PDA

View Full Version : Wikileaks founder fears he could be arrested



Jfor
08-02-2010, 10:40 PM
The 39 year-old told journalists at the Frontline Club last night that US government insiders had informed him about discussions to charge him as a co-conspirator to espionage.

The discussions were later dropped.

Mr Assange says despite this he still fears he is at risk of being forcefully detained by the US government as a material witness in the prosecution of US intelligence analyst Bradley Manning.

Mr Manning, 22, was arrested in Baghdad in May and charged earlier this month with multiple counts of mishandling and leaking classified data, after a computer hacker turned him in.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7913758/Julian-Assange-Wikileaks-founder-fears-he-could-be-arrested.html

If it is true that the administration or anybody in our government told this man that, I hope they are shot dead. Fucking traitors.

PoliCon
08-02-2010, 11:10 PM
I'd love to see him prosecuted as well.

Kay
08-02-2010, 11:15 PM
Definitely. He knew exactly what kind of documents he was putting out there.
If he sets foot on US soil, he should be arrested as a spy and charged with espionage.

Apocalypse
08-02-2010, 11:44 PM
He's never going to go any where that he could be arrested. Hell we can't get them to send us a convicted child rapist.

PoliCon
08-02-2010, 11:52 PM
Who ever warned him not to return to the US needs to be ferrited out as well. Barry's admin is full of ghey leaks it seems . . . .

malloc
08-03-2010, 12:11 AM
Not to be the one to go against the grain, but the owner of wikileaks didn't swear an Oath of Enlistment or Office to this country, and wasn't granted the privilege of a Secret Clearance along with the associated responsibility. I'm no lawyer, but I'm just saying that it doesn't look like Mr. Assange had any responsibility to keep his mouth shut about the leak, the responsibility for the leak and its outcome rests entirely on the guy with the clearance, who took an oath. Then again, INAL.


This part is a reasonable fear of Mr. Assange:



"That doesn't seem to be the thinking within the United States any more however there is the other possibility of being detained as a material witness and being kept either in confinement or not being allowed to leave the country until the Manning case is concluded."

Kay
08-03-2010, 12:31 AM
Agree that the soldier that leaked it in the first place is the root cause, and the one that should be charged with treason. As you say he had the security clearances and took the oath. I'd charge and convict him of treason and give him the death penalty.

The Wiki guy though, did not commit treason. He didn't betray his own country or an oath. But what he did was act as a conduit to transfer classified and damaging documents from our traitor in paragraph 1 to our enemies. That should carry a charge of espionage. That is just the same as if I (the average joe citizen) were asked to carry documents from Israel and hand them over to Hezbola. If caught I'd be charged by Israel as a spy regardless of what my home country is. Taking papers from country A and giving them to country B when A&B are at war with each other is espionage.

malloc
08-03-2010, 06:51 AM
Agree that the soldier that leaked it in the first place is the root cause, and the one that should be charged with treason. As you say he had the security clearances and took the oath. I'd charge and convict him of treason and give him the death penalty.

The Wiki guy though, did not commit treason. He didn't betray his own country or an oath. But what he did was act as a conduit to transfer classified and damaging documents from our traitor in paragraph 1 to our enemies. That should carry a charge of espionage. That is just the same as if I (the average joe citizen) were asked to carry documents from Israel and hand them over to Hezbola. If caught I'd be charged by Israel as a spy regardless of what my home country is. Taking papers from country A and giving them to country B when A&B are at war with each other is espionage.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



If we expect this level of freedom from our own population, yet deny it's relevancy to those of another nation, what does that make us? Hypocrites? Most definitely. Liars? Absolutely! The fact is that Mr. Assange had every right to publish whatever information was brought to him. Because he is the "free press". He is a journalist, he is a member of the free press, and he has a right, given by God, not man, to publish information brought to his attention. Sure he could pick and choose which information to publish according to his own bias, and he probably does that, just like all press agencies do that, because they are mere, mortal men. However, that does negate a God given right to freedom of the press. Just as a carpenter erects his building from the loggers boards, and a welder fuses his joints from the smelters steel, Mr. Assange publishes his stories from the sources available.

You see, I'm a USMC 0231, that's an intelligence annalist. Someone who's taken the oath, has the clearance, and god damn meant it. I understand that the proper place for a military power lies under civilian rule, one doesn't need a second crossing of the Rubicon to reiterate that fact. As a G-2 analyst, I can see this whole thing from a different perspective. One cannot blame a man for committing himself to his purpose, one can only blame a man for shunning his oath, his brethren, and his loyalty. The reporter will do what reporters do, that is their profession. Marines will do what must be done, that is our profession. One ARMY soldier sold his soul to feed a reporter's career One of these men is a traitor. PFC Bradley is the traitor, the reporter just did what reporters do.

Mr. Assange did his firggin' job. Just like I or you do your job everyday. He aired the stories he was given, while he knew there would be blow-back. He acted honorably within his profession. PFC Manning, on the other hand, didn't do his job, and he's brought great shame upon the U.S. Military and it's associated services. I just can't see how people consider Mr. Assange a traitor for doing his duty as a reporter, while PFC Manning is given the easy street for completely failing to be the man the U.S. Military trusted him to be.

If PFC Manning were my Marine, I'd put him on the block myself.

djones520
08-03-2010, 07:07 AM
Classified documents do not lose their classification if it falls into the hands of civilians Malloc.

malloc
08-03-2010, 07:21 AM
Classified documents do not lose their classification if it falls into the hands of civilians Malloc.

Yes, as a matter of fact it does. Need to know, and classification are military stipulations. You should look into that. Civilian agents have their own classification. Most especially when it comes to a civilian of a different national origin.

Kay
08-03-2010, 08:07 AM
I just can't see how people consider Mr. Assange a traitor for doing his duty as a reporter, while PFC Manning is given the easy street for completely failing to be the man the U.S. Military trusted him to be.

Why do you think PFC Manning is being given the easy street? He is not. He is at the root of the whole thing and will be tried and convicted.

I disagree with you on the Wiki guy. There comes a point where free speech is trumped by the damage it will do. This wasn't a case where some idiot like the Phelps bunch wants to needle and throw barbs at someone's funeral just because they have the right to free speech and protest. This was instead the leak of classified documents of a government during a time of war that aides the enemy and could seriously do harm both diplomatically and on the battlefield. This is beyond just 'free speech' of a reporter to publish what he was given by source. As I said above, he willfully acted as a conduit to deliever classified documents from one government to their enemies. I see it as espionage.

obx
08-03-2010, 09:25 AM
I fear he will not be arrested.
________
Ford d2c platform specifications (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_D2C_platform)

Odysseus
08-03-2010, 11:57 AM
Yes, as a matter of fact it does. Need to know, and classification are military stipulations. You should look into that. Civilian agents have their own classification. Most especially when it comes to a civilian of a different national origin.

