The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.

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.

**sebster**

Kanluwen wrote: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?

The military performed an informal investigation, and there was little public awareness of the event. Because of the leak, the public is now much more aware of the nature

You didn't comment on the range of other leaks I posted, in response to your claim that wikileaks hasn't released anything of value. I take it you're withdrawing that claim?

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

No, your analogy is flawed because it only 'worked' by replacing leaks with a public sex tape, which doesn't serve the public good at all. Which is a problem, when it is very obvious to anyone who's ever followed any whistleblowing at all that the the public good can be served by the release of certain secrets.

And while I'm happy to have this conversation, I will ask you to read the thread more closely. I have stated that I don't believe there was any value in releasing the diplomatic memos, you even quoted me to agree with my point. So pointing that out to me just make it look like you aren't really following the conversation.

**Ahtman**

You keep saying public good but you don't explain what that means, or at least what it means to you. I don't really see much good coming out any of this except inflaming everyone. No one has learned anything they didn't already know. A combat zone is dangerous? WTF are you serious? Diplomats speak candidly in private memos? You have got to be kidding me! Why, the average person is so much more enlightened now! The public good of these items is fairly anemic. Its inflammatory value on the other hand is quite high.

Sharing secrets isn't a valuable service in and of itself, which is mostly what we are getting here.

**WarOne**

sebster wrote:And while I'm happy to have this conversation, I will ask you to read the thread more closely. I have stated that I don't believe there was any value in releasing the diplomatic memos, you even quoted me to agree with my point. So pointing that out to me just make it look like you aren't really following the conversation.

I'm hardly following the conversation because sebster/dogma's statements are usually correct and its better to simply move along/pick fights with lesser opponents/post hardly relevant images to the topic on hand:

Wikileaks has become analogous to this of information nobody wants leaked:

**Ahtman**

It isn't that no one wants it leaked, it is that most of it isn't worth leaking and occasionally dangerous to do so. They are leaking classified information just to leak it, which isn't a good idea or necessarily very ethical either. I don't buy their lies about information being free. Some things are secret for a reason.

I'm also not saying there shouldn't be accountability or that leaks in general should never happen (again, Watergate), but I find this group less than credible and their motives less than pure.

**dogma**

Kanluwen wrote:
Oh, and? Diplomatic cables aren't really "public good".

I don't know. I was doing some research on the Bush invasion of Panama a while ago, and I was able to derive more useful information from 3, 2 paragraph cables than I was from ~600 pages of scholarship on the event.

If you assume that knowledge of state motivations and activities is, in general, a good thing, then any leak is going to be for the public good to some extent.

Kanluwen wrote:
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.

Wait, why the hate for Al Jazeera?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote: No one has learned anything they didn't already know.

I did. But then not many people are concerned with the invasion of a South American nation in the late 80's.

**WarOne**

Ahtman wrote:It isn't that no one wants it leaked, it is that most of it isn't worth leaking and occasionally dangerous to do so. They are leaking classified information just to leak it, which isn't a good idea or necessarily very ethical either. I don't buy their lies about information being free. Some things are secret for a reason.

I'm also not saying there shouldn't be accountability or that leaks in general should never happen (again, Watergate), but I find this group less than credible and their motives less than pure.

Something that is a secret or classified or hidden is something people do not want to have others see. Wikileaks seeks to expose those things, especially in the context of organizations and governing bodies whose decisions affect millions if not billions.

The majority of the information leaked that you have seen get press released has been major dumps of information regarding powerful entities. The lesser tidbits of information are things that are small scale secrets and information that recieve less attention.

There is a subjective agenda behind the information exposed on a grander scale by Wikileaks. That is definately no denial, but here is a straight rup from their pages about what Wikileaks does:

http://wikileaks.org/about.html

Wikileaks's stated mission is to bring

important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.

Further...

Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society's institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.

Scrutiny requires information. Historically, information has been costly in terms of human life, human rights and economics. As a result of technical advances particularly the internet and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered. In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.

We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their own government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government through the media.

