If you're opposed to Wikileaks, were you opposed to what Daniel Ellsberg did as well?

[Ken Burch]

After all, it is the same thing-the leaking of secrets to help stop insane and unwinnable wars.

[Pavulon]

1. How does the now public fact that Iran now has 19 ICBM's stop a war? It actually funds

the boost phase interceptor system that was going to be delayed?

[Ken Burch]

2. We can assume Congress knew about it anyway.

Secrecy doesn't protect the people.

[bluestate10]

42. Why would you assume if it was supposed to be secret?

Can you assume that your assumption is right? I can't prove that your assumption is wrong, but I also don't claim or assume that I can.

[Ken Burch]

49. Congress gets told a lot of stuff they aren't allowed to tell us.

That's why I make the assumption.

[provis99]

3. nonsensical post #4,231 for you,

[Pavulon]

7. Aww DODGE, if you read the leaks monday you still had time to buy futures on RTN

and the other aerospace companies that will get that contract in 90 - 180 days.

So how the fuck does knowing about 19 missiles and a Pakistani HEU dispute stop the war?

Please elaborate, feel free to cite sources or just pull it out of the ether.

[sudopod]

12. Because that's not the only thing in the archive.

Were you bitten by an Australian when you were a kid or something?

[Pavulon]

14. So why release information that kills an operation to secure HEU

why make that public? Please tell me how that benefits anyone.

[NuclearDem]

25. You're just obsessed with this HEU aren't you?

Nevermind all the crimes, coups, tortures, and murders the cables, IWL and AWD exposed, we're gonna focus JUST ON THE HEU.

It's like watching Citizen Kane and hating the whole damn thing because you didn't like a camera angle in one scene. Jesus, man.

[Pavulon]

36. It killed about 60,000 people with a design that needed no testing..

so yes, I consider it a dangerous item.

[NuclearDem]

17. Aren't you out of straws yet?

[Pavulon]

19. Out of words? you know the things used to answer questions, like the one I posted..

you know it is not that hard.

[NuclearDem]

22. No, I meant the straws you're grasping at to make your point seem valid

[Pavulon]

24. The point you will not address about HEU, that point

you know the first uranium gun device was so simple the design was never tested. Now how is that helping me putting that operation in the clear?

[Ken Burch]

26. The operation wouldn't have worked anyway.

They never do.

And HEU isn't more important than EVERY other issue. By itself, it can't be worth keeping the whole secrecy culture unchallenged.

[JackRiddler]

39. The fact that the Russians say bullshit on that might help.

[bluestate10]

43. Really??????????? nt

[JackRiddler]

47. "Does Iran Really Have Missiles that Threaten Europe?"

Here is one of many news stories (just not in the NYT).

http://www.allgov.com/US_and_the_World/ViewNews/WikiLeaks_Revelation__Does_Iran_Really_Have_Missiles_that_Threaten_Europe_101202


More in depth:

http://counterpunch.org/porter12012010.html

Wikileaks Exposes Complicity of the Press

By GARETH PORTER

A diplomatic cable from last February released by Wikileaks provides a detailed account of how Russian specialists on the Iranian ballistic missile program refuted the U.S. suggestion that Iran has missiles that could target European capitals or intends to develop such a capability.

In fact, the Russians challenged the very existence of the mystery missile the U.S. claims Iran acquired from North Korea.

But readers of the two leading U.S. newspapers never learned those key facts about the document.

The New York Times and Washington Post reported only that the United States believed Iran had acquired such missiles - supposedly called the BM-25 - from North Korea. Neither newspaper reported the detailed Russian refutation of the U.S. view on the issue or the lack of hard evidence for the BM-25 from the U.S. side.

SNIP

Link to cable:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rkz_RHyNC0wJ:cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10STATE17263.html+http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10STATE17263.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[Taverner]

4. Exactly eom

[provis99]

5. Daniel Ellsberg leaked secrets about America?

He is a traitor and must be assassinated immediately, before he embarrasses President Johnson!

[Ken Burch]

6. And let's get the Swedes to frame Ellsberg for sex crimes while we're at it?

Not only is he embarassing Lyndon Johnson, I hear the beagles are deeply traumatized.

[Pavulon]

8. Personally I would rather hang than live to be an old man in Florence ADX

bradley has that to look forward to. He and Pollard can be best buddies. Except they cant speak, communicate, or otherwise contact the outside world.

I hope he lives a very long time.

[Ken Burch]

9. Pollard and Manning have NOTHING in common.

n/t.

[Pavulon]

11. Pollard was smarter. Manning is a fucking moron who wrote his own confession.

you can read it on boing boing. He stole for the lulz. Not to stop the war, not for a belief system, just because.

So now he will die in federal custody.

[ingac70]

18. Yeah. It's so much better to sell actual secrets to Israel.

:sarcasm:

[Pavulon]

21. Both filth, they will die in the same hospital.(nt)

[sudopod]

13. Hey look, something that has nothing to do with the OP. nt

[Pavulon]

15. Did Ellsberg dump operational information about East Germany or US / USSR

diplomatic cables? nope. Bradley and Julian dont give a fuck about the war, they both want the lulz.

Hence the dump of information about nuclear materials in pakistan and iranian ballistic missile systems.

Ellsburg had a point, assange is just slinging shit.

