WikiLeaks

[I Like Soup]

Are they all invading us becasue they are pissed off over some emails?

Exactly what I thought.

[Perchoutofwater]

Are they all invading us becasue they are pissed off over some emails?

 

I can see his point to a degree. They may be less inclined to cooperate with us on matters of national security because of this, though I'd hope that if our interests and theirs were in line they would put the interests of their country ahead of any personal irritation they may have over how they have been depicted by those gather information on them. I seriously doubt they are surprised that we are gather information on them, and sure they are gathering information on our leaders as well to try to figure out how best to negotiate with them.

[Clubfoothead]

I don't see this as affecting our national security so much as affecting our standing in the world, and how well we are able to deal with other world leaders.

 

Irony in action

[bpwallace49]

I can see his point to a degree. They may be less inclined to cooperate with us on matters of national security because of this, though I'd hope that if our interests and theirs were in line they would put the interests of their country ahead of any personal irritation they may have over how they have been depicted by those gather information on them. I seriously doubt they are surprised that we are gather information on them, and sure they are gathering information on our leaders as well to try to figure out how best to negotiate with them.

 

Most of these are allies, and all gubmnet heads are temporary. I would think if someone said something negative about Obama we wouldnt get all pissy and stop working with them.

 

Then again . . we DID have two wars with Iraq . . . cause the royal Saudi family was scared . . . and they are close business partners with the Bush family . . . so they put personal interests ahead of the importance of American lives . . .

 

 

I withdraw my objection and completely agree with perch and zeke. Gubmnet heads ARE that capricious and this is a threat to national security. Assassinate the fk'er immediately . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

Most of these are allies, and all gubmnet heads are temporary. I would think if someone said something negative about Obama we wouldnt get all pissy and stop working with them.

 

Then again . . we DID have two wars with Iraq . . . cause the royal Saudi family was scared . . . and they are close business partners with the Bush family . . . so they put personal interests ahead of the importance of American lives . . .

 

 

I withdraw my objection and completely agree with perch and zeke. Gubmnet heads ARE that capricious and this is a threat to national security. Assassinate the fk'er immediately . . .

 

Are you really that big of an idiot lacking basic reading comprehension skills, or do you just like arguing with me for the sake of argument, even when we stand on the same side of the issue. All I said was I could see his point to a degree. I didn't say I agreed with it, in fact my post prior to that stated it wouldn't effect national security, and the post you linked that you either didn't read or didn't comprehend went so far as to say that I didn't think it would really matter as most people are going to put the interest of their country ahead of any personal irritation over this. If I wasn't a married man, with kids and obviously heterosexual, I'd think you have a crush on me or something because you are acting like the typical middle school boy that has a crush.

[bpwallace49]

Are you really that big of an idiot lacking basic reading comprehension skills, or do you just like arguing with me for the sake of argument, even when we stand on the same side of the issue. All I said was I could see his point to a degree. I didn't say I agreed with it, in fact my post prior to that stated it wouldn't effect national security, and the post you linked that you either didn't read or didn't comprehend went so far as to say that I didn't think it would really matter as most people are going to put the interest of their country ahead of any personal irritation over this. If I wasn't a married man, with kids and obviously heterosexual, I'd think you have a crush on me or something because you are acting like the typical middle school boy that has a crush.

 

Sorry . . .I forgot to hit the icon. I was being sarcastic.

 

You need a bit of "global cooling" here pardner . . . .

[Jimmy Neutron]

Meh - I think the government should hire the WikiLeaks guy as a security consultant. He's obvioiusly better than the shmucks running NSA or whomever it is right now.

 

I wonder how many billions of our dollars the government spends on electronic security only to see its dirty laundry aired like this.

[Clubfoothead]

I wonder how many billions of our dollars the government spends on electronic security only to see its dirty laundry aired like this.

 

Whatever they spent on Stuxnet or whatever was well worth it.

[peepinmofo]

Re: Wikileaks- In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.