The abridgement of the press argument aside, there are actions for which the Wikileaks founder may be prosecuted. He has received stolen documents, which is, in itself, a crime (receipt of stolen property). He has disseminated classified information during wartime, which constitutes espionage, even if he is not directly operating on behalf of al Qaeda or the Taliban. If he is operating out of a NATO or other nation which is a signatory to a mutual defense pact with the United States, he could be in violation of those laws as well. He is, I believe, an Australian national, and Australia has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, so he may be charged with treason against the crown.

This is what you get when you kick over the hornets' nest.

PoliCon
08-03-2010, 12:05 PM
Yes, as a matter of fact it does. Need to know, and classification are military stipulations. You should look into that. Civilian agents have their own classification. Most especially when it comes to a civilian of a different national origin.

What he did is still espionage.

malloc
08-03-2010, 03:39 PM
Why do you think PFC Manning is being given the easy street? He is not. He is at the root of the whole thing and will be tried and convicted.

I think he's been given it easy because people, everyday Americans, are looking for ways to spread the blame instead of focusing the blame on the one guy who actually had a legal and ethical duty to keep his mouth shut.



There comes a point where free speech is trumped by the damage it will do.


The abridgement of the press argument aside,


There never comes a point where the free speech of a civilian is trumped by anything, and the freedom of the press cannot be put aside because it is inconvenient to the argument. It is the entire argument. Why do you think men, like you Ody, and me and my friends, served and fought? I love American values so much, including the absolute right to free speech and press, that I decided to put on my boots, grab a gun, and travel to far off lands in order to protect those values for my fellow Americans. How then can I condemn a journalist for reporting news, even if said journalist isn't an American? Sure the news he reported was brought to him from a source who had a contractual and moral obligation not to leak it, but that moral and contractual obligation does not, in my opinion, extend to other parties. Sure, the documents he reported may cause damage to my fellow Marines, and I don't agree with the reporter's decision to publish, but the very reason the Marine Corps even exists is to defend the reporter's right to report.

Think about why Manning's more honorable colleges do the job they do, and then tell me that freedom of the press is irrelevant to the argument, or that free speech can be trumped by some security argument. The very reason Manning was where he was, the very reason those document's even exist, was an effort to preserve American values, and one of those values is an absolute freedom of the press.

Manning, and Manning alone is at fault for the leak. I don't blame bees for stinging, I don't blame lions for hunting, and I won't blame a reporter for reporting. I will blame an intel analyst, who made a promise and was given a position of trust, for behaving dishonorably.

Kay
08-03-2010, 07:47 PM
I'm not able to agree with you Malloc.
Manning is not getting a break from anybody. He's guilty of treason.

He is primarily responsible for the leak, but that doesn't let the Wiki guy off
the hook for the role he played in this. There's a difference in 'reporting news'
and 'publishing stolen classified documents'.

I'll just leave it at that.

Rockntractor
08-03-2010, 08:10 PM
I'm not able to agree with you Malloc.
Manning is not getting a break from anybody. He's guilty of treason.

He is primarily responsible for the leak, but that doesn't let the Wiki guy off
the hook for the role he played in this. There's a difference in 'reporting news'
and 'publishing stolen classified documents'.

I'll just leave it at that.
Agreed.

warpig
08-03-2010, 08:13 PM
Typical liberal media types, they all want to be Woodward and Berstein. They are like rock star wanna be's, but they scream like little girls when the shit hits the fan.

malloc
08-03-2010, 09:19 PM
I'm not able to agree with you Malloc.
Manning is not getting a break from anybody. He's guilty of treason.

He is primarily responsible for the leak, but that doesn't let the Wiki guy off
the hook for the role he played in this. There's a difference in 'reporting news'
and 'publishing stolen classified documents'.

I'll just leave it at that.

Yeah, I can see your side of the argument and I too think that the wikileak's guy made a poor decision in publishing the documents, but I just think that it was his decision to make poorly.

Kay
08-03-2010, 10:53 PM
Malloc, I'm sure you have a much better perspective on this with your intelligence background than I do. It's just that I have zero tolerance for things like this. I see the world in black and white. I can't stand to see situations like this that are clearly so wrong being justified because it might step on on one individual's rights. That's why I say there is a point when the rights of this one individual Wikiguy are trumped by the security of a whole country.

I'm sure nothing will ever happen to the Wikiguy, he will get off scott free on this whole deal. But I sure hope this whole affair taints his business to the point that he goes bankrupt and dies a broke lonely old man reflecting on what he did every day of his life right up to his last breath. I hope it haunts him every night in his sleep. A pox on him.

Odysseus
08-04-2010, 10:26 AM
There never comes a point where the free speech of a civilian is trumped by anything, and the freedom of the press cannot be put aside because it is inconvenient to the argument. It is the entire argument. Why do you think men, like you Ody, and me and my friends, served and fought? I love American values so much, including the absolute right to free speech and press, that I decided to put on my boots, grab a gun, and travel to far off lands in order to protect those values for my fellow Americans. How then can I condemn a journalist for reporting news, even if said journalist isn't an American? Sure the news he reported was brought to him from a source who had a contractual and moral obligation not to leak it, but that moral and contractual obligation does not, in my opinion, extend to other parties. Sure, the documents he reported may cause damage to my fellow Marines, and I don't agree with the reporter's decision to publish, but the very reason the Marine Corps even exists is to defend the reporter's right to report.

Think about why Manning's more honorable colleges do the job they do, and then tell me that freedom of the press is irrelevant to the argument, or that free speech can be trumped by some security argument. The very reason Manning was where he was, the very reason those document's even exist, was an effort to preserve American values, and one of those values is an absolute freedom of the press.

Manning, and Manning alone is at fault for the leak. I don't blame bees for stinging, I don't blame lions for hunting, and I won't blame a reporter for reporting. I will blame an intel analyst, who made a promise and was given a position of trust, for behaving dishonorably.

I'm not saying that Wikileaks doesn't have a right to free speech, but the publication of classified materials during wartime isn't free speech, any more than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is (unless there actually is a fire). There are recognized exceptions to what constitutes protected speech, and one of them is the dissemination of classified information during wartime (or, for that matter, during peacetime). Espionage is not protected speech.

Also, there is more going on here than just speech. The Constitutional guarantee is absolute only in that government may not exercise prior restraint or prosecute publishers for content, and no one is denying his right to publish what he obtains legally. However, receiving stolen goods is not protected, and the leaked documents were stolen. The First Amendment is not a license for the media to break the rest of the legal code in pursuit of a story.

Finally, Wikiboy isn't a US national; he is governed by Australian law and the laws of the nations in which he operates. The Commonwealth has a very strict official secrets act and he could be prosecuted under that.

