Wikileaks release of more classified US documents

[idlewind]

Bush commuted his sentence.

Bad decision

 

[LuciferSam]

I disagree. The name WikilLeaks says it all. When they do not take the time to check their source, they become complicit and should be charged with espionage. To me, it's like not charging a drug trafficker with a crime because they only provided an outlet to the drug addict.

Guys like Assange are driven by beating the system and rival hackers because they can do it, not by true exposure, transparency or journalistic reporting, IMHO. When you take cables from officials working for governments, he knows quite well that that information is not to go beyond those walls, but he reports it anyway. He's dangerous and should be treated as such.

The U.S. has no jurisdiction over him. I don't think there is any international law governing the release of classified information or even determining if that information is classified. I suppose the international community could make the determination that he's some kind of rogue state and declare war on him.

No, once information is compromised, it's too late and the genie is out of the bottle. It would be a dangerous violation of freedom of the press if governments had the legal right to tell the media that they can't release information because they believe it to be classified. What that would lead to is that on a whim and on the spot, governments would arbitrarily try to restrict the media from releasing anything they might consider embarassing. The only way around this, at least from our country's point of view, is to go after those who are entrusted to safeguard that information. That's not Assange or anybody else in the media.

 

[Mango]

The U.S. has no jurisdiction over him. I don't think there is any international law governing the release of classified information or even determining if that information is classified. I suppose the international community could make the determination that he's some kind of rogue state and declare war on him.

No, once information is compromised, it's too late and the genie is out of the bottle. It would be a dangerous violation of freedom of the press if governments had the legal right to tell the media that they can't release information because they believe it to be classified. What that would lead to is that on a whim and on the spot, governments would arbitrarily try to restrict the media from releasing anything they might consider embarassing. The only way around this, at least from our country's point of view, is to go after those who are entrusted to safeguard that information. That's not Assange or anybody else in the media.

There should be some international law about putting classified data on a web site for the entire world to see, even if some of it is akin to the Enquirer Magazine , re: the cables about the officials opinions of one another. But, I read somewhere, and I can't vouch for it since I did not do the research myself, that a reporter did search Wikileaks site for the documents about Afghanistan and Pakistan and came up with names of tribal leaders, towns.... For all we know, they could have been spies for us, but now their names are all out there. Scary stuff. The technology is moving faster than it can be contained, so IMHO, the UN needs to act on this type of media. Now he threatens divulging info about a major bank. Depending on what it is, it can cause major market upsets. We already know many Countries stifle info from being published and I do not kid myself that the US doesn't. either.

There's a saying: "It's best to stay out of the kitchen of your favorite restaurant." There are some things that the public does not need to see or hear, like there really are aliens.

 

[scooterbug44]

There's a saying: "It's best to stay out of the kitchen of your favorite restaurant." There are some things that the public does not need to see or hear, like there really are aliens.

I disagree - we have standards/rules for a reason and we have people who are supposed to be a check for those standards/rules.

And if the restaurant is not following these rules, their customers need to know so they can make choices based on it. I'll give my favored chef leeway, but I still expect minimum standards to be maintained.

Some of the stuff being leaked was not redacted well at all and that poor judgment is going to have some negative repercussions (one story already caused a bank run) - but some of it I think NEEDED to be made public.

Nothing disinfects like sunshine.

 

[Lake View Too]

I disagree - we have standards/rules for a reason and we have people who are supposed to be a check for those standards/rules.

And if the restaurant is not following these rules, their customers need to know so they can make choices based on it. I'll give my favored chef leeway, but I still expect minimum standards to be maintained.

Some of the stuff being leaked was not redacted well at all and that poor judgment is going to have some negative repercussions (one story already caused a bank run) - but some of it I think NEEDED to be made public.

Nothing disinfects like sunshine.

I pretty much agree with this. Some of the material is most unfortunate, but the general result of this will probably be a positive. It is putting all the players involved on a level playing field, as it were. It is certainly a far better thing to know what classified information of ours has been compromised and in what ways we are vulnerable, than to not know who has access to this info. I'm ambivalent as to Wikileaks motives and some of their techniques, but I should hope that the original leakers who stole the classified information in the first place are tried and convicted of treason and that these holes in our security are plugged.

 

[Matt J]

It's interesting how Wikileaks was regarded as ok when they were releasing Bush era info. Now that the info is revealing Obama's term it's time to arrest him...

I like it either way and I think we all know which way I lean.

 

[30ashopper]

I pretty much agree with this. Some of the material is most unfortunate, but the general result of this will probably be a positive. It is putting all the players involved on a level playing field, as it were. It is certainly a far better thing to know what classified information of ours has been compromised and in what ways we are vulnerable, than to not know who has access to this info. I'm ambivalent as to Wikileaks motives and some of their techniques, but I should hope that the original leakers who stole the classified information in the first place are tried and convicted of treason and that these holes in our security are plugged.

I fail to see how exposing inner embassy communications will be positive. This is a blow to our diplomacy, since heading forward the level of trust between nations will be diminished. That's not a positive outcome, IMHO.

 

[Lake View Too]

I fail to see how exposing inner embassy communications will be positive. This is a blow to our diplomacy, since heading forward the level of trust between nations will be diminished. That's not a positive outcome, IMHO.

I think that having all the cards on the table makes it easier for people to just level with each other. Perhaps this is just hope for more honest negotiations. Isn't it advantageous to know that Saudi Arabia is heavily funding Al Queda? Or that most of the Arab nations don't like Iran gaining nuclear weapons? I think transparency can have positive results if used in an open way. Perhaps just hoping...

 

[Matt J]

I think that having all the cards on the table makes it easier for people to just level with each other. Perhaps this is just hope for more honest negotiations. Isn't it advantageous to know that Saudi Arabia is heavily funding Al Queda? Or that most of the Arab nations don't like Iran gaining nuclear weapons? I think transparency can have positive results if used in an open way. Perhaps just hoping...

No, this is bad. This is like an entire highschool's population being herded into the gym and their diaries, text messages, and facebook messages being openly displayed.

 

[30ashopper]

I think that having all the cards on the table makes it easier for people to just level with each other. Perhaps this is just hope for more honest negotiations. Isn't it advantageous to know that Saudi Arabia is heavily funding Al Queda? Or that most of the Arab nations don't like Iran gaining nuclear weapons? I think transparency can have positive results if used in an open way. Perhaps just hoping...

These were american embassy communications, our state department and intelligence serivces already knew all this, it was our data. For example now Saudi Arabia knows that we know some folks are funding our enemies, which means they drop those channels and find other means.

This was a U.S. intelligence leak. We've lost the edge on these matters. No intelligence information from other countries was leaked, just our intelligence. I fail to see how that is good for us!!