In the years leading up to the founding of WikiLeaks, we observed the world's publishing media becoming less independent and far less willing to ask the hard questions of government, corporations and other institutions. We believed this needed to change.

WikiLeaks has provided a new model of journalism. Because we are not motivated by making a profit, we work cooperatively with other publishing and media organisations around the globe, instead of following the traditional model of competing with other media. We don't hoard our information; we make the original documents available with our news stories. Readers can verify the truth of what we have reported themselves. Like a wire service, WikiLeaks reports stories that are often picked up by other media outlets. We encourage this. We believe the world's media should work together as much as possible to bring stories to a broad international readership.

**sebster**

Ahtman wrote:You keep saying public good but you don't explain what that means, or at least what it means to you.

Sorry, I thought it was generally understood term. It just means the welfare of the population at large, such as it would be safe to say 'it is in the public good to leak information about the government's plan to build giant robots to enslave us all'. Obviously, exactly what is and isn't in the public good is a difficult issue, requiring considerable judgement. I personally don't believe Mr Assange is particularly capable of making this judgement.

I just disagree with Kanluwen claim that none of the wikileaks have been at all useful.

I don't really see much good coming out any of this except inflaming everyone. No one has learned anything they didn't already know.

Probably because you are only aware of a handful of the leaks provided by wikileaks. To quote my earlier post; "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)."

A combat zone is dangerous? WTF are you serious?

That soldiers are making split-second judgement calls on whether a person is a civilian or not, on very limited information. To bring home the reality that we are fighting a war in someone's neighbourhood.

Diplomats speak candidly in private memos? You have got to be kidding me!

For feth's sake. I mean fething seriously, honest to God...

I've posted several times that I don't believe there was any public good in releasing the diplomatic memos. I even corrected Kanluwen on this very point.

And there's breaking information now about a US deal with Yemen, where a failed US strike killed civilians, and deal was struck with the government to take the blame in exchange for some weapons. Damn straight it's in the public interest to know that.

**WarOne**

sebster wrote:

Diplomats speak candidly in private memos? You have got to be kidding me!

For feth's sake. I mean fething seriously, honest to God...

I've posted several times that I don't believe there was any public good in releasing the diplomatic memos. I even corrected Kanluwen on this very point.

And there's breaking information now about a US deal with Yemen, where a failed US strike killed civilians, and deal was struck with the government to take the blame in exchange for some weapons. Damn straight it's in the public interest to know that.

An opinion of the public good is subjective to who sees what as good for the public.

Of course, as it has been stated, Wikileaks can be leaking this information to spite those who are in power rather than as a service to the public.

But then again, can anyone find anything within the Wikileaks releases that could be construed as good for the public?

**Ahtman**

sebster wrote:And there's breaking information now about a US deal with Yemen, where a failed US strike killed civilians, and deal was struck with the government to take the blame in exchange for some weapons. Damn straight it's in the public interest to know that.

Why? Just saying that you believe to this to be in the best interest of the public doesn't make it so. Again, there isn't anything shocking here or all that unexpected. Of course trying to keep from inflaming the population even further with anti-Western rhetoric is kind of moot now. Now we can give terrorist organizations another rallying cry for an unfortunate reality of conflict that they brought on themselves*.

You aren't convincing and sound a bit like an apologist as far as Wikileaks is concerned. The best argument you have is that they had a list of websites that might be blocked by a proposed firewall. Are we to believe that no one would know what websites were to be blocked before the law went into effect and that without Wikileaks there would be absolute surprise and disgust?

*I'm referring to the terrorists, not the civilians. It isn't as if we went over there for no reason and happened to discover terrorism.

**Kilkrazy**

Two things that interest me.

1. The helicopter video is reminiscent of a scene in Orwell's 1984.

2. Why does a section of the US public want information to be censored like the Great Firewall of China?

**sebster**

WarOne wrote:An opinion of the public good is subjective to who sees what as good for the public.

Yes, such is the challenge that's been facing the traditional media for a century or more.

Of course, as it has been stated, Wikileaks can be leaking this information to spite those who are in power rather than as a service to the public.