We agree on Manning, and I want to see him prosecuted for, among other things, treason. However, while he is solely responsible for the leaks, Wikileaks is an accessory after the fact, in that they took possession of stolen documents, disseminated classified information during wartime and aided and abetted al Qaeda and the Taliban. At the very least, this last makes them an enemy combatant.

malloc
08-04-2010, 06:15 PM
I'm not saying that Wikileaks doesn't have a right to free speech, but the publication of classified materials during wartime isn't free speech, any more than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is (unless there actually is a fire). There are recognized exceptions to what constitutes protected speech, and one of them is the dissemination of classified information during wartime (or, for that matter, during peacetime). Espionage is not protected speech.

Also, there is more going on here than just speech. The Constitutional guarantee is absolute only in that government may not exercise prior restraint or prosecute publishers for content, and no one is denying his right to publish what he obtains legally. However, receiving stolen goods is not protected, and the leaked documents were stolen. The First Amendment is not a license for the media to break the rest of the legal code in pursuit of a story.

Finally, Wikiboy isn't a US national; he is governed by Australian law and the laws of the nations in which he operates. The Commonwealth has a very strict official secrets act and he could be prosecuted under that.

I wasn't really arguing based on what is law and in what locality. My argument was more philosophical in nature. Realistically, once the leaked information was published, it was no longer classified, as being classified implies it is a guarded secret. Once the information was aired, from an intelligence standpoint, it was damage done and water under the bridge. I mean the information can't be unpublished from every source, and erased from the minds of those who read it. If the publisher were prosecuted for publishing this material, would that not deter others in future from publishing evidence, of say, a political scandal, that was swept under the rug by gag orders and classifications?



We agree on Manning, and I want to see him prosecuted for, among other things, treason.

Absolutely. Doing what he did doesn't just discredit and dishonor Army Intelligence, or Manning's own intel shop, or even only the U.S. Army. I think Manning's actions dishonored the Military Intelligence Community in it's entirety. Officers in the field must have complete faith in all their shops, from the 2 shop they have to know that the information they are receiving is accurate and the information they are disseminating will remain confidential. Not only should Manning be punished for this breach of trust, he should be made into an example for other analysts who might not take their job seriously.

Odysseus
08-05-2010, 11:07 AM
I wasn't really arguing based on what is law and in what locality. My argument was more philosophical in nature. Realistically, once the leaked information was published, it was no longer classified, as being classified implies it is a guarded secret. Once the information was aired, from an intelligence standpoint, it was damage done and water under the bridge. I mean the information can't be unpublished from every source, and erased from the minds of those who read it. If the publisher were prosecuted for publishing this material, would that not deter others in future from publishing evidence, of say, a political scandal, that was swept under the rug by gag orders and classifications?
Well, if I were willing to give up one of my wishes, and I could find the damned lamp, it could... :D
Publishing evidence of a political scandal would still be protected, provided the evidence was acquired legally. That's my point, that being a journalist doesn't absolve someone of the obligations of obeying the laws that have nothing to do with a free press. If, for example, a reporter broke into a politician's home and stole his laptop in order to expose his interest in underage marsupials, the fact of the politician's guilt doesn't change that the reporter committed an act of breaking and entering. Wikileaks published stolen material. In addition, by publishing operational information which will provide al Qaeda and the Taliban with the means to wage war, they have made themselves allies of our enemies, and enemy combatants. I stand by my assertion that we would be justified in dropping a predator drone on the SOB.


Absolutely. Doing what he did doesn't just discredit and dishonor Army Intelligence, or Manning's own intel shop, or even only the U.S. Army. I think Manning's actions dishonored the Military Intelligence Community in it's entirety. Officers in the field must have complete faith in all their shops, from the 2 shop they have to know that the information they are receiving is accurate and the information they are disseminating will remain confidential. Not only should Manning be punished for this breach of trust, he should be made into an example for other analysts who might not take their job seriously.

No argument. The people in the field, both our Soldiers and the civilians who help us, have to know that they can trust that their actions will not be compromised. Manning needs to face capital charges and, if convicted, be executed.

m00
08-05-2010, 02:15 PM
Maybe I'm just not getting it. But can someone explain to me how an Australian reporter who published information that fell into his lap is guilty of espionage?

Isn't it the same as if some US reporter for the AP said "Sources deep inside the Chinese government revealed..." and then China wanted to extradite him for espionage, and called for his head?

djones520
08-05-2010, 02:22 PM
Maybe I'm just not getting it. But can someone explain to me how an Australian reporter who published information that fell into his lap is guilty of espionage?

Isn't it the same as if some US reporter for the AP said "Sources deep inside the Chinese government revealed..." and then China wanted to extradite him for espionage, and called for his head?

We really can't. Australia may be able to though. If it proves the documnets he released affects Australian operations in Afghan.

Odysseus
08-05-2010, 05:09 PM
We really can't. Australia may be able to though. If it proves the documnets he released affects Australian operations in Afghan.

Or, if those releases damaged the operations of an ally of Australia's, such as the US. The mutual defense pacts between nations unclude extradition agreements for espionage.

But, a predator drone is a simpler, more elegant solution, and ultimately cheaper than extradition and trial. I'm just sayin'....

m00
08-05-2010, 05:20 PM
Or, if those releases damaged the operations of an ally of Australia's, such as the US. The mutual defense pacts between nations unclude extradition agreements for espionage.

But, a predator drone is a simpler, more elegant solution, and ultimately cheaper than extradition and trial. I'm just sayin'....

I hope you aren't seriously suggesting we send predator drones to kill foreign nationals in their own countries for the crime of reporting news we don't want to get out.

Odysseus
08-05-2010, 07:00 PM
I hope you aren't seriously suggesting we send predator drones to kill foreign nationals in their own countries for the crime of reporting news we don't want to get out.

No, of course not. Maybe not even a ricin-tipped umbrella in a crowd. But I would consider him a candidate for extraordinary rendition, followed by a trial for espionage and a prolonged stay at Gitmo, and that isn't a joke.

He didn't just "report news that we don't want to get out," he disseminated classified information during wartime and in doing so, compromised ongoing operations, endangering the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of Afghans and giving aid to our enemies. If that doesn't make him an enemy combatant, what does?

If, in 1943, a similar outlet had published a leaked list of French Resistance fighters, or leaked the details of the Manhattan Project to a hostile press, he'd have been considered a spy and an enemy combatant. I submit that because he has sided with al Qaeda and the Taliban, and has publicly stated that his goal is to cause the US to lose the war in Afghanistan, he can be tried for espionage.

m00
08-05-2010, 07:10 PM
If, in 1943, a similar outlet had published a leaked list of French Resistance fighters, or leaked the details of the Manhattan Project to a hostile press, he'd have been considered a spy and an enemy combatant. I submit that because he has sided with al Qaeda and the Taliban, and has publicly stated that his goal is to cause the US to lose the war in Afghanistan, he can be tried for espionage.

