Where is the wikileak-thread?

Ted

Active member
Frankly, I am quite surprised that the whole wikileak-affair is about as lively as Grace Jones on this forum. Has it been dealt with on another thread or is there no interest to talk about it?
After some digging I found this interesting soundbite and personally think he getting to the point:
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

Why is, for example. Clinton so hard in her judgment? She was quoted, saying:
"There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations,"
But whom does she mean when she says: innocent people? And what peaceful relations are sabotaged. The only thing which became obvious is that the corps diplomatique are gossiping like a bunch of school girls and get angry (instead of embarrassed) when their gossiping is out in the open... Why don't they write their reports as professionals instead of wannabe journalists of the Daily Telegraph? And the saddest part of all is that they want to crucify someone because their ego's got bruised.
 
I think that the problem is that the US diplomats now have egg on their face. I would expect that the diplomats should be able to give frank and candid evaluations of the people they are working with. Worrying about having the evaluations leaked to the press may inhibit their ability to do their jobs. Frankly what surprises me the most is the fact that they do it to us, just like we do it to them. Assange had to know that taking on the US would make him a target. The US is not going to just roll over. Wonder why nothing was ever published about other countries. As a service member I am not allowed to use USG computers to go on wikileaks so I have not seen anything on the site. My impression is that Assange is really just anti American.
 
My impression is that Assange is really just anti American.
Another person who has obviously not read much about the case.

The fact that virtually all of the material was supplied by a US soldier is the reason why most of it pertains to the US. Nothing at all to do with Anti Americanism,.... except perhaps on behalf of Private First Class Bradley E. Manning (born 1987) a United States Army soldier who has been arrested and charged with the unauthorized use and disclosure of U.S. classified information. Manning was an intelligence analyst assigned to a support battalion with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq.

It has since been shown that nearly 2 million persons had virtually uncontrolled access to this information, and yet people are wondering why it became public knowledge????
 
2 million people is just a number pulled out of a hat. Since most of the data Wikileaks was given is unclassified their is no way of knowing how many people could see that.

From Wikileaks:
Key figures:

  • 15, 652 secret
  • 101,748 confidential
  • 133,887 unclassified
It is highly doubtful that 2 million people had access to the secret documents.

While Pvt Manning has been charged with under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134, for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system," and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source". Manning is currently awaiting an Article 32 hearing.

If Pvt Manning is found guilty he is looking at about 50 years in prison. It has not been proven that Manning is the single source of the leaks.
 
I think the point is that access to sensitive information was too easy and the control of portable data drives was insufficient.
 
Because of his MOS, Manning appears to have had access. But from his personal background, which may be hind sight now, he should not have been granted clearance. May be a point as to why gays should be excluded from the military.

"Manning felt isolated in the army, attributed by his friends to the difficulties of being homosexual under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.[9] He was characterized as being "desperate for acceptance" and suffering from "delusions of grandeur" in his social life,[9] and he complained about being ordered to fetch coffee in the workplace."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
 
2 million people is just a number pulled out of a hat. Since most of the data Wikileaks was given is unclassified their is no way of knowing how many people could see that.
For a man who never even knew that the perpetrator had been caught and in custody for the last six months, you have suddenly become very knowledgeable on the subject. I won't embarrass you further, but I will advise you firstly to read what was said a little more carefully, and to do a little research.

It is highly doubtful that 2 million people had access to the secret documents.
No one has said that. No doubt there was some that was known to very few, but never the less the point being made is that it was poorly controlled.

If Pvt Manning is found guilty he is looking at about 50 years in prison. It has not been proven that Manning is the single source of the leaks.
Nor has it been proven otherwise as yet,....
 
Last edited:
No one has said that. No doubt there was some that was known to very few, but never the less the point being made is that it was poorly controlled.
.
One problem found after 9/11 was that there were a lot of pieces of the puzzle scattered around various Agencies. Had they been put together...So they decided to have greater sharing of intel, & with greater sharing one leak spills more secrets & nonsecrets. double edge blade.
 
For a man who never even knew that the perpetrator had been caught and in custody for the last six months, you have suddenly become very knowledgeable on the subject. I won't embarrass you further, but I will advise you firstly to read what was said a little more carefully, and to do a little research.
:lol: And you know this based on what? Being "downunder" your access may be more limited, but his being incarcerated is not new news.:lol:

As far as research, where else in your words would I, "suddenly become very knowledgeable on the subject.":roll:

No one has said that. No doubt there was some that was known to very few, but never the less the point being made is that it was poorly controlled.
It is funny you being so aware of Pvt Manning, would decide that the material was poorly controlled, after all as you said, "Manning was an intelligence analyst." Handling the material was his job. That he violated the trust he had been given is obvious, and as I stated,
"But from his personal background, which may be hind sight now, he should not have been granted clearance. May be a point as to why gays should be excluded from the military."

Nor has it been proven otherwise as yet,....

It would be very foolish not be prepared to find other leaks.
 
Last edited:
One problem found after 9/11 was that there were a lot of pieces of the puzzle scattered around various Agencies. Had they been put together...So they decided to have greater sharing of intel, & with greater sharing one leak spills more secrets & nonsecrets. double edge blade.

I think it has more to do with poor security practices.
No one accessing secret documents should be allowed to have a flash drive or a CDR. All data transfers taking place over a secure intranet so that all document transfers can be monitored.
 
