Originally Posted by LeMask

Let the judges take care of that...

They have.

You'll just have to wait a little longer for you to have your hero leaker

Did the person who leaked it get paid in any way? If he felt the army wasn't acting responsibly he did it from a sense of moral duty.

Would you consider an SS guard grassing on his mates in the Nuremburg trials a traitor? It depends exactly what the military was up to. If they weren't complying with the Geneva convention, if they were alienating the population and generating enemies, perhaps he shuld be viewed more as a hero than a villian. However, if he was grassing for private gain he is indeed a traitor in a more general sense.

Originally Posted by perseus

Did the person who leaked it get paid in any way? If he felt the army wasn't acting responsibly he did it from a sense of moral duty.

Would you consider an SS guard grassing on his mates in the Nuremburg trials a traitor? It depends exactly what the military was up to. If they weren't complying with the Geneva convention, if they were alienating the population and generating enemies, perhaps he shuld be viewed more as a hero than a villian. However, if he was grassing for private gain he is indeed a traitor in a more general sense.

10/10

Yes, I personally havent even bothered to look at what was leaked, and probably wouldn't understand the importance or otherwise, of what most of it was anyway.

But one thing I would stake my entire retirement pension on, is that regardless of it's importance, the people responsible for not safeguearding the material in the first place will be in there "boots 'n' all" overexagerating the case mainly for the reasons of "revenge" and to divert attention from their own lack of care.

The blame shifting department will be in high overdrive.

I've been there and seen it all before, it's all part of the "back room boys" culture.

Originally Posted by Micha

LeMask, my old friend.

This article was published in one of the major Danish newspapers some years ago. It was written by a journalist who had interviewed the Danish soldiers in Iraq.

I quote from the newspaper.

“The Danish politician sends us to Iraq to perform a task without giving us the equipment which we need to do our job; says the soldier. Among other things, we lack some electronic equipment. The soldiers will soon be equipped with a sort of radio transmitters in their vehicles, known as jammers that can block radio waves around the vehicles. These jammers will cost the Danish taxpayers 40 million. which the military would not use if there wasn’t a need for the equipment.”

If we now imagine that you are sitting at home in your armchair and reading this article in the newspaper, what do you think? Do you understand what is written and if you have to evaluate the text, then what is your conclusion?


To all of you, who read this post, please do not respond. I only wish LeMask's comments.

//Micha.

It's alright my friend, one need to relax sometimes.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll give you the answer to what my point is.

Originally Posted by LeMask

To Micha, Let me give you an answer... First, sorry for being late. As I'm in vacation and that I had to spend the week end in another city.

Well, to answer your question, after reading such an article, I would think that the military arent giving the soldiers enough equipment. And that the war cost a lot of money and that the soldiers have to be equiped with modern electronic gear in today's battlefield...

This kind of conclusions I guess... I dont see your point exactly...

But let's say that these kind of articles have an influence on the public support of the war effort. If the politics are really doing big mistakes, like I dont know, sending troups without proper armor... Soldiers get killed, and you know how a public outrage can cost them (the politics).

I understand that you are after reading this article concludes that the way you do. The vast majority of people will probably also come up with this conclusion.

But if you read between the lines, then you get very important information. If the Iraqi intelligence service reads this article, then their conclusion would be this: radio triggered improvised explosive device (IED) will be a effective weapon to use against the Danish troops as they do not have vehicles equipped with radio jammers.

You see the point now?

Originally Posted by LeMask

Let the judges take care of that...

But play the "what if" game with me. If a soldier leaked data to inform the public about some wrong doings... Would you call him a hero or a traitor?

In this case I would call the soldier a big idiot. He was probably frustrated by a shortage of this equipment, but by making such a statement, he puts his and his comrades' lives in danger.

/Micha

Originally Posted by perseus

Did the person who leaked it get paid in any way? If he felt the army wasn't acting responsibly he did it from a sense of moral duty.

Would you consider an SS guard grassing on his mates in the Nuremburg trials a traitor? It depends exactly what the military was up to. If they weren't complying with the Geneva convention, if they were alienating the population and generating enemies, perhaps he shuld be viewed more as a hero than a villian. However, if he was grassing for private gain he is indeed a traitor in a more general sense.

Yes, morale is good but is hypocrisy twice as good?

If you reveal operational procedures which can cost people their lives, then it is treason in my eyes.

If I was an SS guard I'd call him a traitor and if I was a prosecutor I would call him a useful idiot.

But since we have gone back to WWII then this poster is still valid.

Originally Posted by senojekips

You are all still missing the point, the problem is not Wikileaks or Journalists or whoever, it is the person who stole the information and those who allowed such lax security that it could be done.

No, the problem is also Wikileaks and journalists. Wikileaks agenda we know and the journalist I can, to some degree understand but they should be somewhat more critical with the material they receive and have it analyzed before it´s published in search of a good story.

Originally Posted by senojekips

10/10

Yes, I personally havent even bothered to look at what was leaked, and probably wouldn't understand the importance or otherwise, of what most of it was anyway.

