Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Julian Assange wrote: I mean, I don't even look like a rapist...

Julian Assange wrote: Oh.

Crablezworth wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:I will be the first to admit that I haven't read all of the documents on wikileaks (haha, good luck), but the very fact that folks are screaming for this guy's head on a plate is what disturbs me. Accusing him of treason, being an enemy combatant, those sorts of things....ugh. Plus the timing on his international arrest warrant is really really fishy.

Interpol wants him on rape charges in Sweden, I think Interpol is the least of his worries. His blabbing about the Russian Government and their ties to the Russian mafia are going to get him killed.

Side note: Fox News isn't advocating him being executed or brought on on anything. That was a congressman (Peter King NY 3rd). In fact 3 of their employees last night (Judge Andrew Napolitano, Alan Colmes and John Stossel) said he should be left alone. Asange hasn't done anything wrong technically, Pvt.1st Class Manning (the leaker) is probably going to spend the rest of his life in jail.

O'reilly was calling for his execution, that's fox news

O'Reilly is a fool, but he's got an opinion on an opinion show, that is the big difference between reporting the news, and having an opinion. I doubt Rupert Murdoch wants a fellow Aussie to be executed for using information he recieved from a willing and malfeasant Pvt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:

Julian Assange wrote: I mean, I don't even look like a rapist...

Julian Assange wrote: Oh.

Medium, you made my day!

sebster wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:Wait, so you are saying you do support the suppression of information? Think really carefully about that.

No, I'm not, and I'd go so far as to say that there is no way you could have sensibly read that from my post.

I am saying that taking leaks and releasing them to the general public requires a level of decision making as to where the public good really lies. Releasing diplomatic memos to the US from Middle Eastern nations who are concerned about Iran has achieved nothing but make those nations more wary about dealing with the US over Iran.

Bingo.
The cable from Yemen is one that really should have been kept under wraps, but noooo. He just dumps them out while at the same time

While many of the leaks have been for the public good, some have been damaging, and most utterly trivial.

I can't really think of anything that has been leaked "for the public good". The gun camera footage from the Apache definitely wasn't "for the public good", it was just to incite public opinion against the US at a time it wasn't necessary.

Kilkrazy wrote:He has pissed off the USA. That's enough.

The calls for him to be hunted down like Bin Laden (who hasn't been hunted down, BTW) are just crowd pleasers for the Tea Particrats.

Really though, those sorts of hysterical calls for condign punishment are worse than the original leaks.

Yeah, the thing that's been causing me to drift back to Assange's side in the last few days has been the ludicrous reactions from various politicians. It kind of reminds me how much some people worship at the temple of state power, and how brave it can be to break that down by releasing secrets.

He's not being brave. He's being an ass. Diplomatic cables are personal opinions of how those writing them feel about the countries/leaders they work with.

What he's doing is effectively like if Debbie in Accounting made a sex tape, then Dave in Networking released it to the rest of the company. It can strain working relationships and make things awkward, and make it so that people don't communicate on the level that they should be for fears that what they say/do in private will end up public.

Then I remember some of the crap he's actually leaked, and I kind of end up somewhere in the middle.

I'm very anti-Assange. He's an insufferable twit who really should be taken down a peg or two.

I completely disagree on things being "kept under wraps". The footage of US soldiers gunning down civvies is something that the citizens of the US (who pay the salaries of those servicemen/women with our taxes) have a RIGHT to see. I don't want my sweat and effort going to help pay for the murder of anyone, let alone innocent photographers.



On the subject of Assange, I'm willing to bet that he's quite the narcissist and possibly suffers from megalomania. Nobody takes center ring against the US government with a full deck of cards. He's going to end up dead.

agroszkiewicz wrote:I completely disagree on things being "kept under wraps". The footage of US soldiers gunning down civvies is something that the citizens of the US (who pay the salaries of those servicemen/women with our taxes) have a RIGHT to see. I don't want my sweat and effort going to help pay for the murder of anyone, let alone innocent photographers.

Except they didn't just start firing wildly into a crowd, fool.
The Apache was flying top cover for a convoy within the vicinity which was taking fire. They were given the all-clear to engage a group of armed individuals who were heading towards the convoy. They lit them up, believing them to be a threat because hey let's face facts here.
There's no uniformed combatants in this war, other than us and our allies. Insurgent organizations do not wear uniforms or any real distinguishing marks.
Then an unmarked, white van(interestingly enough...you know, like what alot of reports of insurgents using for kidnappings and the like) pulls up to the individuals that were just taken down.
Tell me, what conclusion would you draw? Because I can tell you in that situation I wouldn't think "Oh, it's just Makmood from Allah Street coming to administer first aid".