Well, I think the difference is that WWII was a world war. And Congress declared war. And our allies declared war.


Like it or not, we're pretty much on our own against al Qaeda. We can strong-arm NATO or our allies, but we're really the only nation that's taking this seriously. Its not as if Australia considers itself "at war" with AQ.
I think when the laws that were written with special clauses that kicked in during wartime, it was assumed that "wartime" was a state of being that meant something very specific - that Congress had declared war. These days, we have a War on Drugs, War on Terror... and these have no set start or stopping point. They are infinite wars because we can never fully win them, in the same way you can never fully "beat" cancer but rather put it in remission. So to have a law with a clause that is enabled during a very specific circumstance, and then to change the meaning of that circumstance so that the clause is always enabled, results in the opposite probable reason for that clause existing. And it seems to me this is a very insidious way for one branch of government to unilaterally change the meaning and purpose of laws.

Sonnabend
08-06-2010, 08:30 AM
But I would consider him a candidate for extraordinary rendition, followed by a trial for espionage and a prolonged stay at Gitmo, and that isn't a joke.

Major, that is a can of worms you dont want to open. Trust me on this.

Odysseus
08-06-2010, 03:51 PM
Well, I think the difference is that WWII was a world war. And Congress declared war. And our allies declared war.
Congress authorized the use of force, and we are engaged in armed combat under that resolution. Congress also didn't declare war in Vietnam or Korea, nor against the plains Indians, the Philippinos, the Barbary Pirates, Pancho Villa or a host of other small wars, but anyone who had provided aid and comfort to our enemies would have been deemed an enemy combatant, and if American, a traitor. We didn't declare war on the Soviets from 1946 through 1991. Would it have been acceptable for the Nation to have published a list of Hungarian resistance members in 1956, or the Czech resistance in 1967?


Like it or not, we're pretty much on our own against al Qaeda. We can strong-arm NATO or our allies, but we're really the only nation that's taking this seriously. Its not as if Australia considers itself "at war" with AQ.
Australia has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've served with them in Iraq, and I can tell you that they take their duties very seriously, as does their government, regardless of which party is in power.


I think when the laws that were written with special clauses that kicked in during wartime, it was assumed that "wartime" was a state of being that meant something very specific - that Congress had declared war. These days, we have a War on Drugs, War on Terror... and these have no set start or stopping point. They are infinite wars because we can never fully win them, in the same way you can never fully "beat" cancer but rather put it in remission. So to have a law with a clause that is enabled during a very specific circumstance, and then to change the meaning of that circumstance so that the clause is always enabled, results in the opposite probable reason for that clause existing. And it seems to me this is a very insidious way for one branch of government to unilaterally change the meaning and purpose of laws.

Are you saying that providing classified information that exposes Afghans who have aided the US and our allies to al Qaeda and the Taliban, which will lead directly to their deaths, is not espionage? Or that it is not an act of an enemy combatant? Espionage is a capital crime, even in peacetime. We executed the Rosenbergs for that when there was no declared war with the Soviets. The Wikileakster has committed an act of espionage against the United States and our allies.

Major, that is a can of worms you dont want to open. Trust me on this.
If Wikiboy is in Australia, I would expect the government to respond to an extradition request. If he is hiding out in a neutral or hostile state, where such a request would not be honored, I would expect another form of sanction to be employed.

It doesn't matter. This administration is more likely to give this guy a medal than seek his extradition and prosecution.

Molon Labe
08-06-2010, 04:27 PM
Congress authorized the use of force, and we are engaged in armed combat under that resolution. Congress also didn't declare war in Vietnam or Korea, nor against the plains Indians, the Philippinos.....

There have been MANY things done that weren't exactly following the founders intent nor were they exactly the best thing for this country. Saying that "A" was done in spite of "B" doesn't mean it was the appropriate course of action, as most of what you listed has shown.

Odysseus
08-06-2010, 06:26 PM
There have been MANY things done that weren't exactly following the founders intent nor were they exactly the best thing for this country. Saying that "A" was done in spite of "B" doesn't mean it was the appropriate course of action, as most of what you listed has shown.

Let me see if I understand this: Since congress didn't declare war formally, but only authorized military action, we have no standing to act against a conspiracy to endanger American lives and the lives of our allies and undermine our war efforts through espionage and dissemination of operational information? That's your position?

Molon Labe
08-06-2010, 08:29 PM
Let me see if I understand this: Since congress didn't declare war formally, but only authorized military action, we have no standing to act against a conspiracy to endanger American lives and the lives of our allies and undermine our war efforts through espionage and dissemination of operational information? That's your position?

I dub thee King of the Strawman arguement. Read what I wrote again and then get back to me.

Kay
08-06-2010, 11:34 PM
But, a predator drone is a simpler, more elegant solution,
and ultimately cheaper than extradition and trial. I'm just sayin'....

Word.

djones520
08-07-2010, 05:04 AM
I dub thee King of the Strawman arguement. Read what I wrote again and then get back to me.

No... what Major said seems to be inline with what you said. You just left your statement generally vague.

If thats not what you intended to say, then maybe you should relook at what you wrote, cause I totally got what the Major said out of your post.

Sonnabend
08-07-2010, 05:11 AM
Its not as if Australia considers itself "at war" with AQ. We consider ourselves at war with anyone who threatens us, our freedom, our way of life, our citizens , our nation.


Like it or not, we're pretty much on our own against al Qaeda.I will treat that remark with the contempt it deserves.We are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, our troops acquitted themselves with honour in Iraq.

17 dead, 133 wounded so far.That good enough for you?


If Wikiboy is in Australia, I would expect the government to respond to an extradition request. If he is hiding out in a neutral or hostile state, where such a request would not be honored, I would expect another form of sanction to be employed. Extradition is one thing. That's fine. "Rendition" is another.

CueSi
08-07-2010, 09:24 AM
We consider ourselves at war with anyone who threatens us, our freedom, our way of life, our citizens , our nation.

I will treat that remark with the contempt it deserves.We are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, our troops acquitted themselves with honour in Iraq.

17 dead, 133 wounded so far.That good enough for you?

Extradition is one thing. That's fine. "Rendition" is another.

So, due to the fact that he has given away secrets of an ally in a mutual cause. . .could the Australian government take action against him?

No gotcha, no pissiness, just wondering due to the fact that Australia IS part of the Coalition if they have standing to take this asshole out of circulation.

~QC

Sonnabend
08-07-2010, 10:21 AM
So, due to the fact that he has given away secrets of an ally in a mutual cause. . .could the Australian government take action against him?

Sure. What crimes has he committed that he can be arrested for? You guys come up with charges, file them, ask for extradition, were it up to me I'd hogtie him and bundle him on a plane myself.

But I dont think he is on Aust soil, and I am fairly sure he wont come back, because he knows his ass is a rug.


