121–130 of 211 posts
I laughed when the author cited a US law claiming the United States' ability (specifically the FBI) to legally violate international law . That's like me citing my own personal law that says I may legally violate state laws and burglarize any house I want to.
I am struck by four things. 1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off. I don't mean the nicey, lets-go-protest-down-at-the-student-union kind of protest. I mean people who are not normally angry with anybody else in the world talking about throwing him in jail and/or killing him. Devil or Angel, that's a whole heap of pissing off he's accomplished. 2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals, yet he's just so…
>1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off This is because what they're doing is effective. Ineffective things don't piss people off and trigger military disinfo campaigns. The author of the WPO blog article is an AEI member, a player in the neocon agenda: not some random pundit. >2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are. >3) Anarchy is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison." That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it. "Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging." Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden name, and when…
"Occupation doesn't generally happen without bloodshed. Involving oneself in occupation is an investment in bloodshed. The jews who died during the Nazi regime didn't make a choice to involve themselves in bloodshed." And the people in the documents didn't ask wikileaks to release the names to the world and potentially to their enemies. Bloodshed could be avoided, but wikileaks is willfully looking the other way. "If…
If someone is an informant for an occupying force they have assumed a role in the occupation. This involves risk.
>That's like saying, because you gamble at a casino, it's an accepted risk that you will lose all your money (after we just found out that the casino has been cheating at all of the games).
If you decide to gamble, you put your money at risk. You know the odds are stacked against you: you just don't know to what extent. The rational choice is not to play.
I am struck by four things. 1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off. I don't mean the nicey, lets-go-protest-down-at-the-student-union kind of protest. I mean people who are not normally angry with anybody else in the world talking about throwing him in jail and/or killing him. Devil or Angel, that's a whole heap of pissing off he's accomplished. 2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals, yet he's just so…
Is a smooth-functioning, well-managed intelligence community in my interest?
If intelligence shape policy, then perhaps. Does it? Some argue it's the other way around: policy shapes intelligence, and you get the intelligence that policy dictates (cf. Iraq).
If that's the case, I could certainly do with a less efficient intelligence apparatus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) It's difficult to gauge the general sentiment, but as you say a lot of people have got het up. I see that as a good thing personally. 2) That's a good point. Wikileaks has the potential to leak material which is more damaging than it is beneficial. The question is if you think that risk is worthwhile. I do. 3) Anarchy encompasses a wide variety of political thought. You are being reductive. Besides, there is nothi…
1) I don't think this is a good thing overall, but I am happy people are angry. When the Afghan intelligence services kill Assange, we'll know how far you can push folks. That'll heat some up more -- maybe enough for things to change. 2)I believe the question you are asking me is "Do you think that some random schmuck on the internet should have the power to decide what remains secret and what doesn't?" For which I h…
The who?
On my list of prioritized concerns, Wikileaks falls well below unchecked military. But since you're adamantly opposed to this ...
Surely there is a middle ground, but the status quo was (is) heading in the direction of more secrecy. Sometimes, as now, it takes a shakeup. The very actions you prefer (eliminating classification for 99.9% of documents, streamlined intelligence agencies, criminal penalties) are so far in opposition to the past 10 years that they're literally pipe dreams. If your solution is to hold your breath until your pipe dreams come true, well, that's no solution at all. Meanwhile, the unchecked military rampantly wages war, killing thousands.
If Wikileaks helps the public take even a small step in opposition to these wars by virtue of shining a light on the depth of Govt lies, it will have done a far greater service than those who not only attack it, but essentially sit quietly waiting for impossible things to suddenly happen out of thin air.
FWIW, this guy and his employer earn their living by foaming in the mouth "for America". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute
Maybe you could elaborate on what you mean by "foaming at the mouth"? I read the wikipedia article you linked to and nowhere was that mentioned.
So, this hired-mouth can cry foul all he wants. Those old enough to exist before the Iraq invasion remember similar tunes. As for his opinion, it's nothing but an invoice line-item; commissioned by the Gun and Oil interests, draped in a flag and fig-leafed with God.
The thing that concerns me is how panicked governments seem to be over the release of documents and their reaction is insane (IE seemingly trying to block out all free speech and free right to publication, etc) that I can't help but wonder what they're not wanting to be leaked. Someone without secrets doesn't worry about things being leaked. What secrets do these governments have that are huge to the point that they…
You don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide, eh?
I find it bizarre that so many people suddenly care so much about the lives of a couple hundred civilians in Afghanistan. Between the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, and nary a tear was shed by a reporter anywhere, but suddenly God knows how many people are out for this fellow's blood. The world's a funny place.
It's propaganda, in aggregate. The stated rationales don't matter. All that matters is that the idea gets lodged in the public mind, that Wikileaks is a legitimate threat, an enemy of the state, a rogue organization. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It doesn't matter, so long as enough people believe it.
Why I don't know. What's the next play? When I heard the term "cyber warfare" in the past, I wouldn't have thought of this, but here we are.
The Afghan war was most certainly not a war of colonial aggression or some bullshit diversionary war in the wrong country and nobody has floated any realistic options other than occupying the country as way to prevent more buildings from being knocked down. It's not even entirely clear that even that minimal goal has been accomplished.
The point of all this wasn't to spread Democracy to the oppressed people of Afghanistan and give them clean water and schools. It was to eradicate an environment that facilitates and encourages people to plan and execute complex operations intent on killing us as part of an insane world domination plan to bring forth a new Caliphate on this Earth in order to establish a particularly hard-line version of Islam on humanity.
It just so turns out that our best estimate of what will stop the festering insane world domination cancer that grows there is a nice dose of Democracy, schools and economic growth. Perhaps that's wrong and misguided, but I have yet to hear of a plan that doesn't include "better government and stronger economy" that has any chance of working. And you can't have those things without some semblance of security. And you can't have security against people who want to establish a global Caliphate through a plan of killing and terrorizing civilian populations without killing a few of those assholes in return.
I mean, what's the alternative? Go door to door and politely pass out flyers asking them nicely to stop having aspirations of killing the infidel to cleanse the world? I wonder how long the Peace Corps would last amongst people who's idea of a reasoned response to "let's drill a well for the village" is to cut their head off with a dull knife and send a video of the decapitation to their family.
I'm not sure I really understand how to have a productive debate concerning this issue with people who think that the proper response to 9-11 should have been a shrug of the shoulders and enhanced sanctions.
I don't think anybody wants us to be at war there -- the ass end of the Earth. It's not like we're getting any material benefit from it -- quite the contrary in fact. But I objectively think that anybody who holds naive ideals that you can execute an invasion, conduct security operations, stabilization initiatives and nation building in such an inhospitable, economically hopeless part of the world and not end up with dead civilians is a moron. And I most certainly haven't heard of a reasonable plan that would exclude such unfortunate casualties. Cries for NATO to get out are never followed by a plan for what to do after that that would prevent the social and economic degeneration of the country into what we had to deal with in the late 90's and early 2000s.
To be perfectly honest, nobody really cares if Afghanistan soft crashes into a fractured state of tribal warlords who kill far more civilians than any occupation force could ever hope to do. Afghanistan will never be an advanced industrialized society.
What we all care about is if they soft crash back into a regime that supports complex and grandiose terror operations outside their borders. And due to woeful mismanagement the entire conflict, it's not clear where they'd land, but it's not likely to be a peaceful agrarian society.