OK, so now I am learning "US think".Originally Posted by 91bravojoe
So doing something that will/may/possibly/at a stretch put lives at risk is only bad if they are US lives and the lives of their agents/mercenaries/snitches?
secret from whom?
"Afghanistan military secrets" sounds like a damn old oxymoron to me.
I seem to remember nobody wanting to operate with the ARVNs(Army of the "Republic" of Vietnam), because all ARVN operations were giant security leaks, by definition and practice. ARVN members had gone to school with the other side, were brothers, cousins and sons of the other side. Hard to believe that anybody actually believed they wanted to wage war on the other side.
How can anybody think that the Afghanistan 'military' isn't a sham of a mockery of a scam? Locations of police stations? Did I see that right?
OK, so now I am learning "US think".
So doing something that will/may/possibly/at a stretch put lives at risk is only bad if they are US lives and the lives of their agents/mercenaries/snitches?
Freedom of the press, JMA. Unique American concept. No Official Secrets Act.
The system goes after the person or person responsible for the leaks. It fulminates but does and probably can do little about the ex post facto disseminator. It can and will do little or nothing to the media for publishing what the first two made available.
One issue that raises is whether or not Wikileaks qualifies as "the press" under US law. Not yet known and it may or may not, the Courts will decide if or when it comes to a test. If it does, then Assange will be protected under US law.Probably due to the impact on commerce or lack thereof, don't you think? Early days yet, more to come.What I am missing here is news about the investigation into the DDoS relating to WikiLeaks related websites?
I note that US is not the only nation pursuing the hackettes (LINK). There'll be more. I think it has to do with the number of people affected more than any conscious desire to be unfair in prosecution of offenses. In similar offenses by two opposing parties, the effort to mitigate the greatest potential harm to others will always determine which offender gets the most and earliest attention.
But then, you knew that...The actions of the USG or the reports by the US news media? The latter rarely know precisely what the former is really doing and they report a lot of gossip and speculation -- and you fall for it.It may be missed on some but the absolute hypocrisy of the "if I do it its OK but if you do the same its a crime" by another US government department is just one more example of how the actions of the USG make the US a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. Yes, even in the eyes of Micky Mouse third world countries.
So, apparently do many of the nations you unfairly deride.
In fairness to you and to others, I certainly acknowledge our news media, by and large, is quite poor and does indeed make a laughing stock of the US in general for those elsewhere who do not know better. The actuality is that we do bumble a bit but our media can't even report that properly. They are or should be the laughing stock -- as could also be said of those who propose serious comment based on inadequate information, media speculation, ignorance and personal bias.Well that is certainly progress! Long overdue, too...OK, so now I am learning "US think".Nah, not 'only bad,' simply more relevant and more in line with national interests. Concern for others is one of our better features but we also -- like many -- have a strong sense of self preservation and more concern for friends and relatives than for strangers. Is that unusual?So doing something that will/may/possibly/at a stretch put lives at risk is only bad if they are US lives and the lives of their agents/mercenaries/snitches?
It looks as though you're not really learning "US think," rather that you only think you are doing so. One could be tempted to point out you might benefit from learning certainly much more if not all about the US instead of selecting snippets appropriate to your penchant for making spurious comments and dropping innuendo bombs, then perhaps those would have more telling impact ...
Nah... it appears that Bradley Manning is the prime suspect. Assange and the newspapers are merely receivers of stolen property.
The Pentagon Papers incident gave USG and indication of how difficult taking on the press legally is (also the New York Times).
So bullies and cowards that they are they go after the little guy who did not steal the data.
This is the truth of the matter.
...in the meantime his case has been so publicly prejudiced that like Ellsberg he can never get a fair trial in the US.One issue that raises is whether or not Wikileaks qualifies as "the press" under US law. Not yet known and it may or may not, the Courts will decide if or when it comes to a test. If it does, then Assange will be protected under US law.Probably due to the impact on commerce or lack thereof, don't you think? Early days yet, more to come.
As to US law and the rule of law with the opening of Guantanamo Bay US justice is not held in very high esteem around the world.
One minute the US is condemning China for hacking Google and censoring the Internet the next they are doing similar. Does anyone in the current Administration believe that they are doing any more than bringing the US and its people into international disrepute?I note that US is not the only nation pursuing the hackettes (LINK). There'll be more. I think it has to do with the number of people affected more than any conscious desire to be unfair in prosecution of offenses. In similar offenses by two opposing parties, the effort to mitigate the greatest potential harm to others will always determine which offender gets the most and earliest attention.
No Ken, what I see is government out of control. Maybe less criminal than Russia or China nevertheless out of control.But then, you knew that...The actions of the USG or the reports by the US news media? The latter rarely know precisely what the former is really doing and they report a lot of gossip and speculation -- and you fall for it.
...and sadly there is a tendency of a certain section of the US population to try to block out the reality of what is happening in their government.
I don't deride people even the sheeple of any country... but am quite rightly critical of the US and Brit governments especially the State Department and their partner in crime across the pond the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.So, apparently do many of the nations you unfairly deride.
