WikiLeaks
 

Some political forum this is, the latest hot topic is being completely ignored. How should we address this?

We should give the man a medal?

We should give the man life?

We should hire MOSSAD to handle this little problem?

We should fire MOSSAD for creating this little problem?

Any takers?

Chas

I'm no fan of Julian Assange's antics nor of the possible ramifications of him publishing the leaks, but I think the DOJ's is off base considering a criminal prosecution. It's the US government who put all this info at the fingertips of a friggin' Army private who leaked it. One of the first rules of securing information is that it can only be accessed by those with the appropriate clearances and the "need to know." Why in the world did this Army private have the need to know the contents of diplomatic cables?

To answer your question more directly, we shouldn't do anything to Assange. But we should clean up the systems that allowed him access to these materials. From what I've read thus far, there's nothing in the State Dep't. materials that directly threaten our security. They just embarrass us, more for the fact that we don't keep our diplomatic records appropriately protected than for the contents themselves.

I think the mere existence of a website named "Wikileaks", that is dedicated soley to broadcasting national security secrets to the entire world warrants the use of an assassins services. I wouldn't seek prosecution either. I have this Assange piece of shit killed. A mysterious, untraceable accident that sends a clear message. The kind of death wherein everyone knows who was behind it, but no one can prove it.

This is what I think of Mr. Assange and "Wikileaks".

Then I would investigate into who leaked it, and how.

Dave

I don't know. Without leaks Watergate would still be a cover-up. If for nothing else, the fact that Armastraitjacket now knows that if Iran tries anything, how few (if any) of his neighbors will side with them.

Kill the little fart, what he is leaking cannot begin to be compared tp Watergate or the Pentagon Papers. Or let the Swedes throw him in jail as a sexual predator.

Whoa, the lefties get riled :D

Realisically I don't think we can just bump off a European. Even if he died from natural causes now not a single soul would believe it. But apparently, few (on this side of the pond anyway) would care.

A stray thought - what if we leaked them intentionally? It's about time the MEs true views on regional issues were shown.

Pete

Actually, these leaks didn't contain any secrets to begin with. This material was in a database separate from the one that contained the highly protected secret stuff.

On the subject of the ME, it is certainly no secret that the Sunni monarchies/dictatorships (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt) are frightened about the revolutionary beliefs of Iran. This is common knowledge among anyone with a clue about ME politics. Nothing new there.

I simply do not think sanctimonious little perverts like him are of any particular use to society. Maybe if they find the building where the do all the copying they could set it afire. Of yes my dears he is also doing it for money, he makes demands on the newspapers to whom he sends the stuff. Several have told him to stuff it.

Thanks Pat, I always look forward to you and Rob's take on these things.

The pressing question is "how a 22-year-old Army private at a remote Iraqi base could have gotten access to 250,000 State Department cables, as well as tens of thousands more military reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, and how he could have downloaded them onto CDs without being detected. The chief suspect in the deliveries to WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, was a disconsolate man who had been reprimanded for assaulting an officer and believed he might be discharged for his misconduct. Why was he allowed to retain access to classified information? How could he have stolen such a large amount of material without triggering any alarms?" *

*extracted from a WashPost editorial

BTW, another "secret" that leaked is that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah stated that the Iraq war had given Iraq to Iran as a "gift on a golden platter." That's not exactly a secret either as I (and others) have made this point numerous times on this board without the benefit of WikiLeaks.

Who's your source? Gaol for you!

I see that King Abdullah is a real player in international politics, outside of oil :)

Iraq is far from played out and should become a regional power again in its' own right. Eventually.

Hell Abdullah & Imadinnerjacket should be worried about a freer, resurgent Iraq - it's a bad examble for those dictatorships. Folks might get uppity.

Pete

Damn Pete that's good stuff you're smoking.:D

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/wo...platter&st=cse

On page 2, In December 2005, the Saudi king expressed his anger that the Bush administration had ignored his advice against going to war. According to a cable from the American Embassy in Riyadh, the king argued “that whereas in the past the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Saddam Hussein had agreed on the need to contain Iran, U.S. policy had now given Iraq to Iran as a ‘gift on a golden platter.’ ”

As for Abdullah's knowledge of the Mideast, I dare say he knew quite a bit more than Dubya.

If you're leaking common knowledge...

