting him of treason--has a pretty high bar. You might want to review the Constitution and see what it has to say on the matter.

The PFC that gave the info to the Aussie is a traitor, and the Aussie is a spy.
ANYONE who willingly puts our troops and assets in ANY potential danger is a threat to the safety and wellbeing of this country and should be dealt with accordingly.
Kill 'em, kick some dirt on 'em, say a few words from the Bible over 'em, and tell the rest of the traitor *******s what you did, and that they can expect the same.