 

-Ron Paul

 

[redrumjuice]

"If we want to keep our nation's secrets 'SECRET' store them where

President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate."

 

Gov Huckabee

[Trojanmojo]

Assange is a dirtbag and belongs in prison. The leaking of these classified docs is reason #1,281. (or so). I'm no fan of wikileaks. He's a slimebag belongs behind bars for the rest of his life. So does the Private who leaked these docs. My $.02.

[Duchess Jack]

How many people here tell their co-workers, bosses, colleagues, suppliers, customers, family members, teachers, sutdents, employees,competitors, parents, children, siblings, spouces, etc........ exactly what they think? Why do or or don't you do that?

[Duchess Jack]

Assange is a dirtbag and belongs in prison. The leaking of these classified docs is reason #1,281. (or so). I'm no fan of wikileaks. He's a slimebag belongs behind bars for the rest of his life. So does the Private who leaked these docs. My $.02.

perhaps I am a little out of line on this, but I think that both need a big ol' case of the deads.

[Duchess Jack]

"If we want to keep our nation's secrets 'SECRET' store them where

President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate."

 

Gov Huckabee

 

Zing!! I used to like Huckabee. Way to make light of (and try to make political points off of in the most insane way) the loss of our nations security

[Square]

There are some points in this that I find hard to disagree with....

Before setting forth why these WikiLeaks disclosures produce vastly more good than harm, I'll state several caveats as clearly as I can. Unlike the prior leaks of war documents, there are reasonable concerns about this latest leak (most particularly that impeding diplomacy makes war more likely). Like all organizations, WikiLeaks has made mistakes in the past, including its failure to exercise enough care in redacting the names of Afghan informers. Moreover, some documents are legitimately classified, probably including some among the documents that were just disclosed.

 

Nonetheless, our government and political culture is so far toward the extreme pole of excessive, improper secrecy that that is clearly the far more significant threat. And few organizations besides WikiLeaks are doing anything to subvert that regime of secrecy, and none is close to its efficacy. It's staggering to watch anyone walk around acting as though the real threat is from excessive disclosures when the impenetrable, always-growing Wall of Secrecy is what has enabled virtually every abuse and transgression of the U.S. government over the last two decades at least.

 

In sum, I seriously question the judgment of anyone who -- in the face of the orgies of secrecy the U.S. Government enjoys and, more so, the abuses they have accomplished by operating behind it -- decides that the real threat is WikiLeaks for subverting that ability. That's why I said yesterday: one's reaction to WikiLeaks is largely shaped by whether or not one, on balance, supports what the U.S. has been covertly doing in the world by virtue of operating in the dark. I concur wholeheartedly with Digby's superb commentary on this point yesterday:

 

My personal feeling is that any allegedly democratic government that is so hubristic that it will lie blatantly to the entire world in order to invade a country it has long wanted to invade probably needs a self-correcting mechanism. There are times when it's necessary that the powerful be shown that there are checks on its behavior, particularly when the systems normally designed to do that are breaking down. Now is one of those times. . . . .As for the substance of the revelations, I don't know what the results will be. But in the world of diplomacy, embarrassment is meaningful and I'm not sure that it's a bad thing for all these people to be embarrassed right now. Puncturing a certain kind of self-importance --- especially national self-importance --- may be the most worthwhile thing they do. A little humility is long overdue.

[caddyman]

There are some points in this that I find hard to disagree with....

No kidding. So you want tranparency at the risk of the country and its well being? Simple question.

[Big John]

 

WikiLeaks founder arrested

[Square]

No kidding.

Yea, you know all about me.

 

So you want tranparency at the risk of the country and its well being? Simple question.

Despite the trolling, I'll give a real answer. The truth is that we should be more transparent then what we are currently. "Risking" humiliation to some life long bureaucrats that most of the world already know are full of chit is not the earth shattering event you seem to pretend it is. For the most part the government is incompetent at best and corrupt at worse. If we "trust" them to make us safe and act in our best interest without any oversight or transparency we are going to keep getting what we've been getting. The government gets larger and asks for more secrecy every year. Where is the limit? When do they work for us instead of vice versa?