What we need to do is make sure of, even if it scares some people, is that we preserve the right to unregulated free speech. This event is not a catalyst for regulation.

If people misuse the right of free speech in the form of treason, current law already prescribes the penalty. Seems like this case might just be a rehash of commonly known information that is being brought to the forefront for some mysterious reason.

One of my liberal buddies was by and he pretty much agreed with you.

Myself, I'm waiting for the document drop on the big banks.

Chas

Are you suggesting that when the banks suffer embarrassment from having their schemes exposed, that they will call on their elected lackeys for action? Could be. Things can get rough when the masters of the universe see their ox being gored. Think Assange might suffer some mysterious accident between now and the time the bank documents are to be published?

Regards,

D-Ray

They've been the kingmakers for a long time.

Chas

i can't wait either.

Looks like we'll have to wait if Interpol has their way.

Wonder if Chavez will offer him asylum?

Chas

I think Ecuador already has.

No kidding?

Chas

that was the rumor yesterday
However I just found this"Meanwhile, Ecuador President denied reports of offering residency to Assange."

I don't think a foreigner can be prosecuted for treason. The DOJ is thinking of prosecuting him for espionage though. I'm still skeptical about the success of such a strategy.

For us to leave our secrets so insecure and scream when someone gets their hands on them is akin to walking down the street buck naked and accusing people who look at you of being peeping Tom's.:confused:

All of this talk about information leaking makes me think about my memory.

Regards,

D-Ray

Asylum sounds like the right place for that pervert.:p

You guys know why we had 'infidel' troops in the 'Holy Land', right?


And Freddie/Fannie.

Bam! Lol.

Pete

Oil. If Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia didn't have oil, we wouldn't give them the time of day, much less our troops.

Of course oil Finn!

How though, in relation to that oil? ;)

Pete

Preventing Saddam from controlling the oil instead of the House of Saud. FWIW, it was Saudi oil money that indirectly funded the 9/11 terrorists, not Saddam. Pick your poison, I suppose.

Indeed. :yes:

Pete

The part I don't get is this "winning the hearts and minds" crap. I don't care if they hate me, but if they knock down more buildings maybe we should level a few cities.

The odds on winning the hearts and minds of thos savages are similar to the future of a snowball in hell.

Reminds me of the invading aliens on the Simpsons trying to figure out why the humans hate them - one says 'but we won their hearts and minds' while holding out a heart and brain :)

Pete

Not sure about that
 

"The odds on winning the hearts and minds of thos savages are similar to the future of a snowball in hell."

Maybe you're right but we've got to try. Trying solely for a military solution against people whose leaders have indoctrinated them to the point where they consider it an honor to die just isn't going to work.

I don't got to do a damn thing as far as muslims are concerned, they have insulted my wife on four separate occasions, and that was four to many. The next SOB that tries it may not survive.

I think what some are trying to say is that if it's an honor for them to die, perhaps we will simply have to honor them with some hydrogen.

Because looking at it from the reverse perspective, they too want to win OUR hearts and minds. If that can't effect that, they attempt to kill us in the largest numbers they can muster. It's good that we can ultimately "muster" more than they can.

You're correct, they want us to be just like them.

Myself, I want 'em to take their cut and then go lie down and lick their nuts.
There's no percentage in overturning the applecart.

Chas

Just like Sarah? :p

No problem
 

No problem Merrylander, that was indeed four too many but lets turn this around. Because some Muslims are extremists, should all Muslims be condemned? What the terrorists do is way beyond anything in the Koran, although like the Bible bits of it are ambiguous enough to be twisted to suit their needs.

How would the USA react if in order to avenge dead civilians, schoolchildren, hospital patients etc. Islamic extremists managed to destroy an American city or two? If your family were killed by an enemy who then said "hey, shit happens in war; collateral damage" how would you or your descendants react?

The IRA were murderers who tortured then killed anyone who were against them but eventually, like them or loath them (I loath them) we HAD to sit and talk. Keeping it to a military level, it took thousands of deaths plus two A bombs to beat the Japanese into submission. Would you personally go that far to try to destroy Islamic radicals or eventually, maybe through gritted teeth, sit down and talk? If the latter, would it not be better to do it now rather than later; to work with moderate Muslims to try to isolate extremists, or is anyone wearing a Burka a legitimate target?