On the subject of Assange, I'm willing to bet that he's quite the narcissist and possibly suffers from megalomania. Nobody takes center ring against the US government with a full deck of cards. He's going to end up dead.

Yes, because obviously everyone who opposes the US government "ends up dead".

I think we know who really isn't playing with a full deck of cards here.

Less of the "Fool", please.

Kanluwen wrote:
Except they didn't just start firing wildly into a crowd, fool.
The Apache was flying top cover for a convoy within the vicinity which was taking fire. They were given the all-clear to engage a group of armed individuals who were heading towards the convoy. They lit them up, believing them to be a threat because hey let's face facts here.
There's no uniformed combatants in this war, other than us and our allies. Insurgent organizations do not wear uniforms or any real distinguishing marks.
Then an unmarked, white van(interestingly enough...you know, like what alot of reports of insurgents using for kidnappings and the like) pulls up to the individuals that were just taken down.
Tell me, what conclusion would you draw? Because I can tell you in that situation I wouldn't think "Oh, it's just Makmood from Allah Street coming to administer first aid".

Fool? Me....[see forum posting rules] please. I watched the fething video...they opened up on a group that was clearly NOT engaging them. "No uniform" isn't an excuse. I can tell by your "Makbood and Allah Street" that you've got a pretty well entrenched opinion. <shrug>

Shooting a bunch of people that are gathering on a corner and CLEARLY NOT RAISING ANY WEAPON isn't what I call proper rules of engagement...plus the bit where the guy is literally laughing about gunning down other human beings? I'd like to know if you honestly think that the actions in that video are proper and legal.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Except they didn't just start firing wildly into a crowd, fool.
The Apache was flying top cover for a convoy within the vicinity which was taking fire. They were given the all-clear to engage a group of armed individuals who were heading towards the convoy. They lit them up, believing them to be a threat because hey let's face facts here.
There's no uniformed combatants in this war, other than us and our allies. Insurgent organizations do not wear uniforms or any real distinguishing marks.
Then an unmarked, white van(interestingly enough...you know, like what alot of reports of insurgents using for kidnappings and the like) pulls up to the individuals that were just taken down.
Tell me, what conclusion would you draw? Because I can tell you in that situation I wouldn't think "Oh, it's just Makmood from Allah Street coming to administer first aid".

Fool? Me....[see forum posting rules] please. I watched the fething video...they opened up on a group that was clearly NOT engaging them. "No uniform" isn't an excuse. I can tell by your "Makmood and Allah Street" that you've got a pretty well entrenched opinion. <shrug>

What part of "flying top cover for a convoy" is difficult for you to understand?

The Apache was not engaging to protect itself. They were protecting troops on the ground, who they(and the people who gave them clearance to engage) believed would come to harm if those individuals were left alone.
"No uniform" is a perfectly acceptable excuse, by the by.
If you're in a combat zone, engaging uniformed soldiers displaying proper identification(or do you think that soldiers have US/UK/German flags on their uniforms to look pretty?) while not wearing a uniform...guess what?
You're an illegal combatant, and are not subject to the "rules of war" outlined by the Geneva Convention. However, the US and UK and other non-backward third world countries will give you those rights outlined in the GC.

Oh, and as an aside?
"Makmood and Allah Street" was an anecdote. I don't expect you to understand what that means, but it felt 'wrong' to say Dave from Main Street driving up to administer first aid to the people who just got smacked down by an Apache in Baghdad.

Shooting a bunch of people that are gathering on a corner and CLEARLY NOT RAISING ANY WEAPON isn't what I call proper rules of engagement...plus the bit where the guy is literally laughing about gunning down other human beings? I'd like to know if you honestly think that the actions in that video are proper and legal.

It doesn't matter one damn bit if they're "raising a weapon" or not in this context. This isn't a cop shooting a hunter in the woods.
This is a case of soldiers in a warzone engaging armed and non-uniformed individuals within a combat zone, where shots from AKs and RPGs had been reported not even minutes prior.