No gotcha, no pissiness, just wondering due to the fact that Australia IS part of the Coalition if they have standing to take this asshole out of circulation.

Legally? Yes.

Right now he is in Brussels. After that? Who knows.

CueSi
08-07-2010, 10:40 AM
Sure. What crimes has he committed that he can be arrested for? You guys come up with charges, file them, ask for extradition, were it up to me I'd hogtie him and bundle him on a plane myself.

But I dont think he is on Aust soil, and I am fairly sure he wont come back, because he knows his ass is a rug.



Legally? Yes.

Right now he is in Brussels. After that? Who knows.

Thanks for the answers. I actually worry about his safety to a degree... for all I know, some freelancer may decide to take matters in their own hands.

Didn't Belgium have troops in AG? :p

Yes, I am reaching. No, don't give a shit.

~QC

Odysseus
08-07-2010, 04:50 PM
I dub thee King of the Strawman arguement. Read what I wrote again and then get back to me.

If I misrepresented your position, feel free to explain what you actually meant. If, OTOH, I stated yor argument accurately, then have the decency to defend your position without resorting to childish name-calling.Of course, if I accurately stated your position and you realize that you cannot defend it, then by all means, continue to try to change the subject. I will know what that means and respond accordingly.

Sonnabend
08-07-2010, 07:18 PM
Major: my point earlier was that any legal means is welcome and appropriate.

Pull any rendition shit on Australian soil and you will NOT like what comes next. For good or ill, he IS an Australian citizen. Treat us any different than you would one of your own citizens? and believe me, you Americans will bitterly regret it.

Odysseus
08-07-2010, 09:10 PM
Major: my point earlier was that any legal means is welcome and appropriate.

Pull any rendition shit on Australian soil and you will NOT like what comes next. For good or ill, he IS an Australian citizen. Treat us any different than you would one of your own citizens? and believe me, you Americans will bitterly regret it.

He's not in Australia, he's somewhere in Northern Europe, hiding among like-minded anti-Americans who denounce us after decades of being under our protection. If he were in Australia, I would expect any Australian government, even the current one, to do the right thing regarding this petty Quisling, who endangers his own nation's troops as well as ours, and rendition would be unnecessary. Since he is in hiding elsewhere, we should do what must be done to bring him to justice and ensure that his example teaches the right lesson.

Sonnabend
08-07-2010, 09:16 PM
He's not in Australia, he's somewhere in Northern Europe, hiding among like-minded anti-Americans who denounce us after decades of being under our protection.

In which case, Major, you may render at will :D My issue was with the idea of rendition here in Aust..thats all.

DU+NU_Reject
08-07-2010, 11:18 PM
Malloc, I'm sure you have a much better perspective on this with your intelligence background than I do. It's just that I have zero tolerance for things like this. I see the world in black and white. I can't stand to see situations like this that are clearly so wrong being justified because it might step on on one individual's rights. That's why I say there is a point when the rights of this one individual Wikiguy are trumped by the security of a whole country.

I'm sure nothing will ever happen to the Wikiguy, he will get off scott free on this whole deal.

The best question to ask here, IMO, is "What does the public hope to gain from stolen, classified documents?"

Is there ANY POSSIBLE benefit to the public after having a bunch of classified docs... stolen and/or declassified? :mad:

Kay
08-07-2010, 11:25 PM
The best question to ask here, IMO, is "What does the public hope to gain from stolen, classified documents?"

Is there ANY POSSIBLE benefit to the public after having a bunch of classified docs... stolen and/or declassified? :mad:

The public isn't the one that's gaining here.
It's the Taliban and AlQ who are the beneficiaries of this.
You know, those guys we are war with?
What's in those stolen docs gives them the upper hand.

Rockntractor
08-07-2010, 11:28 PM
The public isn't the one that's gaining here.
It's the Taliban and AlQ who are the beneficiaries of this.
You know, those guys we are war with?
What's in those stolen docs gives them the upper hand.

Sometimes it's easy to forget we have outside enemies when our own government has become an enemy.

Odysseus
08-08-2010, 11:26 AM
The best question to ask here, IMO, is "What does the public hope to gain from stolen, classified documents?"

Is there ANY POSSIBLE benefit to the public after having a bunch of classified docs... stolen and/or declassified? :mad:
A Supreme Court justice once said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. There is no public purpose served by the disclosure of these documents. Unfortunately, our elites have never studied any history that doesn't flatter them, so they see this as a recapitulation of the Pentagon Papers scandal. The Pentagon Papers were a high level study that did not cover specific operation details, so their disclosure, while damaging, also served the purpose of giving the American people insights into the government's view of the Vietnam War, which served to expose the lack of planning and the overall pessimism at the highest levels. Unfortunately, instead of galvanizing public opinion in favor of a new strategy, it undermined support for the war and led directly to our defeat. Since then, every leftist journalist or delusional petty bureaucrat has dreamed of being the guy to defeat America in the same way.

Sometimes it's easy to forget we have outside enemies when our own government has become an enemy.
Machiavelli famously said that "My enemy's enemy is my ally." Islamic jihadis and America are natural enemies. Unfortunately, our elites are more concerned with defeating their domestic opponents than they are with ensuring the survival of the nation, so they have chosen to ally with the jihadis. In the long term, their grandchildren will bear the brunt of their short-sightedness (as will ours), but the current generation of elites will have partied their lives away by then and they don't care what happens after they are gone.

CueSi
08-09-2010, 12:53 AM
In which case, Major, you may render at will :D My issue was with the idea of rendition here in Aust..thats all.

Four years ago, I could say for certain that America respected Australia's sovereignty enough not to do that.

Now, I'm honestly not sure.

~QC

Molon Labe
08-09-2010, 10:32 AM
If I misrepresented your position, feel free to explain what you actually meant. If, OTOH, I stated yor argument accurately, then have the decency to defend your position without resorting to childish name-calling.Of course, if I accurately stated your position and you realize that you cannot defend it, then by all means, continue to try to change the subject. I will know what that means and respond accordingly.

What Malloc said was spot on.

When you go to war in the murky land of Congressional authorizations for ubiquitious terms such as the "authorization of the use of force"...etc, you get exactly what every major U.S. engagement has gotten since WW2. No goal, no expectations and no end in sight and something that ends with the U.S military getting the brunt of the bullshit. What Malloc said was correct. When you circumvent law and do in the murky details of a congressional measure, you can't distinguish where to draw the line. Everything becomes a mess.

And... No...What's childish is building the strawman, which seems to be what you routinely do. We are talking about the way a constitutional Republic goes to war. Surely there are measures a POTUS uses to defend the nation in the event of an immenent attack. But your strawman is the ticking time bomb. LOL!One of the most ridiculous analogies to draw, and is routinely done by people grasping

Odysseus
08-09-2010, 11:13 AM
What Malloc said was spot on.

