# Ron Paul Defends Wikileaks



## Cryozombie (Dec 19, 2010)

> Congressman Ron Paul addressed the house about Wikileaks. He stated  that the attack on Julian Assange is like killing the messenger for  bringing bad news and gave them nine questions to consider:_Number 1:_ Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
> _Number 2:_ Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
> _Number 3:_ Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
> _Number 4:_ Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
> ...




This is why I like Ron Paul.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 19, 2010)

I really could care less about ASSange. The soldier who stole and distributed classified information however....


----------



## K-man (Dec 19, 2010)

I have yet to see anything published that could in any way be considered treason.  However information that causes polititians red faces because of their lack of honesty  ....  GO FOR IT!


----------



## David43515 (Dec 19, 2010)

K-man said:


> I have yet to see anything published that could in any way be considered treason.


 

You`re quite right. However the stealing, aquiring, posessing, or transferring to the posession of another of classied government information  that you are not qualified to have access to is a felony. Simply by downloading a single classified document onto my computer I would be subject to prosecution and a penalty of upto 10 years in prison.

Selling or accepting stolen goods is a crime, even if you didn`t steal them yourself.


----------



## K-man (Dec 20, 2010)

David43515 said:


> You`re quite right. However the stealing, aquiring, posessing, or transferring to the posession of another of classied government information that you are not qualified to have access to is a felony. Simply by downloading a single classified document onto my computer I would be subject to prosecution and a penalty of upto 10 years in prison.
> 
> Selling or accepting stolen goods is a crime, even if you didn`t steal them yourself.


 Well the US has more people per capita in prison already and you are going to need to build a lot more jails to hold all the journalists, media proprietors and, technically I suppose, anyone selling a newspaper reporting the document.  
Then once I buy the paper containing the infomation I am now technically in posession of 'stolen' goods as well.  Sorry I don't have the circulation of the Washington Post, the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune at my fingertips but by your definition the vast majority of Australians, Americans, Canadians, British and Europeans could face a significant period of incarceration.    

Where you have subterfuge and deception such as these documents are disclosing, I believe there is justifiable cause to report the information.  If this was not in fact the case, no newspaper would be publishing the information contained in the documents.  :asian:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 20, 2010)

David43515 said:


> You`re quite right. However the stealing, aquiring, posessing, or transferring to the posession of another of classied government information that you are not qualified to have access to is a felony. Simply by downloading a single classified document onto my computer I would be subject to prosecution and a penalty of upto 10 years in prison.
> 
> Selling or accepting stolen goods is a crime, even if you didn`t steal them yourself.


 
That may be true, but Assange is not a U.S. citizen, nor were his crimes committed in the U.S., so the U.S. would not have legal jurisdiction.


----------



## LawDog (Dec 20, 2010)

*When aiding someone in the commission of a crime you are just as guilty,
*Many hackers are not from where they have hacked into, say like from the USA, however where they hacked into and what they stole was from within the US borders, issue here.
*Treatys allow the returning of criminals to the USA for crimes committed.
The citizens of this country should be informed that illegal things are being done but not intentionally blabbed out on the internet to foreign countries. These guys did not do this for our citizens sake but just to make names for themselves and maybe down the road movies / books. They don't care about the USA or it's people. Much like in the Arab world they just want to hit us from the back and smiling while doing it.
I guess I'm just old fashion, right or wrong, America first.


----------



## crushing (Dec 20, 2010)

There is no evidence that either Assange or Wikileaks aided in the stealing of the documents or hacked into any systems to obtain the documents.

By putting Manning in solitary confinement for 7 months, Manning may be ready to say anything to better his own situation.  If this were China, Manning would be considered a pro-democracy dissident pushing for transparency in government and on a short list for some peace prize from the West.

The biggest benefactor of the release of these cables is government officials and politicians that would like to take more control of the internet.  Something to be expected of authoritarian regimes.  Maybe that is why the documents the government released so far have not contained anything very earthshattering or much more than people have already figured out or assumed.

Really, how secret and important are documents to which over 3 million people have access?


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 20, 2010)

David43515 said:


> Selling or accepting stolen goods is a crime, even if you didn`t steal them yourself.



Receiving classified information is not a crime.  See: Pentagon Papers and Woodward/Bernstein/Washington Post.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I really could care less about ASSange. The soldier who stole and distributed classified information however....



If Manning actually did this, he is a hero IMO, but that is besides the point that needs to be made.

