WIKILEAKS the gift that keeps giving

[vvvvvvv]

Veggie, you are in to computers and you are asking this question?

Last time I checked, WikiLeaks utilized content delivery networks.

The most effective way for the U.S. to do what you are asking is take the Great Firewall approach. But even then, all that does is calm the American sheep down. What sheep don't know won't hurt them.

 

[inactive]

Determined detractors could accomplish the same with Twitter, social networking sites, email forwards, youtube videos, hell even public access TV channels or circulating handbills at large public events. It would likely not have been as effective, but ultimately the same goal is reached - to leak classified information.


Blaming wikileaks for the release of this information is like blaming guns for a crime. It was simply the most effective tool selected for the job.

If you crush wikileaks, another venue would come forward to serve the same goal. If you wack one mole another pops up. I don't think "taking out" wikileaks would solve the problem and i would guess US officials agree.

 

[LtCCMPUnit42]

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.

What I said in the earlier post goes double for the politicans that try to hide thier dirty dealing behind national security secrecy.

 

[KillShot]

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.

You're a man after my own heart...

 

[zulater]

And it's no secret.

Why not educate us, what did they cover up?

I thought I was the only to note the irony.

 

[vvvvvvv]

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.

They haven't even had an Article 32 Hearing yet to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed with a court martial. Their witness that he allegedly confessed to is not what one would call a trustworthy source.

That said, the government needs someone to go down for this. Whether or not there is enough evidence, the allegation is convenient.

We've seen historically that military courts don't work as fair as civilian courts.

 

[brazilianboy]

I heard wikileaks in a couple of days will put some documents about Russia!
now we can count on someone making Julian Assange disappear.

 

[donner]

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.

We will soon be without any politicians, presidents, or generals if that is really the case.

 

[KillShot]

We will soon be without any politicians, presidents, or generals if that is really the case.

Ha ha ha! Very good point!

 

[Nraman]

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'?

Absolutely and I am sorry that Bush got away with it.
In places like Iraq or Afghanistan and other places where you have to rely on local intelligence for survival and mission success, it kinda gets counterproductive when all your assets are exposed and you find them dead and all the locals know that the same will happen to them if they help.
I think Paneta (first post) made it perfectly clear that it is an extremely serious national security issue. Perhaps he knows what he is talking about even if I don't.
I was not even for the first Iraq war and I am not for the current wars and future Iranian war.
When we first invaded Iraq in 03, I happen to read an article on Haaretz, a Tel Aviv newspaper. It mentioned that the Mossad was going to appear in front of the Knesset to explain why they were wrong about the WMDs. I immediately knew that we were had and although Bush kept "looking" and coming up with theories about what happened to the WMDs, nothing would be found. It was a setup.
Regardless of how a President or other official behaved at one time or another, we should not throw away the baby with the bathwater. We still have to maintain security and take measures to assure it.
I would like to add that on another thread I posted a link to former ambassador April Glaspie's meeting with Saddam where she clearly told him that he must not drive the oil prices down. There is a lot of dirt out there, no question about it, I just don't think we need the Aussie making things worse for us.