But then again, can anyone find anything within the Wikileaks releases that could be construed as good for the public?

Read my earlier post.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Why? Just saying that you believe to this to be in the best interest of the public doesn't make it so.

No, it is by its nature subjective. Yet I'm happy to say that revealing the secret deal to cover up the killing of civilians in exchange for weapons is in the public interest. To be honest, I'm staggered that anyone would argue otherwise. Have things that ridiculous, that people will defend given a foreign government weapons to bribe them into taking the blame for killing civilians.

Again, there isn't anything shocking here or all that unexpected. Of course trying to keep from inflaming the population even further with anti-Western rhetoric is kind of moot now.

Which is the kind of rhetoric that people in positions of power always use to justify hiding their actions.

You aren't convincing and sound a bit like an apologist as far as Wikileaks is concerned.

Then you aren't listening. I do not think Assange has shown the level of judgement necessary. But I think there is a real, public good in leaks, and this includes some of the leaks from wikileaks. That wikileaks established that there were prisoners at Gitmo who were being kept from the Red Cross, despite US government claims to the contrary is something the public should know.

The best argument you have is that they had a list of websites that might be blocked by a proposed firewall. Are we to believe that no one would know what websites were to be blocked before the law went into effect and that without Wikileaks there would be absolute surprise and disgust?

Not really, no. The current government is very secretive, and does not reveal basic information on legislation up for review. Right now there's a debate on $40 billion worth of fiber optic cable, and the government won't release the business plan. It would have been remarkable if this information ever reached the light of day, even once the plan was put into action.

*I'm referring to the terrorists, not the civilians. It isn't as if we went over there for no reason and happened to discover terrorism.

Terrorism. In Iraq? Is that why we went?

**WarOne**

sebster wrote:Read my earlier post.

I also have a re-readable post as well!

WarOne wrote:I'm hardly following the conversation because sebster/dogma's statements are usually correct and its better to simply move along/pick fights with lesser opponents/post hardly relevant images to the topic on hand...

**Orkeosaurus**

Kilkrazy wrote:1. The helicopter video is reminiscent of a scene in Orwell's 1984.

Which one?

**WarOne**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:1. The helicopter video is reminiscent of a scene in Orwell's 1984.

Which one?

I think it was the one that had the Death Star explode or some such thing...

**Kanluwen**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why does a section of the US public want information to be censored like the Great Firewall of China?

Certain information should not be available to the general public. For example, you or I have no real business knowing that on January 30th the USMC is launching a massive campaign in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan aiming at reducing narcotrafficking.

And just like I have no business reading your emails you write within your company, intended for distribution within your company...there's no real business for the general public to be reading diplomatic cables.

**sebster**

WarOne wrote:I'm hardly following the conversation because sebster/dogma's statements are usually correct and its better to simply move along/pick fights with lesser opponents/post hardly relevant images to the topic on hand...

I don't follow. Are you saying you don't actually read something if you're confident it'll be right? How do you learn anything?

Kanluwen wrote:Certain information should not be available to the general public. For example, you or I have no real business knowing that on January 30th the USMC is launching a massive campaign in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan aiming at reducing narcotrafficking.

And just like I have no business reading your emails you write within your company, intended for distribution within your company...there's no real business for the general public to be reading diplomatic cables.

So you accept that some information should be made public? Do you accept that some of the information released by wikileaks was correct?

**Ahtman**

sebster wrote:Terrorism. In Iraq? Is that why we went?

Oh, we are only in Iraq? And here I thought the people died in Yemen. If it was a cover up we wouldn't know about the deaths at all. What was concealed was the how they died, not that they did. Does the report explain why it was done? The Yemen government agreed to it as well and it was there people. Was it really as simple as just giving guns and them hushing it up? And again, if it was that simple, who is surprised? No one. A simpleton thinks the foreign affairs is as simple as checkers when it is chess. I'm not saying that it is a good, only that it isn't anywhere near as simple as you are presenting it.