If Manning actually did this, how was he able to get a hold of so many classified documents and not trip off every security measure in existence?  The story about him going in with a Lady Gaga CD sounds like ******** to me.  There's a lot more going on here then is being reported.


----------



## K-man (Dec 20, 2010)

LawDog said:


> I guess I'm just old fashion, right or wrong, America first.


I appreciate patriotism and in most instances I would agree with you. However, Wikileaks is not just about America. Wikileaks have disclosed information embarrassing to Australian and others as well. One of the cables unmasked an Australian politician who was regularly disclosing information to the American ambassador. His name was meant to be suppressed but Wikileaks let it out. Good work. Two things. Firstly, if you look at the definition of espionage does this fall into that category. Secondly, if the recipient of the information was the Chinese ambassador he would have been out on his ear. 

I don't care if the American ambassador knows what's going on within Australian politics but it pisses me off that the Australian public doesn't. One of the things given to the US was information regarding the deposing of the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. We were told it had happened within a few days but it was disclosed by Wikileaks that in fact the plotting was going on for months. Not surprising that the polies have been caught out lying again.

What are the American politicians frightened of? What are they frightened that might be released that they put pressure on institutions such as Pay pal, Visa, MasterCard and even the Bank of America to stop processing funds transfer?

What are the politicians so frightened of that they have apparently established a Grand Jury to see whether there are any laws broken that would allow Assange to be extradited and tried for treason? What a joke.

How is this different from the suppression of information in countries such as China that the US has always decried? What happened to freedom of information and transparency in government? 

If men are caught out acting badly, go for it. The information released is embarrassing but it has not compromised National Security anywhere. If this is so bad, why are all the reputable news services reporting the contents of the cables? Have the editors not made the judgement that the release of information is in the interest of the people?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That may be true, but Assange is not a U.S. citizen, nor were his crimes committed in the U.S., so the U.S. would not have legal jurisdiction.



If the US can extradite Assange for "crimes" like embarrassing the government by outings its lies, then what is to stop China or some other country from doing it?  This is a global war against freedom of speech, IMO.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 20, 2010)

LawDog said:


> *When aiding someone in the commission of a crime you are just as guilty,


 
Of what crime did Asange aid in the commision?



> *Many hackers are not from where they have hacked into, say like from the USA, however where they hacked into and what they stole was from within the US borders, issue here.


 
Asange is not the one who did the hacking.



> *Treatys allow the returning of criminals to the USA for crimes committed.


 
Certainly.  But again, what crime did Asange commit.  Not only that, but the crime committed must usually be something that would be a crime in the host country as well.



> The citizens of this country should be informed that illegal things are being done but not intentionally blabbed out on the internet to foreign countries.


 
Why not?  What's the difference in how we get the information.  After all, if there were the possibility that the government could actually release information to citizens only, we would all just come here to MartialTalk and blab it out on the internet.



> These guys did not do this for our citizens sake but just to make names for themselves and maybe down the road movies / books.


 
Why should a foreign citizen care about the citizens of the U.S.?  Do you care about the people in his country just as much as you do about U.S. citizens.

But perhaps he disagreed with the politics conducted by the U.S., and his purpose is to expose it for what it is.  I don't know the guy, but it may be a possibility.



> They don't care about the USA or it's people. Much like in the Arab world they just want to hit us from the back and smiling while doing it.
> I guess I'm just old fashion, right or wrong, America first.


 
If we can't control our own secrets, its our fault, not theirs for taking advantage of it.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 21, 2010)

I read that 1.8 million people could have had access to those cables. Don't know if it is true or not, but if so... it's a wonder things stayed secret in the first place.

But in the end, Assange did not break any laws in running Wikileaks, and imo people who are angry at him are mostly angry about him proving that the emperor is not wearing clothes. shooting the messenger will not fix the problems.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 21, 2010)

crushing said:


> By putting Manning in solitary confinement for 7 months, Manning may be ready to say anything to better his own situation.  If this were China, Manning would be considered a pro-democracy dissident pushing for transparency in government and on a short list for some peace prize from the West.



+1

Many people would label Oleg Penkovsky a hero who died a martyrs death.
Others would calling a traiterous SOB who got what he deserved.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 21, 2010)

LawDog said:


> I guess I'm just old fashion, right or wrong, America first.