But one thing I would stake my entire retirement pension on, is that regardless of it's importance, the people responsible for not safeguearding the material in the first place will be in there "boots 'n' all" overexagerating the case mainly for the reasons of "revenge" and to divert attention from their own lack of care.

The blame shifting department will be in high overdrive.

I've been there and seen it all before, it's all part of the "back room boys" culture.

I would not brag about it. There are many others who can get interesting things out of it.

And here we go again, beard and blue spectacles and ghosts everywhere.

Originally Posted by Micha

No, the problem is also Wikileaks and journalists. Wikileaks agenda we know and the journalist I can, to some degree understand but they should be somewhat more critical with the material they receive and have it analyzed before it´s published in search of a good story.

You haven't even read what I said, so don't try to criticise me for admitting that I had not read the material. As I pointed out, the actual material had nothing to do with my point, because, had Wikileaks had not distributed it a hundred other agencies would have fought to be first in line, including the intelligence agencies of a dozen or more foreign powers. If you think WikiLieaks are to blame you have a very limited and short sighted view of the world that you live in.

In case you are not aware of it, there is a parallel universe outside that of the Military, it is a commercially driven civilian world and it outnumbers the military both numerically and politically. It is the world that provides both the money AND the enemies that keep the military in it's position of power. This world is composed of all types, from supporters of their relative military forces, to your worst nightmare as enemies.

Somewhere, you have led a very protected life, you should get out more and see what is going on in the world you live in. The truth will shock you.

Yeah, once the word is out, it is out, wikileaks or no wikileaks.
Ultimately the CO of that unit and his NCOs bear the responsibility.

Originally Posted by senojekips

You haven't even read what I said, so don't try to criticise me for admitting that I had not read the material. As I pointed out, the actual material had nothing to do with my point, because, had Wikileaks had not distributed it a hundred other agencies would have fought to be first in line, including the intelligence agencies of a dozen or more foreign powers. If you think WikiLieaks are to blame you have a very limited and short sighted view of the world that you live in.

In case you are not aware of it, there is a parallel universe outside that of the Military, it is a commercially driven civilian world and it outnumbers the military both numerically and politically. It is the world that provides both the money AND the enemies that keep the military in it's position of power. This world is composed of all types, from supporters of their relative military forces, to your worst nightmare as enemies.

Somewhere, you have led a very protected life, you should get out more and see what is going on in the world you live in. The truth will shock you.

Yes, I’ve read what you wrote. That one hundred other agencies would have fought to be first in line, including the intelligence agencies of a dozen or more foreign powers is something you assume. There is no coherent narrative, no context for individual episodes or an overarching perspective on the war. And very important: documents are not inconsistent with the image; official reports and media have drawn over several years. These documents complement the picture of the war, you know, if you have read the newspapers and government reports.

The British newspaper The Guardian has a problem as a critical mediator of the papers. the newspaper claims that the documents reveal “a very different landscape” Than what one knows. One would think that the editor had not read newspapers over the last six years. It seems that The Guardian has dramatized the documents more than they can carry, because the newspaper has had exclusive access to them. In this way undermines the press as a serious medium in an age where we are bombarded with information from near and far and have no idea what to believe: source criticism, credibility, insight, ability to prioritize and put information into their proper context.

Several military experts also agree that some of the leaked documents could endanger human life and give the enemy access to how NATO is operating. The media has a responsibility here, but so has the political and military authorities. Indeed, if you repeatedly attempt to suppress information with regard to national security, and it turns out that it is merely a sham to keep inconvenient information away from the public, so the media will be less inclined to listen when national security is really threatened.

That said, we can then welcome the opportunities that WikiLeaks creates for those who believe in transparency and open society. WikiLeaks stood last year behind the publication of thousands of emails from climate scientists that revealed attempts to suppress information that casts doubt on global warming. WikiLeaks has uncovered corruption in Kenya, irregularities in Western banks, an oil scandal in Peru and dumping of hazardous waste in Africa. That day, an official of a repressive regime wanted to share his knowledge of crimes committed by a dictator, WikiLeaks will be the ideal medium, but in the meantime maybe someone should teach Julian Assange the difference between journalism and activism.

I was not born in the military and because I am in the armed forces do not mean that I am not an active member of society. I've been a member of a political party in five years (and yes, it is the conservative party) and international politics have my interest. But I'm only 20 and you are probably twice as old as me and will probably argue that you also are twice as clever. I have lived a sheltered life indeed, and I am grateful for that, but I have not just been sitting on my flat ass at home. I've been out in the world. My father works in a multinational company so I have lived in other countries. The truth will shock you or The Truth Will Set You Free. You sound like the local missionary.

//Micha

Yes Micha but the point is we expect folks like Wikileaks and the media to act as they did. Irresponsible, etc. yes. But that's the sort of folks they are.
The ultimate responsibility lies with command and I for one would not like to see those people get away with it by letting the smaller fish fry so they can get away without paying the price.