It would be very foolish not be prepared to find other leaks.
Coming from you I find that somewhat amusing. For someone with so much to say, you don't really have a very good grasp of what is news and what's out of date in world events do you?

One problem found after 9/11 was that there were a lot of pieces of the puzzle scattered around various Agencies. Had they been put together...So they decided to have greater sharing of intel, & with greater sharing one leak spills more secrets & nonsecrets. double edge blade.
Yes,... you are quite right George, is is an ongoing problem, it was also the case with Pearl Harbour, and 9/11 to name but two of the more notable examples, neither of which would have needed information sharing outside of the US intelligence community. It appears that you have enough internal problems without worrying about "outsiders". The probable cause of this type of ongoing oversight is being demonstrated with this Wikileaks business, where the people who are in fact ultimately responsible for the leaks, are too busy diverting attention away from themselves to people like Assange. It's no wonder they keep occuring, I feel that more attention needs to be directed inwardly rather than outward as is the case here. Blame shifting is ensuring that the problem will be on going.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I am quite surprised that the whole wikileak-affair is about as lively as Grace Jones on this forum. Has it been dealt with on another thread or is there no interest to talk about it?
After some digging I found this interesting soundbite and personally think he getting to the point: 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


The only thing which became obvious is that the corps diplomatique are gossiping like a bunch of school girls and get angry (instead of embarrassed) when their gossiping is out in the open... Why don't they write their reports as professionals instead of wannabe journalists of the Daily Telegraph? And the saddest part of all is that they want to crucify someone because their ego's got bruised.

The problem with Wikileaks is that they completely uncritical pour large amounts of unedited material out in public without taking a position of relevance. This makes it all perceived as 'revelatory'.


There are of course cases where the public needs to know the information - even when they are stamped secret. Be it in connection with revelations of Danish soldier’s extradition of Iraqi prisoners to torture in Iraq.

But there are also cases where confidentiality and secrecy actually serves a purpose. There are cases that are so delicate that neither the media nor public is entitled to or need to know what is happening, or what is at stake. Secrecy and confidentiality is not something to be avoided in international relations between countries. It's not all the public is entitled to know. Not all information should land on top of the media agenda.

The discussion is particularly difficult for whom to decide when something should be announced to the public and when something should remain secret? Who mediates between the public and the secret, political process?

Wikileaks presents an immediate solution to the problem by throwing all available material into the public domain. But the question is whether Wikileaks massive dissemination of classified information is responsible? Is the proliferation of information responsible if it "only" damage the state? Or is the line drawn by information potential harm to individuals? It is - as things now stand – up to Wikileaks to judge in these cases.

Politicians have in an unprecedented degree managed to blur the decision-making, shirk responsibility and hide behind spin doctors in this decade, and as I see it, is what Wikileaks really wants to deal with. The only problem is that it is a double-edged sword and it is a dangerous game Wikileaks have started.

As for the diplomats.

Why should diplomats not write what they mean in what they expect is a confidential forum? Naturally one should expect a high degree of professionalism among people with such positions of responsibility, but it does not mean that in some cases you can´t say your honest opinion when you write confidentially with colleagues.
 
Last edited:
Coming from you I find that somewhat amusing. For someone with so much to say, you don't really have a very good grasp of what is news and what's out of date in world events do you?

Yes,... you are quite right George, is is an ongoing problem, it was also the case with Pearl Harbour, and 9/11 to name but two of the more notable examples, neither of which would have needed information sharing outside of the US intelligence community.
Same thing with Pearl Harbor. One reason the OSS was created was to coordinate & evaluate intel from Army & Navy Intelligence, FBI ect. Eventually they're just another Agency competing for funds & each other.
 
Same thing with Pearl Harbor. One reason the OSS was created was to coordinate & evaluate intel from Army & Navy Intelligence, FBI ect. Eventually they're just another Agency competing for funds & each other.
Now that sounds pretty typical of government agencies all around the free world,... more interested in ways of increasing their next year's budget than actually doing what they were set up for.:-(
 
Why should diplomats not write what they mean in what they expect is a confidential forum? Naturally one should expect a high degree of professionalism among people with such positions of responsibility, but it does not mean that in some cases you can´t say your honest opinion when you write confidentially with colleagues.

Well this one is easy, the minute you put something in a record-able form is the minute you can expect it to eventually enter the public domain.

I am on the whole a little concerned with the Wikileaks thing, on one hand I am a firm believer in public knowing what is being done in "our" name but if that information is endangering people (and as yet there is nothing to say that it is) then it needs to be withheld until such times as it wont endanger them.
 
I reckon that you can secure as much as you'd like, but it won't help. There will always be people, with access, that will leak. The tragedy if mankind is that too many have no self-reflection and too fragile an ego. When they are by-passed or something, they feel the need to "get even". Leaking secret info is one way. And you can never eliminate the human factor in all this work, so the leaking won't stop, no matter what.
 
Apparently the names of informants in Afghanistan have been leaked, so that would be a current danger to lives.

It does not have to be just informants. Diplomats or citizens that speak out or comment confidentially that they disagree with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other radical group would find themselves targets.

Look at the bombing in Sweden. Bombing claimed to be because of a cartoon.
 
Not just the cartoon.
Probably has more to do with Swedish troop presence in Afghanistan.

The point is the cartoonist has been marked for death. Muslim groups have called for his death. In talking about names being mentioned in the leaked information, it will be the terrorists who read the names that decide who and when to attack.
The bombers gave two reasons for the bombing, can't really assign a level of importance to either.
 
Back
Top