I love my own country as well, but I am also honest enough to admit it when they dropped the ball, and realistic enough to admit when it gets deserved criticism. Patriotism is not about blindly accepting and condoning everything your government says or does.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 21, 2010)

David43515 said:


> You`re quite right. However the stealing, aquiring, posessing, or transferring to the posession of another of classied government information  that you are not qualified to have access to is a felony. Simply by downloading a single classified document onto my computer I would be subject to prosecution and a penalty of upto 10 years in prison.



Not if you were in another country, and had another nationality.
You don't expect Swedish nationals to be subject to US laws outside of the US territories, do you?


----------



## LawDog (Dec 21, 2010)

Aid - knowing that the info was stolen - same as possesion of stolen goods.
Hacking - You don't know that he didn't, however he knows who did.
Info. - Wouldn't someone get in trouble if they stole court info and/or cori info and gave it out. How about if all of your personal info was passed out on the internet. I am surprized that you do not mind that foreign nationals are giving out to the world info. that could hurt us? Hanoi Jane to some was a hero, to those who were in the jungle fighting for their lives she was not. This info. could hurt many in the same way or even worse.
To those who praise these guys you do so only because it doesn't effect you personally, what about your fellow country man who it could or does effect?
Secrets- from the wrong point of view, the issue here is not if we can completly control our secrets the issue here is that a few will pass them out for personal gain no matter who it hurts.
Again nothing personal. This is like the 60's and 70's all over again.


----------



## LawDog (Dec 21, 2010)

Some are forgetting that the info. taken was done at locations from within the USA. This is not like the old days when someone had to be within the USA to get the info. Today they do not have to be physically within this country but, using their electrocs, did enter into the US of A. They did entered into computers within secured locations inside the US of A.
This is an issue - do they have to be physically within or is the hacking into within our borders good enough? The courts will have to decide here not us.
Again - treaties between countries do / will cover areas like this.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 21, 2010)

LawDog said:


> Aid - knowing that the info was stolen - same as possesion of stolen goods.
> Hacking - You don't know that he didn't, however he knows who did.
> Info. - Wouldn't someone get in trouble if they stole court info and/or cori info and gave it out. How about if all of your personal info was passed out on the internet. I am surprized that you do not mind that foreign nationals are giving out to the world info. that could hurt us? Hanoi Jane to some was a hero, to those who were in the jungle fighting for their lives she was not. This info. could hurt many in the same way or even worse.
> To those who praise these guys you do so only because it doesn't effect you personally, what about your fellow country man who it could or does effect?
> ...



Every decision has the capability to cause hurt.
I acknowledge that people can get into trouble over the leaked info. Otoh, in the case of the US, maybe more lives would be saved if the US stopped doing things it should not do?

And again, Assange has broken no laws that are applicable to him. He did and does not break Swedish law, and US laws do not apply to him. Regardless of how you feel about this issue, legally he is in the clear.

In the end, if the truth cannot withstand the sunlight, and if people cannot stand behind their words when they are scrutinized, then almost certainly something is rotten. That is why court rulings are public and habeas corpus exists for example.


----------



## LawDog (Dec 21, 2010)

Bruno, the shadow man.
Right or wrong means that one will not turn against their country but will instead fix any and all proplems within it. The most powerful weapon of change in this country is a thing call "voting"
The truth should stand the sunlight however not for personal gain.
Buy the way, what / how many types of political groups do you belong to?


----------



## crushing (Dec 21, 2010)

LawDog said:


> Bruno, the shadow man.
> Right or wrong means that one will not turn against their country but will instead fix any and all proplems within it. *The most powerful weapon of change in this country is a thing call "voting"*
> The truth should stand the sunlight however not for personal gain.
> Buy the way, what / how many types of political groups do you belong to?


 
Don't you think an informed voter is better than an ignorant one?

Well, maybe not better for many politicians and government agents and beaurocrats, otherwise they wouldn't have their panties all in a bunch over increasing transparency.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 21, 2010)

LawDog said:


> Today they do not have to be physically within this country but, using their electrocs, did enter into the US of A. They did entered into computers within secured locations inside the US of A.



Pfc. Manning, the leading suspect who will be charged with the release of the information, was an analyst stationed in Iraq who had access as part of his job to SIPRNET, where the documents supposedly came from.  He apparently brought in CD-Rs with music on them, erased the music, and then copied the docs to them (if true this reveals grossly inadequate information security protocols - really basic stuff).