When you go to war in the murky land of Congressional authorizations for ubiquitious terms such as the "authorization of the use of force"...etc, you get exactly what every major U.S. engagement has gotten since WW2. No goal, no expectations and no end in sight and something that ends with the U.S military getting the brunt of the bullshit. What Malloc said was correct. When you circumvent law and do in the murky details of a congressional measure, you can't distinguish where to draw the line. Everything becomes a mess.

And... No...What's childish is building the strawman, which seems to be what you routinely do. We are talking about the way a constitutional Republic goes to war. Surely there are measures a POTUS uses to defend the nation in the event of an immenent attack. But your strawman is the ticking time bomb. LOL!One of the most ridiculous analogies to draw, and is routinely done by people grasping

The subjeft is whether the Wikileaks founder can be arrested and tried for espionage. I assumed that this was what you were discussing when you complained about the murk of congressional authorizations, and I replied accordingly, to ask if I understood your position correctly. I still don't know if I do, since you have not addressed it, but chosen to get personal instead (something that you often do). If you don't want to discuss that, then you can start another thread on the legality of going to war on a congressional authorization vs a declaration of war. If you do wish to discuss it, you might begin by clarifying your position, since it appeared that you were opposing any aciton to go after this clown, based on what you perceive as the illegality of our actions.

Molon Labe
08-09-2010, 11:40 AM
The subjeft is whether the Wikileaks founder can be arrested and tried for espionage. I assumed that this was what you were discussing when you complained about the murk of congressional authorizations, and I replied accordingly, to ask if I understood your position correctly. I still don't know if I do, since you have not addressed it, but chosen to get personal instead (something that you often do). If you don't want to discuss that, then you can start another thread on the legality of going to war on a congressional authorization vs a declaration of war. If you do wish to discuss it, you might begin by clarifying your position, since it appeared that you were opposing any aciton to go after this clown, based on what you perceive as the illegality of our actions.

Look...I don't have time to stroke egos. I said you build the strawman like there's no tomorrow. You often use the ticking time bomb scenario. If you think that's a personal attack....give me a break.
The fact is that the two subjects of espionage and clearly defined legal war aims are very related. Things like Wiki leaks, and information on what's going on in a war get pretty murky in the land of ubiquitous war aims. Which is what the rule of law is for. If the goals had been laid down years ago, we wouldn't still be in Iraq and Afghanistan 8 years later. Most of their stuff is from operations that happened 2 - 5 years ago. It's the naming of names that is the problem and how that effects persons on the ground right now that is wrong. Wiki is just the outlet, the problem is the person who released it.

Do you ever wonder why the greatest military might to ever march across the planet has just fought it's two longest wars against a bunch of little Desert dwellers with no end in sight? Ever wonder why the longer it goes on the more crap that rises to the surface and get's exposed puts more of our troops in harms way? It's because there are no defined goals.

They deserve better than what they have in policy makers and they don't deserve half ass talk about how we are going to sock it to little piss ants like Wikileaks or some stupid Private is a threat to national security. Those two are not the biggest problems we face.

Odysseus
08-09-2010, 04:25 PM
Look...I don't have time to stroke egos. I said you build the strawman like there's no tomorrow. You often use the ticking time bomb scenario. If you think that's a personal attack....give me a break.
The fact is that the two subjects of espionage and clearly defined legal war aims are very related. Things like Wiki leaks, and information on what's going on in a war get pretty murky in the land of ubiquitous war aims. Which is what the rule of law is for. If the goals had been laid down years ago, we wouldn't still be in Iraq and Afghanistan 8 years later. Most of their stuff is from operations that happened 2 - 5 years ago. It's the naming of names that is the problem and how that effects persons on the ground right now that is wrong. Wiki is just the outlet, the problem is the person who released it.

I didn't ask you to stroke my ego. And if you want to discuss the rule of law, that's fine. Espionage is a crime, even in peacetime. The fact that we are at war, even a murky, undeclared war, just makes it more obvious. Wiki isn't just an outlet, it's an entity that seeks to provide our enemies with the means to wage war against us by giving them the names of people who have helped us fight them. That makes wiki an enemy combatant to my way of thinking, or at the very least, an accessory to espionage.


Do you ever wonder why the greatest military might to ever march across the planet has just fought it's two longest wars against a bunch of little Desert dwellers with no end in sight? Ever wonder why the longer it goes on the more crap that rises to the surface and get's exposed puts more of our troops in harms way? It's because there are no defined goals.
No, I know exactly why every bit of negative information gets out. We have people in positions of trust who are not trustworthy (Manning, for example, but also all of those leakers in the State Dept., the CIA and a host of others who consider it their right to decide foreign policy and undermine the elected officals who actually have to make the decisions about going to war), aided and abetted by radicals and poseurs who think that it's cool to undermine our efforts, even if it gets some of us killed. Manning wasn't upset by the lack of defined goals, he was a punk who wanted to make a name for himself among antiwar groups and the media by leaking documents that he was entrusted with.


They deserve better than what they have in policy makers and they don't deserve half ass talk about how we are going to sock it to little piss ants like Wikileaks or some stupid Private is a threat to national security. Those two are not the biggest problems we face.
Tell that to the people in the field who will be getting their throats cut for having supported us, and who have been exposed thanks to Manning and Wikileaks. The fact is, they are a symptom of what ails us, and you hit part of it when you talked about the failure to define the mission. The real problem is that we cannot openly state the mission, because so many people who call themselves Americans are, in fact, opposed to any action that America takes to protect itself and render the most logical, obvious acts as either unjustified or illegal or make such ridiculously unrealistic demands that anything short of miraculous is seen as inept. We fight under ROE that are designed to prevent victory (a word our current leadership cannot even bring itself to utter), hamstrung by a viciously adversarial media that accepts our enemies' word as gospel, but assumes that we are lying whenever we speak. Some of our congressional leaders openly call for our defeat on the battlefield, slander us and side with our enemies, while demanding that we not question their patriotism. And then, we have Soldiers who openly aid our enemies, either because they believe in their cause (MAJ Hasan) or because they don't believe in ours (Manning), and international institutions that are happy to provide a means of giving our enemies everything that they could ask for.

No, Manning and Wikileaks aren't the biggest problems, but they are symptoms of it.

Molon Labe
08-09-2010, 05:12 PM
Ok... I'm not saying that anyone who is guilty of directly putting troops in harms way should not be held responsible for espionage. But Obama hasn't offered anything more than vague statements about how or why this incident will. This administration is completely lost on defining that.

Let's put some things about this into perspective.

Question. Who is the bigger more tangible threat to troops in the field right now?


A. Assange/Manning

B. Or that the U.S government is paying Pakistan 1 billion in foreign aid that is shown to go to Taliban resistance fighters who are killing U.S. troops?