You keep doing a backslide every few sentences that you don't really care for the guy but everything else you type screams admiration when they aren't admirable in the slightest. It might not be how you are meaning to come across but that is what is happening. It's like holding Che Guevera up as a hero because he fought for what he believed even though to meet those ends he did despicable things and killed a lot of people, and to top it off not even believing what he did. Just leaking things doesn't make it brave and it sure as hell doesn't make them smart. They are playing a dangerous game with relatively trivial information that is in fact not serving any public good.

@Killkrazy - So everything should be available? As soon as the Brits do away with all security clearances maybe we'll follow but I doubt it. We aren't talking about censorship either, we are talking about leaking classified materials. If you can make the argument nothing should ever be classified then I may agree with you but if you can't and have to capitulate that not everything is for public consumption than you may have to reevaluate equating the US with China as far as censorship is concerned.

**WarOne**

sebster wrote:
WarOne wrote:I'm hardly following the conversation because sebster/dogma's statements are usually correct and its better to simply move along/pick fights with lesser opponents/post hardly relevant images to the topic on hand...

I don't follow. Are you saying you don't actually read something if you're confident it'll be right? How do you learn anything?

It's my special rule versus arguments versus Logic D/S (A pun on the Nintendo DS, but with logic, you and dogma).

1. I state something.

2. Logic D/S contradicts it/denies it (not ignore it, which is a key difference), poking holes in my logic.

3. I attempt to logic back in failure.

4. Logic D/S chides me for my failures.

5. I get angry and make personal attacks/poorer logical arguments.

6. Logic D/S again corrects my illogicity.

7. I either continue steps 3-6 or simply step away/agree/descend into posting random things/pictures.

Consider it a defense mechanism against trying to fight against the Logic D/S. It's simply far superior to my ability to execute logical thinking.

I learn not to argue a point as more often than not I cannot sustain an argument beyond simple statements.

**sebster**

Ahtman wrote:Oh, we are only in Iraq? And here I thought the people died in Yemen.

Oh, that was in regards to Yemen specifically. Sorry for the misread, I was thinking that came out of the blue a bit.

If it was a cover up we wouldn't know about the deaths at all. What was concealed was the how they died, not that they did. Does the report explain why it was done? The Yemen government agreed to it as well and it was there people. Was it really as simple as just giving guns and them hushing it up? And again, if it was that simple, who is surprised? No one. A simpleton thinks the foreign affairs is as simple as checkers when it is chess. I'm not saying that it is a good, only that it isn't anywhere near as simple as you are presenting it.

That's a silly definition of a cover up. Of course a cover up can involve hiding the responsible parties.

Yes, the Yemeni government agreed to it, because they wanted weapons. So both parties agreed to keep the general populations of their countries in the dark as to how the war on terror can blow up civilians.

Knowing how anti-terrorist operations can end up tragically is in the public good. I find it simply incredible that anyone would argue otherwise.

You keep doing a backslide every few sentences that you don't really care for the guy but everything else you type screams admiration when they aren't admirable in the slightest.

No, I really fething haven't been. I've been clear as day from my first post on this issue, and I really don't how my opinion has been so confusing to you. I think some leaks can serve the public good. I think releasing leaks is a brave thing to do. I think deciding which leaks should and shouldn't be released is a complex thing requiring considerable professional judgement, and I think Mr Assange lacks that judgement. I think we can recognise that some of the leaks he's released has been for the public good, while others are not.

It might not be how you are meaning to come across but that is what is happening. It's like holding Che Guevera up as a hero because he fought for what he believed even though to meet those ends he did despicable things and killed a lot of people, and to top it off not even believing what he did.

Bad people can have admirable qualities. If I was only mentioning this one quality, and not mentioning (again and again and again) that he also has a bad quality, then I might appear as an apologist. But I have mentioned his poor judgement, so viewing me as an apologist would be in error, wouldn't it?

Just leaking things doesn't make it brave and it sure as hell doesn't make them smart.

Doing something out of personal conviction, at considerable personal risk, is brave. It doesn't make it right, but it is brave.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:I learn not to argue a point as more often than not I cannot sustain an argument beyond simple statements.