There was no hacking, no shady foreign nationals racing to beat the detection clock, or access routed through 7 proxies.  Manning had access to the information as part of his job, and Assange had nothing to do with the data acquisition.  Much like Woodward and Bernstein, he received the information after it was stolen *which is not a crime in the US.*


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 21, 2010)

LawDog said:


> Bruno, the shadow man.



Meaning what?



LawDog said:


> Right or wrong means that one will not turn against their country but will instead fix any and all proplems within it. The most powerful weapon of change in this country is a thing call "voting"



I am not arguing that leaking the cables was the right thing to do or not.
I am arguing that Assange is not guilty of anything.



LawDog said:


> The truth should stand the sunlight however not for personal gain.



Do you think that the person who leaked the information has gained anything from it?



LawDog said:


> Buy the way, what / how many types of political groups do you belong to?



None. Every election I make up my mind again to see who deserves my vote or which party I think should get power, based on the situation at the time of the vote and whether they achieved their previously stated goals. If 'your party' gets your vote no matter what, then they can safely ignore you or what you want. If you are a card carrying republican or democrat, then imo you don't get the point. NO party should feel like they own you. They should feel that you own them.

For example, this election I voted over 1 issue that has been crippling our federal government for years now. This election I, and many like me, voted for the Flemmish Nationalists in order to force the issue to the table and solve it one way or the other. And it worked. They're still fighting it out at the negotiations table, but progress is made. Albeit slow. Before that I voted a similar party that did not live up to its expectations and the country functioned like a lame duck before the government fell.

Another important point imo is that I prioritize. For example: While I have outspoken opinions about early release for good behavior for criminals, no party's position on that issue has ever influenced my vote because imo the issue is far less important than things like the economic situation at the time. Things like whether a congress man is gay or not, or christian, or has a mistress have no influence on my vote (and the votes in general) because they don't matter for the purpose of running a government office.

To summarize: I have no allegiance to any party. I voted for almost all of them (except the right wing racist bigots aka the Flemmish Block) at one point or another, based on whom I thought should get my vote at that time and place for the purpose of deciding the direction the country was taking.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2010)

Wikileaks shows the folly of the Hamiltonian Imperialistic America. It shows the folly of thinking things known by thousands are 'secret'. It shows the folly of a lot of things.
I'm fine with it.

If they want security, they should take the advice we give out kids on Facebook.
Don't say it if you don't want it known.

The outcry about Wikileaks is the cry of the guilty child wanting his mom punished for buying the cookies in the first place. Maybe rather than complain about the horses getting out, they should build a better corral?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2010)

LawDog said:


> The most powerful weapon of change in this country is a thing call "voting"



How can we vote if so much of what the government spends our money on is secret?


----------



## billc (Dec 21, 2010)

about Assange,  http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2010/12/21/irony/


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2010)

billcihak said:


> about Assange,  http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2010/12/21/irony/



Read the comments on the this article.  They say a lot about the state of liberty, truth, and justice in this world.



> "What a thin skinned fellow. Somehow I get the feeling he was given lots  of swirlies in middle school and had his lunch money stolen all of the  time. And so this brave and courageous man who wants to get back at  bullies by being a beta-male still can't take it when it's thrown at  him. I wonder how he would fare in American prison....? "
> 
> 
> "This weenie's 15 minutes of fame is just about up, methinks. Tick tock, mate.
> ...




Wow!

And only one commenter who decided to use his mind before jumping on the propaganda bandwagon...



> "Ain't buying it!
> 
> Squidly? Squidly?
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 22, 2010)

I've always thought that people defending or even encouraging prison rape is a nice example of hypocrisy. Like the inmates are their personal army who can get revenge for them. Lot's of red blooded patriotism there. I also don't get why a Journalist should not publish things that are embarrasing to the US government.

I thought all those patriots perfectly well understood the difference between love for your country and love for your government. IIRC there was a war about that issue, somewhere in 1776. I see many sig lines here about how the US government should not be trusted, and kept in check by the people, etc. But as soon as someone does just that and it is a bit embarrassing, the calls for blood, rape and revenge. Sad.

I did see 1 intelligent comment though. Why was a Pfc in Iraq able to a) see those documents and b) copy them. Those are failures of epic proportions. If he had access, then the claim that millions of people had access. That is just plain stupid.


----------



## crushing (Dec 22, 2010)

billcihak said:


> about Assange, http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2010/12/21/irony/


 
Because transparency in government is the same as transparency in private lives!  