[lennykravitz2004]

On CNN.com right now...

 

My favorite of irony is the statement from this supposed "Anonymous Operations" group doing these attacks: "Anonymous Operations members told CNN Thursday their goal was "freedom of information. Any and all information.""

 

Yet, they're anonymous. Hypocrites. Why don't they take their own medicine and come out of the closet. I guess they want "freedom of information. Any and all information" as long as it's what they deem important or want released according to their agenda. Let's see these cowards come out and show themselves - I'd like to know that information. I'd like to see their site get hacked and our government to replace their code with a nice little trojan virus.

[SEC=UGA]

The more I see pictures of that sniveling little creature (Assanage and the Private) the more I want both of them dead. Their hacker friends need to get a case of the severe, debilitating, carpal tunnel syndrome, as well.

[SEC=UGA]

It seems that the esteemed professors at Columbia have put in their $.02...

 

One of the most prominent journalism schools in the United States is asking President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder not to prosecute WikiLeaks because it would set a "bad precedent for reporters."

 

"We all believe that in publishing diplomatic cables WikiLeaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment," according to a letter signed by 19 Columbia Journalism School professors.

 

Holder is an alum of both the undergrad program and Columbia Law School.

 

"As a historical matter, government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves," the letter says. READ THE LETTER

 

The letter argues that prosecuting WikiLeaks would result in "chilling" investigative journalism everywhere, and that legal action against the organization would "greatly damage American standing in free-press debates worldwide and would dishearten those journalists looking to this nation for inspiration."

 

WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange is in jail in relation to a sex crime investigation in Sweden - a case that officials say is entirely separate from WikiLeaks or the group's publishing of reams of classified U.S. government and military information. The leak has included diplomatic cables.

[SEC=UGA]

Now Berkeley, CA is getting in on it....

 

 

Some council members in this famously liberal city said Tuesday night they were concerned about the way the resolution was written and wanted more time to investigate. Others said it was premature to hail Pfc. Bradley Manning a hero when he has not admitted to being the source of the leaks.

 

"My problem with the recommendation as it stands is we're being asked to proclaim somebody a hero who hasn't said he wants to be recognized as a hero, who hasn't said that he did it," said Councilman Kriss Worthington, who added that he did consider a hero whoever was responsible for the leaks.

 

"I think this should come back to us if he actually says that he did it."

 

Manning has gained support from groups on the anti-war left who believe the soldier performed a valuable public service. Some politicians and veterans' groups have labeled the soldier's alleged release of classified information an act of treason.

 

Other councilmembers were less enthusiastic about the leaks themselves, and that the council was spending its time debating Wikileaks instead of dealing with local issues.

 

"Items like this are a huge distraction from what I feel like I was elected to do," said Councilwoman Susan Wengraf.

 

The proposed resolution is the latest in a long line of provocative political statements by leaders in Berkeley, a city of 100,000 across the bay from San Francisco that was the epicenter of the anti-war movement in the Vietnam era.

 

The city put a measure on the 2006 ballot calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and more recently tried to declare Marine recruiters "unwanted intruders."

 

The resolution proposed by the city's Peace and Justice Commission praises Manning for exposing "war crimes" by allegedly leaking a 2007 video of a laughing U.S. Apache helicopter crew gunning down 11 men in Baghdad, Iraq, including a Reuters news photographer.

 

"The United States Army covered up the evidence and declared this war crime 'justified' and now claims that exposing the massacre is criminal," the resolution reads. "Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime."

 

Military investigators also suspect the 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst downloaded hundreds of thousands of classified Afghan and Iraq war reports and an untold number of secret U.S. diplomatic cables onto a Lady Gaga CD and a computer memory stick while stationed in Iraq. Wikileaks published the war reports earlier this year and began releasing the cables late last month.

 

Manning has not commented publicly on whether he is the source of the leaks. But anti-war groups have rallied behind him and are raising money for his defense.