As for the gunner laughing about gunning down other human beings...so bloody what?
Really, what do you expect him to do? Have a moment of silence like some samurai to "respect his fallen foe"?
They have to desensitize soldiers to the point where they can pull the trigger on another human being. They're in combat, they have to be able to get the feth over it and keep doing their job. They can't break down crying because they shot someone.
The legality of it, by the way, is yes. Proper and legal. The gunner and pilot were exonerated of wrong-doing because they and their higher ups genuinely believed there was a threat to the troops on the ground.
Does the fact that it's proper and legal mean it was a good thing that it happened?
No.

Medium of Death wrote:

Julian Assange wrote: I mean, I don't even look like a rapist...

Julian Assange wrote: Oh.

AAAH! Geeze, that's scary.

What need was there for us to know this?

This hasn't revealed any crimes.

It hasn't saved anyone from injustice.

All it has done is damage international relations.

Kanluwen wrote:What he's doing is effectively like if Debbie in Accounting made a sex tape, then Dave in Networking released it to the rest of the company. It can strain working relationships and make things awkward, and make it so that people don't communicate on the level that they should be for fears that what they say/do in private will end up public.

Actually I'd say it's more like Debbie in Accounting made a sex tape, then someone outside the company got Dave in Networking to get them a copy, then the someone from outside gave the sex tape to the press.

Kanluwen wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Except they didn't just start firing wildly into a crowd, fool.
The Apache was flying top cover for a convoy within the vicinity which was taking fire. They were given the all-clear to engage a group of armed individuals who were heading towards the convoy. They lit them up, believing them to be a threat because hey let's face facts here.
There's no uniformed combatants in this war, other than us and our allies. Insurgent organizations do not wear uniforms or any real distinguishing marks.
Then an unmarked, white van(interestingly enough...you know, like what alot of reports of insurgents using for kidnappings and the like) pulls up to the individuals that were just taken down.
Tell me, what conclusion would you draw? Because I can tell you in that situation I wouldn't think "Oh, it's just Makmood from Allah Street coming to administer first aid".

Fool? Me....[see forum posting rules] please. I watched the fething video...they opened up on a group that was clearly NOT engaging them. "No uniform" isn't an excuse. I can tell by your "Makmood and Allah Street" that you've got a pretty well entrenched opinion. <shrug>

What part of "flying top cover for a convoy" is difficult for you to understand?

The Apache was not engaging to protect itself. They were protecting troops on the ground, who they(and the people who gave them clearance to engage) believed would come to harm if those individuals were left alone.
"No uniform" is a perfectly acceptable excuse, by the by.
If you're in a combat zone, engaging uniformed soldiers displaying proper identification(or do you think that soldiers have US/UK/German flags on their uniforms to look pretty?) while not wearing a uniform...guess what?
You're an illegal combatant, and are not subject to the "rules of war" outlined by the Geneva Convention. However, the US and UK and other non-backward third world countries will give you those rights outlined in the GC.

Oh, and as an aside?
"Makmood and Allah Street" was an anecdote. I don't expect you to understand what that means, but it felt 'wrong' to say Dave from Main Street driving up to administer first aid to the people who just got smacked down by an Apache in Baghdad.

Shooting a bunch of people that are gathering on a corner and CLEARLY NOT RAISING ANY WEAPON isn't what I call proper rules of engagement...plus the bit where the guy is literally laughing about gunning down other human beings? I'd like to know if you honestly think that the actions in that video are proper and legal.

It doesn't matter one damn bit if they're "raising a weapon" or not in this context. This isn't a cop shooting a hunter in the woods.
This is a case of soldiers in a warzone engaging armed and non-uniformed individuals within a combat zone, where shots from AKs and RPGs had been reported not even minutes prior.

As for the gunner laughing about gunning down other human beings...so bloody what?
Really, what do you expect him to do? Have a moment of silence like some samurai to "respect his fallen foe"?
They have to desensitize soldiers to the point where they can pull the trigger on another human being. They're in combat, they have to be able to get the feth over it and keep doing their job. They can't break down crying because they shot someone.
The legality of it, by the way, is yes. Proper and legal. The gunner and pilot were exonerated of wrong-doing because they and their higher ups genuinely believed there was a threat to the troops on the ground.
Does the fact that it's proper and legal mean it was a good thing that it happened?
No.