It's amazing in the comments the sheeple that fall right in line with that sort of thinking.  Assange has exposed various dealings of the military industrial academic complex, therefore any right to privacy he may have should be violated!

maunakumu is right, it does say a lot about the state of affairs in the world.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 22, 2010)

crushing said:


> Because transparency in government is the same as transparency in private lives!
> 
> It's amazing in the comments the sheeple that fall right in line with that sort of thinking.  Assange has exposed various dealings of the military industrial academic complex, therefore any right to privacy he may have should be violated!
> 
> maunakumu is right, it does say a lot about the state of affairs in the world.



What right to privacy does one who has (allegedly) committed a crime have to keep such crime private?  In the U.S., police reports are a matter of public record, obtainable by anyone who has knowledge that said crime exists.  At most, addresses and names (in certain circumstances) are redacted.

So his right to privacy was not violated, at least by the standards of the U.S.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 22, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What right to privacy does one who has (allegedly) committed a crime have to keep such crime private?  In the U.S., police reports are a matter of public record, obtainable by anyone who has knowledge that said crime exists.  At most, addresses and names (in certain circumstances) are redacted.
> 
> So his right to privacy was not violated, at least by the standards of the U.S.



I am not really up to date as to what was leaked, but things like recorded statements etc, are they not private as well? A police report may be a public record, but other records are private, correct?


----------



## crushing (Dec 22, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What right to privacy does one who has (allegedly) committed a crime have to keep such crime private? In the U.S., police reports are a matter of public record, obtainable by anyone who has knowledge that said crime exists. At most, addresses and names (in certain circumstances) are redacted.
> 
> So his right to privacy was not violated, at least by the standards of the U.S.


 
The linked to blog didn't have anything in the way of specifics as to what was leaked that went above and beyond the public records.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2010)

crushing said:


> The linked to blog didn't have anything in the way of specifics as to what was leaked that went above and beyond the public records.



There are several points here that are very interesting.  

1.  In an environment of many differing sets of privacy laws, which ones do you follow?  If information was released and reported and it's legal in one country and illegal in another, can anyone expect privacy on the international level?

2.  How about if information is leaked that would impair the "impartiality" of justice?

3.  Is there an underlying assumption of some kind of "gold standard" of civil rights?  If so, what is it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I did see 1 intelligent comment though. Why was a Pfc in Iraq able to a) see those documents and b) copy them. Those are failures of epic proportions. If he had access, then the claim that millions of people had access. That is just plain stupid.



If Manning was responsible, the story about how he did it is incredulous.  From what I've been told about access to information under security clearance, there are all different kinds of levels of alarms that would have been tripped if Manning had downloaded almost a million documents.  These alarms would have had to have failed or have been ignored in order to make this possible.  Also, according to the story, Manning was outed by a snitch, and by his alleged blog posts, not by any investigation associated with a breach in security.  The story has several holes in it that one could drive a truck through.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 22, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> The story has several holes in it that one could drive a truck through.



I for one don't have much difficulty believing it.  Security protocols are notoriously bad and inefficient nearly everywhere, including the government.  As far as secret documents go, this was also low-level stuff.  No UFO coverups or reptilian overlords.   Combine not-that-secret documents, a system that thousands if not more can access, the fact that he was in Iraq which is probably not as well-established security-wise, and the fact that information security is poor everywhere - I can see it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I for one don't have much difficulty believing it.  Security protocols are notoriously bad and inefficient nearly everywhere, including the government.  As far as secret documents go, this was also low-level stuff.  No UFO coverups or reptilian overlords.   Combine not-that-secret documents, a system that thousands if not more can access, the fact that he was in Iraq which is probably not as well-established security-wise, and the fact that information security is poor everywhere - I can see it.



I train with a guy with a security clearance and ask him.  He said if the Manning story was correct, it should have rang every alarm they have.  Take that for whatever you want to think about it.  I guess the bottom line for me is that I'm not going to immediately believe this story simply because I am told to believe it...by our secret reptilian overlords.  LOL!


----------



## elder999 (Dec 22, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I train with a guy with a security clearance and ask him. He said if the Manning story was correct, it should have rang every alarm they have. Take that for whatever you want to think about it. I guess the bottom line for me is that I'm not going to immediately believe this story simply because I am told to believe it...by our secret reptilian overlords. LOL!