 

"We obviously think Manning's a hero," said Jeff Manning, a project manager for Courage to Resist, the group that authored the resolution as part of its mission of supporting anti-war members of the U.S. armed services. "If he's going to have a shot at justice in a military courtroom we have to move more people to think the same way."

 

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has won similar support from anti-war groups, including documentary maker Michael Moore, as he appeared before a British judge Tuesday in hopes of getting released on bail on a sex-crimes warrant.

 

The Wikileaks controversy is reminiscent of the uproar in Berkeley over Marine Corps recruiters in the city's downtown. A resolution declaring them "unwanted intruders" also was proposed by the Peace and Justice Commission, which is described on the city's website as advisers to the council.

 

The council reversed itself on the Marine Corps resolution following protests by conservative and veteran groups.

 

At least one such group has already condemned the resolution in support of Manning.

 

"It's tragic that the same rights and liberties afforded to Berkeley's citizens through the sacrifices of our service members and veterans can be manipulated and exploited for such an absurd purpose," Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for the veterans' service group AMVETS, wrote on the organization's blog.

 

Berkeley officials have argued in the past that the city government's penchant for tackling major geopolitical issues alongside potholes and traffic is in keeping with the diversity of the city's residents, who come from around the world to attend the University of California, Berkeley.

 

But the city is also not shy about taking up causes that don't deal with foreign wars.

 

For example, when the Rev. Jerry Falwell attacked the purse-toting Teletubby "Tinky Winky" as a homosexual role model in 1999, Berkeley passed a proclamation that read "Long live Tinky Winky."

 

___

[Square]

On CNN.com right now...

 

My favorite of irony is the statement from this supposed "Anonymous Operations" group doing these attacks: "Anonymous Operations members told CNN Thursday their goal was "freedom of information. Any and all information.""

 

Yet, they're anonymous. Hypocrites. Why don't they take their own medicine and come out of the closet. I guess they want "freedom of information. Any and all information" as long as it's what they deem important or want released according to their agenda. Let's see these cowards come out and show themselves - I'd like to know that information. I'd like to see their site get hacked and our government to replace their code with a nice little trojan virus.

I don't think you know who anonymous is. Have you ever heard of or 4chan or /b? Here is a link that might give you a better idea of who they are.

 

Anonymous is not a group of hackers. We are average Internet Citizens ourselves and our motivation is a collective sense of being fed up with all the minor and major injustices we witness every day.

 

We do not want to steal your personal information or credit card numbers. We also do not seek to attack critical infrastructure of companies such as Mastercard, Visa, PayPal or Amazon. Our current goal is to raise awareness about WikiLeaks and the underhanded methods employed by the above companies to impair WikiLeaks’ ability to function.

Here is another anon quote from a letter they sent to Glenn Beck:

Neither Wikieaks nor its founder have been charged with any crime in connection to any of the published leaks. Thus, we at Anonymous see any actions directed at silencing Wikileaks as an assault on our freedom of information and the freedom of those at Wikileaks to publish as they see fit.

[Square]

And just so we are all on the same page here. Bradley Manning has never been convicted of any crime.

 

The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.

 

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention

 

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch).

 

A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture." For that reason, many Western nations -- and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses -- refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence. "It’s an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit."

 

"A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered."

 

In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement. Its Report documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions."

 

"EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement." Medical tests conducted in 1992 on Yugoslavian prisoners subjected to an average of six months of isolation -- roughly the amount to which Manning has now been subjected -- "revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury."

 

We can argue about what should happen to someone who has been convicted of a serious crime, but realize this guy has spent 7 months locked into a box 23 hours a day and has never been convicted of a crime. Even if you believe he should be hanged. Wouldn't that be after being convicted? I mean, he wasn't caught selling secrets to Russia.

[Duchess Jack]

I mean, he wasn't caught selling secrets to Russia.

with all the care he showed in what he did - he may as well have.