Do you have any source which shows it was a combat zone? or that they were givin permission to engage?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And i beleive the whole Yemen bombings is relevant, considering one bombing killed something like 24 women and 12 children (dont have exact numbers)

I mean surprizingly terrorists live with their families and all... but saying it was yemen bombs has got a few people suspicious of cover up

Also, whats the point of releasing 250,000 documents at once? release the controvosial ones or the ones that indicate war crimes etc if you want attention brought to them. Releasing that many at once takes attention away from the serious stuff and makes the whole thing mundane to the average person

Gibbsey wrote:Do you have any source which shows it was a combat zone? or that they were givin permission to engage?

About everything written about it after the video was leaked has that information. The military released official documents and all sorts of other exciting things showing what really happened, including the full video and not just a clip.

Ahtman wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:Do you have any source which shows it was a combat zone? or that they were givin permission to engage?

About everything written about it after the video was leaked has that information. The military released official documents and all sorts of other exciting things showing what really happened, including the full video and not just a clip.

Ah okay.... so why is this the first time im hearing this? Damn american news...

Kanluwen wrote:As for the gunner laughing about gunning down other human beings...so bloody what?

This is literally the most sickening statement I've seen on this forum, and that includes the random links to 4chan. If you honestly feel that way, please for the love of god and everyone else in your life....seek some professional help. Finding amusement in the death of another human being, or really feeling that its OK for others to laugh as they commit murder is sick. Sick sick sick sick. Disgusting, barbaric, and sickening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:Do you have any source which shows it was a combat zone? or that they were givin permission to engage?

About everything written about it after the video was leaked has that information. The military released official documents and all sorts of other exciting things showing what really happened, including the full video and not just a clip.

Would love to see this info....haven't been able to find it in a search though. Could you point me in the right direction?

This is literally the most sickening statement I've seen on this forum, and that includes the random links to 4chan. If you honestly feel that way, please for the love of god and everyone else in your life....seek some professional help. Finding amusement in the death of another human being, or really feeling that its OK for others to laugh as they commit murder is sick. Sick sick sick sick. Disgusting, barbaric, and sickening.

It wasn't exactly common when this sort of thing came to light in WW1, but it wasn't exactly rare either. Some people break down with shell-shock. Some people manage to forget about it. Others learn to take pleasure in it. Is it wrong? Perhaps. But enough people (1 in 20?) ended up like that that its hardly a rare thing. Makes it difficult to judge as 'wrong' so quickly.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

This is literally the most sickening statement I've seen on this forum, and that includes the random links to 4chan. If you honestly feel that way, please for the love of god and everyone else in your life....seek some professional help. Finding amusement in the death of another human being, or really feeling that its OK for others to laugh as they commit murder is sick. Sick sick sick sick. Disgusting, barbaric, and sickening.

You should probably go back and read the post again tbh.

Medium of Death wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

This is literally the most sickening statement I've seen on this forum, and that includes the random links to 4chan. If you honestly feel that way, please for the love of god and everyone else in your life....seek some professional help. Finding amusement in the death of another human being, or really feeling that its OK for others to laugh as they commit murder is sick. Sick sick sick sick. Disgusting, barbaric, and sickening.

You should probably go back and read the post again tbh.

I read it 3 times. I stand by my statement.

As for the gunner laughing about gunning down other human beings...so bloody what?
Really, what do you expect him to do? Have a moment of silence like some samurai to "respect his fallen foe"?
They have to desensitize soldiers to the point where they can pull the trigger on another human being

Am I missing something here? Being OK with killing doesn't mean taking malicious pleasure in killing people from a helicopter and then laughing while they are running from cover. Honestly, it makes me physically ill.


In my world violence directed towards another person is a means to an end, not something amusing or something that should be taken lightly. If you disagree, thats your right. Don't ask me to cosign on it or convince me that your stance is correct. <shrug>

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:As for the gunner laughing about gunning down other human beings...so bloody what?

This is literally the most sickening statement I've seen on this forum, and that includes the random links to 4chan. If you honestly feel that way, please for the love of god and everyone else in your life....seek some professional help. Finding amusement in the death of another human being, or really feeling that its OK for others to laugh as they commit murder is sick. Sick sick sick sick. Disgusting, barbaric, and sickening.

There's nothing wrong with increasing the amount of laughter in the world. Would you rather have them die in vain?

agroszkiewicz wrote: In my world violence directed towards another person is a means to an end, not something amusing or something that should be taken lightly. If you disagree, thats your right. Don't ask me to cosign on it or convince me that your stance is correct. <shrug>

So violence is OK to get what you want as long as you don't have a laugh about it?