The leaks actually brought a little light on letter B. Which no one had a clue about.

Our great and all mighty leader Mr. Obama has been dodging that little tidbit of Intel? Why? . What is it now...over 90 percent of Pakistanis list the U.S. and India as their biggest enemies? And we're funding them...and they are turning it around and giving it to a hardened and resurgent enemy?

So you think Wikileaks are enemy combatants. So it could be argued is the Obama administration for funding the enemy and providing no clear defined war aims.

Odysseus
08-09-2010, 05:34 PM
Ok... I'm not saying that anyone who is guilty of directly putting troops in harms way should not be held responsible for espionage. But Obama hasn't offered anything more than vague statements about how or why this incident will. This administration is completely lost on defining that.
Agreed.

Let's put some things about this into perspective.

Question. Who is the bigger more tangible threat to troops in the field right now?

A. Assange/Manning

B. Or that the U.S government is paying Pakistan 1 billion in foreign aid that is shown to go to Taliban resistance fighters who are killing U.S. troops?

The leaks actually brought a little light on letter B. Which no one had a clue about.

Strategically thinking, B is the greater threat, but tactically, A is the more immediate threat. If I were a commander on the ground, I'd be worrying about the immediate effects of the leaking, to include Force Pro and COIN issues, i.e., the lives of my troops and the Afghans who supported us. That is the immediate concern, and I'd want to see the leaks stopped before more damage is done. Then we can address B.


Our great and all mighty leader Mr. Obama has been dodging that little tidbit of Intel? Why? . What is it now...over 90 percent of Pakistanis list the U.S. and India as their biggest enemies? And we're funding them...and they are turning it around and giving it to a hardened and resurgent enemy?

So you think Wikileaks are enemy combatants. So it could be argued is the Obama administration for funding the enemy and providing no clear defined war aims.

Wikileaks is on the record as saying that they don't care if our people die if it means that we are forced to withdraw from Afghanistan, so their status as enemy combatants is pretty obvious. It would be harder to argue that Obama is knowingly aiding our enemies (although it is also hard to claim that this administration knowingly does anything). It's hard to say where incompetence ends and malice begins with the left, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he's not deliberately aiding our enemies and stay just this side of Article 88 of the UCMJ.

Molon Labe
08-09-2010, 08:10 PM
Strategically thinking, B is the greater threat, but tactically, A is the more immediate threat. If I were a commander on the ground, I'd be worrying about the immediate effects of the leaking, to include Force Pro and COIN issues, i.e., the lives of my troops and the Afghans who supported us. That is the immediate concern, and I'd want to see the leaks stopped before more damage is done. Then we can address B.

Well, that's where we will disagree. The administration and key leadership has failed to define exactly how or in what specific way the leaks effect immediate security risks. There's alot of vague references to "blood on hands", but it seems pretty empty rhetoric as opposed to the direct threat of a well funded insurgency.

I'm aware that three soldiers were killed this weekend by Taliban insurgents with some pretty hefty new toys. Wonder where the funding is coming from? And since it was one of the leaked documents that exposed this billion dollar bungle, then I'm optimistic that some good may come from that to aid leadership to press Washington to end this charade.

Funding from Pakistan directly effects an immediate threat to troops. An officer or key leadership in the field should be concerned with the enemies means to deliver an attack. And money provides means and it better well be one of the main concerns of the S2 sections in that zone. IMO 3 year old documents do not effect the missions being planned or executed in the coming months. It doesn't tell how, or where troop movements are. Real money buying real toys to thwart future operations concerns the hell out of me. Where Assange's story may add to a precarious morale issue, I'll guarantee that watching troops actually die and finding out your buddy may have died as a result of your government's incompetant policies of funding the enemy will be a mission killer.

Odysseus
08-09-2010, 10:28 PM
Well, that's where we will disagree. The administration and key leadership has failed to define exactly how or in what specific way the leaks effect immediate security risks. There's alot of vague references to "blood on hands", but it seems pretty empty rhetoric as opposed to the direct threat of a well funded insurgency.

I'm aware that three soldiers were killed this weekend by Taliban insurgents with some pretty hefty new toys. Wonder where the funding is coming from? And since it was one of the leaked documents that exposed this billion dollar bungle, then I'm optimistic that some good may come from that to aid leadership to press Washington to end this charade.

Funding from Pakistan directly effects an immediate threat to troops. An officer or key leadership in the field should be concerned with the enemies means to deliver an attack. And money provides means and it better well be one of the main concerns of the S2 sections in that zone. IMO 3 year old documents do not effect the missions being planned or executed in the coming months. It doesn't tell how, or where troop movements are. Real money buying real toys to thwart future operations concerns the hell out of me. Where Assange's story may add to a precarious morale issue, I'll guarantee that watching troops actually die and finding out your buddy may have died as a result of your government's incompetant policies of funding the enemy will be a mission killer.

Your opinion is wrong. Those documents exposed Afghans who were covertly providing support for our forces. They and their families are now in grave danger, and the troops who depend on them for intel are now at risk. The commanders on the ground in theater have to deal with that, first and foremost. Then, if the administration gives them the leeway, they can address Pakistan's support of the Taliban, after they are done with Iran's support for them and al Qaeda.

Jfor
08-09-2010, 11:21 PM
I believe I would trust the Major in this matter IMO.

Molon Labe
08-10-2010, 10:43 AM
I believe I would trust the Major in this matter IMO.

Thanks... I'll try to remember that he's the only one who has any military expertise, or leadership experience on the internets. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
08-10-2010, 12:39 PM
Thanks... I'll try to remember that he's the only one who has any military expertise, or leadership experience on the internets. :rolleyes:

You and I agree on too many issues to get pissed off at each other over the disagreements. I think that you've made a good case for the strategic view, that the conduct of the war is the greater danger, but from a tactical consideration, the more immediate threat is the loss of life that will come from the exposure of covert allies. If I were a commander in Afghanistan, my focus would be on safeguarding the people threatened by these leaks, rebuilding my intel networks and undoing the damage within my AO. If I were the POTUS, I'd be looking at a change (or at least a definition) of the desired endstate and the means to get there, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

Molon Labe
08-10-2010, 02:22 PM
You and I agree on too many issues to get pissed off at each other over the disagreements..... If I were the POTUS, I'd be looking at a change (or at least a definition) of the desired endstate and the means to get there, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

Heck...If we agreed all the time no one would have much to say.....besides, It's boring to write agreement posts all day long anyways.
I don't believe the Wiki docs will paralyze tactical war aims. They will definitely be a political factor. And you're right that the POTUS needs to define an endstate that is achievable as to get the mission accomplished. You know as well as I do, that if you do not give clear mission goals you increase the chances for possible failure.
I just have a different perspective on FP than many conservatives today. There's always more to the story than what is being actually told in the MSM....which is what Wiki crudely did, though I disagree with their quesionable methods.
I'm never pissed at the disagreements, contrary to popular belief.