I've found your arguments are a lot better than that. Anyway, I do find it disappointing that you don't at least read the posts, especially when I'd already pointed out several good wikileaks, and that's exactly what you were asking after.

**Ahtman**

sebster wrote:Doing something out of personal conviction, at considerable personal risk, is brave. It doesn't make it right, but it is brave.

No it doesn't, or you have a much lower view of bravery than I do. Doing something dangerous or out of personal conviction doesn't automatically make a person brave. They could also be foolhardy or just plain dumb as well. in this case I think it is becuase he is a narcissist more so than bravery.

There are bad people with good qualities, but there are also good people with those same qualities, so [expletive deleted] the bad ones.

**Squig_herder**

Ahtman wrote:in this case I think it is becuase he is a narcissist more so than bravery.

So you think someone that is the figurehead of an organisation who, by being one of only a handful of people who reveal themselves to protect the hundreds of other members of Wikileaks is narcissistic?

Do you think your president is a narcissist?

**WarOne**

sebster wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:I learn not to argue a point as more often than not I cannot sustain an argument beyond simple statements.

I've found your arguments are a lot better than that. Anyway, I do find it disappointing that you don't at least read the posts, especially when I'd already pointed out several good wikileaks, and that's exactly what you were asking after.

I'm a minimalist in many respects and a realist in others. I appreciate you finding me disappointing as people need decisive opinions and conclusions/assumptions to make life simple. I've already grasped where the thread was going based on the assumptions of what recently posted. I assumed that there could of been relevant posts to what I asked for already done, but did want others to bring it up for the benefit of my own ignorance/shortsightedness/failure to click the back button and read five minutes of a thread's prior page.

It really depends at which point I enter a thread. I like to start fresh, so at the very least I can stay somewhat relevant. The later the thread I enter, the less relevant my opinion becomes. Weighing my opinion within a thread several pages long does not allow me to feel like I have contributed anything worth it. Now if someone decides to pick a fight with me, completely different. I will attempt a spirited defense.

The greatest failure on my part will always be what others think. I need a clear picture/perception of what the other side thinks of my argument. For the better part of going against Logic D/S, I rarely see input (attempting to read between the lines of yours and dogma's posts, discerning what you feel/think when you post beyong what you post) and never seem to see any change in the critical thinking process happening on the other end. I will get quickly discouraged/flustered at arguing against Logic D/S as it seems there is little change in how your stance on an issue changes and never do I feel rock solid in what I argue for against Logic D/S.

**sebster**

Ahtman wrote:No it doesn't, or you have a much lower view of bravery than I do. Doing something dangerous or out of personal conviction doesn't automatically make a person brave. They could also be foolhardy or just plain dumb as well. in this case I think it is becuase he is a narcissist more so than bravery.

There are bad people with good qualities, but there are also good people with those same qualities, so [expletive deleted] the bad ones.

It's not that I have a lower opinion of bravery, I'm really just looking at bravery in isolation of any other character traits. I think doing something out of personal conviction, and not worrying about the personal risk is the definition of brave, and it doesn't matter if that thing was actually right or wrong. Bank robbers can be brave.

If someone jumped in unaware of the dangers, they would be foolhardy or dumb, but that isn't the case with Assange. Given his personal political views, I think he is likely very aware, and likely overstates, the personal threat to his life.

And I certainly agree this doesn't make him a good person, nor worthy of a place on any kind of 'best brave people of all time' list, but he's still brave. Driven out of a conviction in a political worldview that is very silly, but brave in following it.

**Peter Wiggin**

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.

So because you are trained to kill it becomes OK to kill? I believe I've already stated how ridiculous it is to try and use military to police a country that we have purposefully destabilized.....perhaps you aren't reading the whole posts that folks put up?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Why does a section of the US public want information to be censored like the Great Firewall of China?

Certain information should not be available to the general public.