If you put this in perspective. The pilots are defending ground troops, if these guys get away they will most likely attempt to harm the ground troops at some point. I think protecting your side is something to be happy about, it's also a way to blow off steam and to not have to deal with it. The people that they shot would do the same in a heartbeat.

It's not as if they are screaming bloody murder and manically laughing, all the while gunning down unarmed women and children.

Yeah I have heard about this. It was interesting I shall watch.

Medium of Death wrote:
It's not as if they are screaming bloody murder and manically laughing, all the while gunning down unarmed women and children.

So its ok to find amusement in gunning down reporters, photographers, and unarmed MALE civvies? Because thats exactly what the video shows. Guys standing on the corner commiting NO VIOLENT ACTION AGAINST ANYONE AT THE TIME OF ENGAGEMENT.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:
It's not as if they are screaming bloody murder and manically laughing, all the while gunning down unarmed women and children.

So its ok to find amusement in gunning down reporters, photographers, and unarmed MALE civvies? Because thats exactly what the video shows. Guys standing on the corner commiting NO VIOLENT ACTION AGAINST ANYONE AT THE TIME OF ENGAGEMENT.

Hey there! It appears you left caps-lock on!

Yeah, I've seen those videos and I didn't see anything that looked like a camera.

Medium of Death wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote: In my world violence directed towards another person is a means to an end, not something amusing or something that should be taken lightly. If you disagree, thats your right. Don't ask me to cosign on it or convince me that your stance is correct. <shrug>

So violence is OK to get what you want as long as you don't have a laugh about it?

Not at all. Violence is an acceptable means of action in cases where all other options have been exhausted. This is clearly NOT the case in the video in question. If the guys had made any type of threatening gesture I would absolutely support the miliatry actions. This crap a few of you are spewing about "sucks to be in the wrong place at the wrong time next to some guy that may or may not be holding a gun" is really perplexing.

From what I can tell, some folks think its OK to shoot someone just because they happen to be in the same general vicinity of someone that might be carrying a gun.

If nothing else, this whole crapstorm highlights the fact that using the military as a police force is the biggest bone head move ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:
Yeah, I've seen those videos and I didn't see anything that looked like a camera.

Watch it again bro, there are several points in the first 10 minutes where you can see a camera...not absolutely clearly but enough that it should have called some serious questions into the minds of the men that took lives that day.

Kanluwen wrote:I can't really think of anything that has been leaked "for the public good". The gun camera footage from the Apache definitely wasn't "for the public good", it was just to incite public opinion against the US at a time it wasn't necessary.

Then you haven't been following the leaks very closely, to the point where you should really consider whether or not you should be commenting on the issue.

Wikileaks has released the list of websites proposed to be banned under my government's planned internet firewall. It has released information on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, including evidence that certain prisoners were kept away from Red Cross supervisors. It has released information on multiple corporate corruption scandals (and the upcoming release of banking memos could be the biggest yet). And yes, it released information on the infamous Baghdad airstrike - whether you believe the soldiers involved acted properly or not, there is no denying that public awareness of such events is very important, because it is very important that the public is aware of real nature of war.

He's not being brave. He's being an ass. Diplomatic cables are personal opinions of how those writing them feel about the countries/leaders they work with.

No, challenging the state, whether for good reasons or bad, is a brave thing to do, because it will carry consequences.

What he's doing is effectively like if Debbie in Accounting made a sex tape, then Dave in Networking released it to the rest of the company. It can strain working relationships and make things awkward, and make it so that people don't communicate on the level that they should be for fears that what they say/do in private will end up public.

Your analogy assumes the only leaks made by wikileaks are of a trivial nature, with no public good. This is very wrong.

Brave or foolhardy/reckless? Matter of perspective really. One chap says terrorist, the other says freedom fighter.

I wonder if Julian shouldn't surrender to the rape charges. It's one thing to offend the United States, but he released confidential statements from several Middle Eastern dictatorships who will not have the same moral compass as the elected officials in Washington. He basically outed the Yemem President and the King of Saudia Arabia, among others. It won't happen this year, but why wouldn't they make sure his life comes to a violent end for this? How happy is Putin about the comments his country is run by the Mafia. Putin can't do much to America, but this is the country that allegedly placed radioactive isotopes into it's enemies bodies. These are the people you have embarassed? Good luck and don't stand next to me, ever.