Odysseus
08-10-2010, 03:30 PM
Heck...If we agreed all the time no one would have much to say.....besides, It's boring to write agreement posts all day long anyways.
Instead of agreeing with you, I will quote Dan Akroyd on SNL's Point, Counterpoint, "Jane, you ignorant slut...":D

I don't believe the Wiki docs will paralyze tactical war aims. They will definitely be a political factor. And you're right that the POTUS needs to define an endstate that is achievable as to get the mission accomplished. You know as well as I do, that if you do not give clear mission goals you increase the chances for possible failure.
I just have a different perspective on FP than many conservatives today. There's always more to the story than what is being actually told in the MSM....which is what Wiki crudely did, though I disagree with their quesionable methods.
I'm never pissed at the disagreements, contrary to popular belief.
The tactical situation is going to erode because of Wikileaks. Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Afghan who dislikes the Taliban and does not share al Qaeda's dream of a global caliphate. Maybe you don't want your wife or daughter stoned because her burka rode up over her ankle, or you like an occasional tune on the radio, or flying a kite. Before this, you might have decided to provide information to the US or Afghan forces that would roll up the bad guys in your AO, but now, you will think twice. After all, if they cannot guarantee your anonymity, then what is the point of providing support?

Our intel sources are going to dry up fast, and in a guerilla war, that's going to mean more lives lost and erosion of support for the war. Wikileaks just raised our body count and the media will happily exploit it.

Jfor
08-10-2010, 04:11 PM
Thanks... I'll try to remember that he's the only one who has any military expertise, or leadership experience on the internets. :rolleyes:

Are you currently a high ranking officer in the US Military? Are you currently in command of troops? That is my point. He is living this right now. It affects his job. Notice where he is stationed? I wonder what army group there?

Odysseus
08-10-2010, 05:28 PM
Are you currently a high ranking officer in the US Military? Are you currently in command of troops? That is my point. He is living this right now. It affects his job. Notice where he is stationed? I wonder what army group there?

Yeah, but FT Hood's a long way from Kandahar, and everyone's entitled to an opinion. My rank and position don't mean that I'm always right (just ask the NCOs that work for me :D).

Jfor
08-10-2010, 05:59 PM
Yeah, but FT Hood's a long way from Kandahar, and everyone's entitled to an opinion. My rank and position don't mean that I'm always right (just ask the NCOs that work for me :D).

I understand that, but you are also in the position to have to worry about stuff like this. BTW, my dad was an NCO and used to have very little good to say about officer's unless they were good. Then he'd follow'em to hell if need be.

Molon Labe
08-11-2010, 03:36 PM
Are you currently a high ranking officer in the US Military? Are you currently in command of troops? That is my point. He is living this right now. It affects his job. Notice where he is stationed? I wonder what army group there?


So, you're qualifications for expertise are 1. Command of Troops, 2. Rank

There are plenty of people " living it right now" or have "lived it" in other engagements who didn't have a clue about the nature of the beast.
There's no "magic" understanding of the big picture simply because you hold a particular position. Just look at the Warfare history failure. Like Odysseus alluded about rank and position....some of us have served under some bad senior leaders and conversely some very good junior ones. I don't claim to know Odysseus qualifications on this.

Two things strike me as particularly troublesome about worrying about the leaks over more pressing matters of Troop and National Security.

First the civilian casualties caused by occupation are far more serious to U.S troops security on the ground than what was contained in the leaks. If names were named in the leaks and it's possible for a commander to protect the those named, he should do so to the best of his ability, but the more pressing matter to American troop safety is to reduce civilian casualties caused by occupation. There is a direct link to insurgent recruitment caused by civilian casualties. So suggesting the leaks could cause civilian casualties is kinda ironic when the biggest issue to troop safety is the direct link to insurgents caused by the collateral damage aspect of the war.

The second thing is that these documents were all significant activity reports. Meaning that they were accessible by just about any soldier and contractor in theater who had access to the secret network. There are hundreds and hundreds. If that's the case, then anyone could have done this...and that's a problem.
To my knowledge about this and from what I've read of them, the leaks are not as significant as if actual "Strategic" information had gotten into the wrong hands....but's that's all Top Secret stuff and would never be kept on this kind of network. Wiki has nothing of that level in it's possession.

Odysseus
08-11-2010, 05:10 PM
So, you're qualifications for expertise are 1. Command of Troops, 2. Rank
Don't forget astonishing good looks. :D


There are plenty of people " living it right now" or have "lived it" in other engagements who didn't have a clue about the nature of the beast.
There's no "magic" understanding of the big picture simply because you hold a particular position. Just look at the Warfare history failure. Like Odysseus alluded about rank and position....some of us have served under some bad senior leaders and conversely some very good junior ones. I don't claim to know Odysseus qualifications on this.
You're giving me the benefit of the doubt, right? :D


Two things strike me as particularly troublesome about worrying about the leaks over more pressing matters of Troop and National Security.

First the civilian casualties caused by occupation are far more serious to U.S troops security on the ground than what was contained in the leaks. If names were named in the leaks and it's possible for a commander to protect the those named, he should do so to the best of his ability, but the more pressing matter to American troop safety is to reduce civilian casualties caused by occupation. There is a direct link to insurgent recruitment caused by civilian casualties. So suggesting the leaks could cause civilian casualties is kinda ironic when the biggest issue to troop safety is the direct link to insurgents caused by the collateral damage aspect of the war.

The second thing is that these documents were all significant activity reports. Meaning that they were accessible by just about any soldier and contractor in theater who had access to the secret network. There are hundreds and hundreds. If that's the case, then anyone could have done this...and that's a problem.
To my knowledge about this and from what I've read of them, the leaks are not as significant as if actual "Strategic" information had gotten into the wrong hands....but's that's all Top Secret stuff and would never be kept on this kind of network. Wiki has nothing of that level in it's possession.
My understanding is that they went beyond SIGACTs, and actually named names. SIGACTS would routinely be classified as SECRET, while materials that include the process of intel gathering, i.e., sources and procedures, are usually classifed TOP SECRET. If the names in the documents refer specifically to Afghans who have provided intel to US troops and the ANA, then they are TS, which means that they are not routine SIGACT reports.

And, while you are correct that civilian casualties undermine our ability to defeat the insurgents, some civilian deaths are more destructive than others. If those civilians who have supported us are exposed and their families killed, these civilian deaths will be extremely damaging to our security, both because their deaths will be attributed, not only to our occupation, but to our weakness and inability to protect our allies. They will send a message that aiding us will get you and your family killed. The deaths of our allies on the ground also increase insurgent recruiting, as people will not trust our side to protect them and see us as weaker than the Taliban. An Afghan who intends to live after we leave will have no choice but to make an accomodation with the Taliban.