Quality Control Bot

iTrader: (3)

Assange ordered to jail while court decides on extradition

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe...pt=T1&iref=BN1

jayc72

iTrader: (14)

If I were in the military and leaked classified information on this website and Rick choose to leave it in place for the world to see, who is responsible and accountable for this action?

I know a lot of people will say that he should take it down because it is classified. And base that decision on the sole fact that the information is classified. Blindly censor the document because the it was classified by the government. Sounds reasonable and logical. Especially if the document was the name and the address of anyone doing covert work. But what if the document was proof that Obama is really an Al-Qaeda puppet. Or the details of who assassinated JFK?

As much as the contents of the leak shouldn't matter it does. And who is to make that call? Who is to be the censor?

Hanging the Wikileaks guy wouldn't do anything to combat this issue. Since the issue isn't how the leaked documents are made public, as we all know the information will find a way and once it is out there it is immortal. The real issue is a person with access to the documents leaked them, wikileaks is only the method. Hang the guy who stole the documents in the first place, on the White House lawn. Maybe the next person might think twice about stealing classified documentation. Crucifying Wikileaks won't solve anything. The next version of Wikileaks might be run by the Chinese government and be completely untouchable.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

That's all fine and dandy except wiki leaks facilitated the infiltration in an attempt to undermine OUR govt.

Read the wikipedia page on the pentagon papers. That gives you a better graps on a real case of leaking information.

By law, information may not be classified merely because it would be embarrassing or to cover illegal activity; information may only be classified to protect national-security objectives.

He leaked the information because he was certain this was the case.

KPLAFIN

iTrader: (1)

Leaking classified information while in the military = a crime, no matter what the **** the information contains. What if I killed your mother but later proved that she was plotting an attack to blow up an elementary school? What if my argument was simply "What if she might blow up and elementary school?"

"Whistleblowers" that blow the whistle on something like genocide being covered up somewhere or secret chemical testing on children would be protected, they would not need to "leak" classified documents, etc.. they would simply need to utilize the right channels to report such things taking place and they would be dealt with MOST LIKELY PUBLICLY, but leaking classified documents about who our informants during a time of war in the country the war is taking place are is not ok for any reason what so ever. Especially if its simply because some butt hurt, daddy-issue having son of a bitch has a problem with the government that employs them BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.

I'm not checking into this thread anymore, I'm done.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

kplafin is always butt-hurt....we should watch out for him.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

I agree. There are, however, certain types of information that need to be kept secret from the general public for operational security reasons. Most Americans can't keep the fact that Jenny from accounting is having an affair with Dave from marketing under their hats for twenty minutes. This is part of the reason we elect statesmen to act on our behalf an in our interest. It minimizes the exposure of sensitive information, unless we are talking about Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy.

Whatever happened to Vince Foster, anyway? I think it was determined that he committed suicide at sixty yards with a high powered rifle or something?



NEW LEAKS OUT TODAY- There is a new series of documents released by wiki leaks that lists, among other things, strategic locations and locations of critical assets throughout the world. Secretary Clinton refers to this new release of information as a "Hit list for terrorists." It will certainly compromise the security and safety of Americans and our operatives and possibly disrupt ongoing operations.

I'm sure Secretary Clinton must be exaggerating. I'm sure it was nothing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/...s_secret_sites

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

its kinda funny how useless the gov't is in preventing the info from continuing to be dumped online.

Vashthestampede

iTrader: (17)

I remember hearing something on the radio like "if the ******* guy gets arrested, more important documents would be leaked".

I guess he wasn't bluffing.....

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Sorry, but no, no it's not. The person who leaked them did the illegal act. That's it. Wikileaks has done nothing illegal - something of which the US Government has had it's legal arm admit grudgingly to. It's covered under classical press precedents. The only illegal act with respect to classified info is the act of leaking it, not of publishing it.

Oh boy, I've actually gone through that list. Let me tell you, they sure saved the terrorists a few minutes, or maybe as much as an hour or two of searching on google.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...207-18ogq.html is actually one of the better articles I've read on it.

Now time to end with the sarcasm. As someone who reads nearly everything Wikileaks releases, their latest leaks have nothing in them that can "compromise the security and safety of Americans and our operatives and possibly disrupt ongoing operations." In fact, if anything, it is more damaging to other countries then the US - all it does is embarass our politicians because it reveals stuff they would desperately like to hide. Stuff we should know about in any sane country. The latest leak about critical targets doesn't have anything in it that wouldn't be common knowledge or otherwise relatively simplistic to find.

The current politicians going off on Wikileaks are using it as nothing more than a distraction to keep people's attention away from what is going on at home.

ScottFW

iTrader: (4)

There's a flip side to that coin. Since everybody knows that all of those documents will eventually be released anyway, what motivation do we have to ensure he doesn't get shanked in prison?

I'm not a military man so perhaps one of you guys can clear this up for me. Why does a lowly Pfc have access to classified diplomatic communications? To somebody who doesn't know anything to the contrary (me) it seems like we're giving the keys to the kingdom to 20-y.o. kids who are pretty low on the ******* totem pole to be trusted with information that is supposedly critical to national security. Or did he l337 hax0rz that **** and just outright steal it without having authorized access in the first place? There's been a lot more reported about Asshat/WL and less about how the info was originally obtained and the policies that allowed it to occur.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

they are just cables. everything is just out there on them. The US Gov't has it's own private internet...think of it as an email account that everyone with a TS/SCI clearance can see. Too many people have access to SIPRnet.

KPLAFIN

iTrader: (1)

It all depends on what job you land and what kind of BS you go through to get what Clearance. I obviously can't speak for this particular situation since I know nothing about it though.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

The Wikileaks insurance file. Only Assange/A few members of Wikileaks and the US Government knows what is actually in it.

Whatever is in it, it has them absolutely terrified of Assange. You can see it with the stances that are being taken. It is known that it has something to do with either 9/11 or the JFK assassination, beyond that, no one is sure - but it sure has the US Govt terrified.

Jeff_Ciesielski

iTrader: (10)

The cables you are talking about differ from what Vash heard on the radio.

Wikileaks keeps an "insurance file". It is roughly 1.5gb of data encrypted with a 256bit SHA key. Nobody knows what is in that file, but it is assumed to be the kind of information everyone here is bitching about.

Believe it or not, wikileaks HAS exercised restraint in what they have released. All cables (including the so called "afghan war diaries") have been edited in an attempt to prevent life threatening danger to subjects.

It is ASSUMED that the "insurance" contains seriously damaging material obtained through these leaks that was classified for more than just PR reasons. So IF Julian Assange is killed OR wikileaks is taken down permanently (not just having the DNS records snuffed like they were), there is already a network of individuals in place that will distribute the SHA key to decrypt the file exposing classified material many many times the size of what has currently been released.

EDIT: **** you new guy :P.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Hah, my first ninja

But yes. Seriously damaging is probably an understatement, considering how the US Govt is acting with respect to Assange. Whatever is in it, they are beyond terrified of it. You never see politicians acting like this unless it means the end of their careers or jail time - and never on a scale like they are right now. If you are to take what they are doing as it appears, this could very easily mean the end of a political party possibly, or worse.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

I just want to know what the hell Bank of America is doing with my mortgage.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

did you file for foreclosure?

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

No. More accurately, I want to know what Bank of America is hiding that might in some tangential way affect my own mortgage which is currently held by said bank.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

probably nothing. just that they know they have 1 person handling 2000000 documents a day and said worker got smart and just said all good.

Quality Control Bot

iTrader: (3)

If it is that, that is wild.