I take it you haven't spent much, ie any, time studying combat psychology. These aren't police, they are soldiers, they are trained to be aggressive and to kill; that is what they do and that is what they are encouraged to do. You can't fight a war if the people having to fight it are emo bitches crying over every moment.

You also give the impression of someone who hasn't watched a movie, read a book, or seen the news about modern conflict. Having a camera would in no way be an indication that the people on the ground are not hostile combatants. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, et al love to film their actions.

Ahtman wrote:I take it you haven't spent much, ie any, time studying combat psychology. These aren't police, they are soldiers, they are trained to be aggressive and to kill; that is what they do and that is what they are encouraged to do. You can't fight a war if the people having to fight it are emo bitches crying over every moment.

True, we shouldn't demand our soldiers spend their nights in angst over the cruel face of war. But it is good that the public is made aware of the thought processes of their troops.

You also give the impression of someone who hasn't watched a movie, read a book, or seen the news about modern conflict. Having a camera would in no way be an indication that the people on the ground are not hostile combatants. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, et al love to film their actions.

The issue is not that observing cameras would mean they weren't combatants, the issue is that the cameras were mistaken for weapons. When it was subsequently established that they were cameras and not weapons, it becomes obvious they were civilians. The military does not dispute they were civilians.

The point for debate is whether the soldiers took sufficient measures to determine if these people were civilians or fighting troops. I don't have a comment on that, but it is important that the footage was released, so that the public is more aware of the nature of the conflict.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:Brave or foolhardy/reckless? Matter of perspective really. One chap says terrorist, the other says freedom fighter.

Foolhardy would require the guy to be unaware of any risk to his own person. Given his personal/political beliefs, it's obvious he isn't just aware that a government might come down hard on him, he's hypersensitive to it. So he certainly is brave.

Note that being brave doesn't mean he had decent judgement towards what information releases are and what aren't in the public good, indeed the same ideology that feeds his need to release information is the same ideology that clouds his judgement on that issue.

The guys have AK's! There is a group of them, some of them have un-identifiable objects and some have AK's. One points something that looks either like an RPG or a large lensed press camera, out from a corner up at the Helicopter. Not the smartest thing to do when there is a gunship in the sky, circling around you.

The kids part is the most upsetting bit, but how the hell could they have known?

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I can't really think of anything that has been leaked "for the public good". The gun camera footage from the Apache definitely wasn't "for the public good", it was just to incite public opinion against the US at a time it wasn't necessary.

Then you haven't been following the leaks very closely, to the point where you should really consider whether or not you should be commenting on the issue.

Wikileaks has released the list of websites proposed to be banned under my government's planned internet firewall. It has released information on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, including evidence that certain prisoners were kept away from Red Cross supervisors. It has released information on multiple corporate corruption scandals (and the upcoming release of banking memos could be the biggest yet). And yes, it released information on the infamous Baghdad airstrike - whether you believe the soldiers involved acted properly or not, there is no denying that public awareness of such events is very important, because it is very important that the public is aware of real nature of war.

Sure public awareness of such events is very important.
But it's not like the events were classified prior to the WikiLeaks. The military announced they had done an investigation into it, and even had released the video before WikiLeaks.
So what's the point of that again?

He's not being brave. He's being an ass. Diplomatic cables are personal opinions of how those writing them feel about the countries/leaders they work with.

No, challenging the state, whether for good reasons or bad, is a brave thing to do, because it will carry consequences.

So by your logic, if I challenge the state about why I have to pay taxes it's a brave thing to do?

What he's doing is effectively like if Debbie in Accounting made a sex tape, then Dave in Networking released it to the rest of the company. It can strain working relationships and make things awkward, and make it so that people don't communicate on the level that they should be for fears that what they say/do in private will end up public.

Your analogy assumes the only leaks made by wikileaks are of a trivial nature, with no public good. This is very wrong.

No, my analogy is just that: an analogy.
Oh, and? Diplomatic cables aren't really "public good".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:The guys have AK's! There is a group of them, some of them have un-identifiable objects and some have AK's. One points something that looks either like an RPG or a large lensed press camera, out from a corner up at the Helicopter. Not the smartest thing to do when there is a gunship in the sky, circling around you.

The kids part is the most upsetting bit, but how the hell could they have known?

Well, plus just because there's a large lensed press camera there...it doesn't necessarily mean that it's actual, vetted journalists of any news network(I guess Al-Jazeera counts, if Fox Network does). It's not unheard of for insurgents to have press cameras to film their attacks with.