....Are you being serious or trolling? Until the military ceases to be FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYERS then we certianly have a right to know where, how, and why our troops are dying and we are spending billions. Transparency is vital, and don't try to pull that "but the military NEEDS its secrets to protect lives!" crap. There was nothing in any of those releases that put any front line soldiers in direct and imminent danger, but on the off chance you've seen something I haven't then please post it up.

Up til now all I've heard is rambling and pro-military comments with no factual basis. IE opinions.

**Ahtman**

agroszkiewicz wrote:
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.

So because you are trained to kill it becomes OK to kill?

So I'll take that as a 'no'. To answer your silly question, training doesn't have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of killing. And yes, there are times it is ok to kill.

**WarOne**

Ahtman wrote:
agroszkiewicz wrote:
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.

So because you are trained to kill it becomes OK to kill?

So I'll take that as a 'no'. To answer your silly question, training doesn't have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of killing. And yes, there are times it is ok to kill.

Even trained soldiers make mistakes. Even restraint fails. Hell, humans make mistakes and people die for poor reasons.

Remember that America has the luxury of restraint, and as a nation conscious about what we do, have the ability to hold others who live here accountable for what they do.

Truly a terrible sword does America wield.

**Kilkrazy**

Kanluwen wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Why does a section of the US public want information to be censored like the Great Firewall of China?

Certain information should not be available to the general public. For example, you or I have no real business knowing that on January 30th the USMC is launching a massive campaign in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan aiming at reducing narcotrafficking.

And just like I have no business reading your emails you write within your company, intended for distribution within your company...there's no real business for the general public to be reading diplomatic cables.

That is true, however people have called for Wikileaks to be shut down, it has been attacked on its servers, leading to them being moved, and people have boycotted Amazon because they carried Wikileaks information.

Clearly these people would rather shout down "the enemy" than make a reasonable argument about what should be done.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:1. The helicopter video is reminiscent of a scene in Orwell's 1984.

Which one?

The one in which the video feed from a helicopter gunship bombing a refugee boat is put on the telescreen.

**djones520**

What a lot of you people seem to be missing is why this data was classified in the first place.

Information is classified secret when its release would cause "serious damage" to national security.

What does that mean? It doesn't mean that it is hidin from John Q Public because no one wants you to see what is going on. It is being hidden because if that information falls into our enemies hands, the can use it against us.

No one gives a flying fornication about the general public when they are determining somethings classification. They are thinking about how the enemy will use that data against us.

How it will help recruitment. How it will help them find informants. How it will help them dodge planned offenses, or examine base lay outs.

When that data was put onto the internet, the last thing on anyones mind was "Oh gak! Mary Sue in St. Louis is going to see this!"

No, the thing we were sweating was the fact that the people we are fighting a war with now had access to hundreds of thousands of documents that we did not want them to see.

So let me ask you "public" since you think this info is for your "good". What do you think it means for those of us out here whose lives have been directly impacted by these releases? What do you have to say to the families of Iraqi and Afghani informants when their husband/wife/father/mother is kidnapped and killed for trying to better their country?

Everyone of you would have gone on living a perfectly normal life if you had never seen any of this information. How many people will not go on living at all because of it?

I hope that is worth it to you, because it certainly isn't to me.

**sebster**

djones520 wrote:What a lot of you people seem to be missing is why this data was classified in the first place.

So you've basically ignored the actual content in this thread, and decided to lecture us with your very basic understanding of security classifications. Good job.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:What a lot of you people seem to be missing is why this data was classified in the first place.

Information is classified secret when its release would cause "serious damage" to national security.

What does that mean? It doesn't mean that it is hidin from John Q Public because no one wants you to see what is going on. It is being hidden because if that information falls into our enemies hands, the can use it against us.

Well, no. It could actually mean either of the things that you've nominated. National security is a highly flexible idea because it is defined by those who have the power to render their own failings a part of that category.

djones520 wrote:
So let me ask you "public" since you think this info is for your "good". What do you think it means for those of us out here whose lives have been directly impacted by these releases? What do you have to say to the families of Iraqi and Afghani informants when their husband/wife/father/mother is kidnapped and killed for trying to better their country?

You made a choice and are now suffering for it?