 

Actually, post 9/11 there's been a concerted drive to  grant wider access to other organizations data: NSA sharing with CIA, sharing with FBI, sharing with DHS, sharing with military, sharing with _fill in the blank_, and back and forth, and so on and so on. 

This practice is what led to him being able to acces the wide variety of information that he did. As for his method of obtaining it, it's completely believable. He should never have had CD or DVD write capability at that sort of workstation, though......


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 23, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Actually, post 9/11 there's been a concerted drive to  grant wider access to other organizations data: NSA sharing with CIA, sharing with FBI, sharing with DHS, sharing with military, sharing with _fill in the blank_, and back and forth, and so on and so on.
> 
> This practice is what led to him being able to acces the wide variety of information that he did. As for his method of obtaining it, it's completely believable. He should never have had CD or DVD write capability at that sort of workstation, though......



On 'my' network, virtually noone has access to a physical computer.They're all located in a secure room, with only kvm (keyboard, video, mouse) outgoing. The couple of computers that are physically outside of that room have floppy, USB, dvd/cd and other removable media disabled, and are locked with a U shaped lock.

No internet access anywhere, and the handful of outgoing connections through the firewall are dedicated to fixed IP addresses and ports, locked down to specific protocols, mainly for allowing remote desktop access to servers and data replication.

And this is 'just' a pharmaceutical production network.
I'd expect better, not worse from an intelligence network. But I can easily imagine all these things being thrown overboard if you need to grant access to millions of people for the sake of not being accused of being an information hoarder (which was why 9/11 could happen).

@mau: having some experience with triggers and alarm and event notification, I can say that if you need to give many people wide access, you get swamped with thousands and millions of false positives. It is simply impossible to follow up on those because they are coming in faster than you can look at them. the only way to make some sense is to just ignore or deactivate the low level stuff.

I suspect that this is why we are reading simple diplomatic cables and low level communications, and not about military cover ups, the strategic plans for invading China, or (throwing you a bone here ) the UFO coverup files. Somewhere along the line, it became impossible to secure this low level stuff which thousands and thousands of people will access legitimately.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> @mau: having some experience with triggers and alarm and event notification, I can say that if you need to give many people wide access, you get swamped with thousands and millions of false positives. It is simply impossible to follow up on those because they are coming in faster than you can look at them. the only way to make some sense is to just ignore or deactivate the low level stuff.
> 
> I suspect that this is why we are reading simple diplomatic cables and low level communications, and not about military cover ups, the strategic plans for invading China, or (throwing you a bone here ) the UFO coverup files. Somewhere along the line, it became impossible to secure this low level stuff which thousands and thousands of people will access legitimately.



Hahahahahaha, I was beginning to think that if Manning did it, he pulled out some kind of secret ninja tricks.

The speculation sounds reasonable, and it's ticking off the talking points I've heard and read about Manning in the MSM.  Maybe it's true.

Or maybe it's not.  I don't know and I don't think that I have reliable sources that would report accurate information.  

Consequently, we do have military cover-ups released in the war logs.  Thousands of civilian deaths were covered up.  Hundreds of people were swept up in snatch and grab operations for CIA torture prisons.  Regular army bases like Bagram, have secret torture facilities where captives are injected with mind control drugs, and army contracts went to US companies to sell drugs and pimp little boys.

DAMN!!!!! If that is the low level stuff, then the high level **** is off the charts crazy.  I could speculate, but I think you guys get the point.  Start bowing to our secret reptilian overlords before it's too late!!!!


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 23, 2010)

I think it is important to consider the following: the cables themselves are low level stuff. It is 'just' diplomatic communications, containing gossip about classified stuff, informal  and formal messages etc. They may mention things like coverups or blabber about investigation bias etc, but they are not the actual files themselves.

So while the cables themselves are low level, that does not mean that the things that are mentioned in them is also low level.


----------



## crushing (Jan 20, 2011)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...mpact-wikileaks-to-bolster-legal-effort.shtml

The URL makes a nice summary.  [EDIT:  I forgot URLs get shortened for display]



> So... it seems rather interesting to see that US officials are now admitting that no serious "harm" has been caused by the leaks. In fact, the White House has admitted privately that it _purposely lied about the supposed impact_ "* in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers.*"


----------



## granfire (Jan 20, 2011)

crushing said:


> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...mpact-wikileaks-to-bolster-legal-effort.shtml
> 
> The URL makes a nice summary.  [EDIT:  I forgot URLs get shortened for display]



ah, more of the same old stuf, eh?


----------