[ingac70]

20. Ellsburg disagrees.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11879951

[Pavulon]

23. Good for him. Don't care. Manning confessed in the clear. his lul seeking

is pretty well documented.

[sudopod]

28. The world isn't 4chan brosauce. nt

[Ken Burch]

48. uh...what?

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

29. The term "lulz" is utterly meaningless.

And your pointless fixation with repeating it doesn't close the case for or against anything. There's no chance of securing the HEU anyway and there never was. Secrecy makes no difference there, and HEU doesn't override ever other consideration.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

45. You're wasting your time. I'm beginning to think that this is just a well

trained parrot who knows how to operate a keyboard. But doesn't know how to use spell check.

[JackRiddler]

40. Nixon. 1971.

But it was plenty of "embarrassment" (incrimination) of all of them since Truman.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Ellsberg, Assange. Always remember to keep an eye on the ball.

For heaven's sake, don't shift the emphasis away from the whistle-blowers and focus instead on the gross injustices they're exposing.

[struggle4progress]

16. Ellsberg leaked an internal history of the Vietnam war, went into hiding for about two weeks,

and then surrendered to the authorities. He was willing to face prosecution for the leak and had attempted to encourage others to take a similar stand. His motives, based on his reading of the study he leaked, was to expose official lies about an extensive and ongoing war

The most recent Wikileaks release is approximately thirty times as large as the Pentagon Papers and appears to be a hodge-podge of materials stretching over more than three decades from various US embassies around the world; it is unclear on what basis the materials were selected, and it is not yet clear to most of us exactly what has been released or why. Fingers are pointing at a PFC; but we don't really know yet. There is some possibly overheated rhetoric about sensitive secrets being leaked; there is also the possibility that we are mostly seeing material that is embarrassing to diplomats

[EFerrari]

30. Embarrassing like, people knowing you've shielded torturers embarrassing.

Yes, that should be embarrassing.

[struggle4progress]

35. It's reasonable to wonder how to go after the torturers, and there are

also some general steps we should be working towards, such as:

(1) Getting the US to sign onto the ICC
(2) Getting the US to recognize universal jurisdiction and to adopt appropriate implementing legislation

Until we engineer a political context, in which US membership in the ICC and official US support for the concept of universal jurisdiction at least seem to be reachable goals, we will not have much support in the country for prosecuting Americans here for human rights violation or for shipping them abroad for such prosecution

[EFerrari]

38. Here or anywhere else given that the US interferes with the judicial process

of other states.

[struggle4progress]

44. I don't want you to abandon your overall philosophical stance, or your

general intuitions about the system functions -- but I do think you would be a more productive and useful critic of our current circumstances if you would (1) resist the tendency to indulge in pessimistic generalities and (2) try to keep the conversation accurately focussed on concrete details

I am rather sympathetic to the pessimistic generalities -- but they do not help us to think more accurately and scientifically about the issues that concern us and the problems we face; they are useless when attempting to persuade others; and, being generalities, they do not help us plot a practical course through the obstacles in our path

Well-organized collections of concrete details are useful

[EFerrari]

46. Your "pessimistic generality" is my fact: The US does interfere

in the judicial process of other states.

And while you may feel compelled to generate an evaluation of my productivity, I don't feel compelled to attend to your evaluation.

[struggle4progress]

50. A generality is a generality. A concrete fact is a concrete fact.

Political persuasion involves changing the minds of people who are on the fence or even actually opposed. In my experience, generalities usually do not accomplish that

[jberryhill]

27. I don't see them as at all comparable

Exposure of the Pentagon Papers demonstrated that the DoD's assessment of the situation in Vietnam was dramatically at odds with what was being sold to the public.

The collection of documents here were obtained in what seems to be a fit of personal piqué, and are not focused on anything in particular.

What is the relationship between the release of these cables and ending any war? Has the content of the documents this far changed anyone's mind about anything?

And, which documents in particular do you believe to have the most effect toward the goal of ending a war?

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Max Frankel says otherwie

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-secrets-pentagon-papers

[Ken Burch]

32. Frankel's argument was basically "It was OK when WE did it, but this is different".

And he asserts that direct quotation of the files is the problem, but never explains why, assuming we will, I suppose, just take his word for it because he's from the New York Times.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. No his argument is that Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to end a war

The person who leaked these cables did it just for the hell of it.

[struggle4progress]

51. A good read. Thanks!

[Festivito]

33. That's funny. I don't see any of the DU posters making fun of the leaks, here. Hmm.

I especially like the ones posting about wikileaks leaking documents that mention UFOs to, you know, make the leaks look silly. Does it not dawn on theirselves that they are posting about documents mentioning UFOs while posting about documents that mention UFOs in a document that mentions UFOs of course.

[Forkboy]

37. If they were around back then, yes, I bet nearly all of them were.

[bluestate10]

41. No.

You're comparing apples and oranges. There is not conspiracy ongoing to cover up and circumvent. Cables from field offices is part of the daily communication that happens in the real world, sort of like email between you and coworkers.

Bush should not have gone into Iraq. Obama is winding that war down. The US should not have gone into Iraq, but having done so, Iraq can't be allowed to become a failed state that will haunt the US down the road, ala Afghanistan.

I will ask you questions. If you were President and someone killed nearly 3000 citizens and visitors to your country, how would you have handled the situation and what end objective would you have had?