National Interest? Provide a definition of that if you will. It seems that the misuse of term is used to cover any act from murder to torture to... just about anything. Not nice people. I don't know how you tolerate it.fairness to you and to others, I certainly acknowledge our news media, by and large, is quite poor and does indeed make a laughing stock of the US in general for those elsewhere who do not know better. The actuality is that we do bumble a bit but our media can't even report that properly. They are or should be the laughing stock -- as could also be said of those who propose serious comment based on inadequate information, media speculation, ignorance and personal bias.Well that is certainly progress! Long overdue, too...Nah, not 'only bad,' simply more relevant and more in line with national interests. Concern for others is one of our better features but we also -- like many -- have a strong sense of self preservation and more concern for friends and relatives than for strangers. Is that unusual?
The people of the world can see what is going on. The people of the US could see what is going on but they are being told that it is unpatriotic or even treasonous to challenge what whichever administration is abusing the system at the time and flick over to the sports channel, have another beer (or maybe a double bourbon) and pretend everything would be just dandy if only someone took Assange out and closed down his website.It looks as though you're not really learning "US think," rather that you only think you are doing so. One could be tempted to point out you might benefit from learning certainly much more if not all about the US instead of selecting snippets appropriate to your penchant for making spurious comments and dropping innuendo bombs, then perhaps those would have more telling impact ...
The people of the world have probably given up on the US as so-called leader of the free-world but that should not deter the citizens of the US from retaking control of their own country. Maybe they need an Oliver Cromwell figure?
About fake wikileaks and intelligence agencies that are always ahead of the curve: http://accidentalblogger.typepad.com...leaksomar.html
Bliss is its own reward...
Doubt it. We'll see...Really? That is a matter of grave concern to me...As to US law and the rule of law with the opening of Guantanamo Bay US justice is not held in very high esteem around the world.I've no idea. Probably not, they are indeed gaffe prone....Does anyone in the current Administration believe that they are doing any more than bringing the US and its people into international disrepute?Great vision on your part. That from over 8,00 miles away. I'm right here and I see it as just bumbling and fumbling along as usual.No Ken, what I see is government out of control. Maybe less criminal than Russia or China nevertheless out of control.
I could make the case that most governments are somewhat out of control...Ah, in the RSA "Mickey Mouse" is not considered a derogatory adjective. Quaint.I don't deride people even the sheeple of any country...Really? I'd have never guessed.but am quite rightly critical of the US and Brit governments especially the State Department and their partner in crime across the pond the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Can't speak to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but I doubt your opinion of the US Department of State and mine differ much. You'd probably be surprised by the number of Americans who share that distaste...I fail to understand why you don't do your own Searches. here: LINKNational Interest? Provide a definition of that if you will.That's easy to answer -- we have large quantity of Scotch Irish who learned all about perfidious Albion in first Scotland then Ireland and later in the American Colonies. We do not just tolerate it, we encourage it, revel in it, love it, even. Mostly because it really annoys the would be liberal intelligentsia who are vaguely Eurocentric and who see themselves as the dispensers and arbiters of enlightenment and civilization. Aside from us rowdy Scotch Irish there are a slew of people from other nations who came here because they did not like what those nations did or do -- they have no desire whatsoever to emulate said other nations.It seems that the misuse of term is used to cover any act from murder to torture to... just about anything. Not nice people. I don't know how you tolerate it.Heh, if your stated views are typical, 'fraid not...The people of the world can see what is going on.In reverse order; only a few nut jobs believe that; bourbon is good, beer a poor substitute; there are many sports fans I guess, I truly don't know any but I do see them depicted on television a lot; not many believe that tripe; not could see, can see. Some object, some do not, most are willing to be supportive unless their personal lines are crossed.The people of the US could see what is going on but they are being told that it is unpatriotic or even treasonous to challenge what whichever administration is abusing the system at the time and flick over to the sports channel, have another beer (or maybe a double bourbon) and pretend everything would be just dandy if only someone took Assange out and closed down his website.
Essentially, in any situation, about 1/3 of the US population will support the Administration of the day, party line dependent, another 1/3 will disagree with varying levels of distaste and noise (again mostly on party affiliation or support basis) and the remaining third thinks both those thirds -- or certainly their ten percent far out fringe elements -- are not too bright. That middle third will support what they think makes sense -- and world opinion is never an issue. Never. It will be touted by the partisan thirds occasionally, situation dependent. That effectively means that, as Christie Blatchford, an astute Canadian newspaper columnist once said, "the majority of Americans don't give a Rat's a$# what the world thinks."Nah, they've given up on us before. That syndrome was more powerful at the later stages of Viet Nam than it is today. We are really considered not so relevant by most of the world due to our foolish preoccupation with the Middle East and its neighbors. They vilify us and ignore us, try to slick things through. Until something gets sticky; then the wail goes up "What are the Americans going to do about this?" Everything goes in cycles, this too will pass.The people of the world have probably given up on the US as so-called leader of the free-world but that should not deter the citizens of the US from retaking control of their own country. Maybe they need an Oliver Cromwell figure?
Oh, BTW. The Pentagon Papers, another much ado about nothing, -- did they actually change anything? Nope -- didn't show how difficult taking on the press legally happens to be. The First Amendment to the Constitution did that in 1791, that's 60 years before there was a New York Times. Actually, Peter Zenger got there even earlier, 1735, IIRC. Lot of court cases in between then and now have most all fallen on the side of a free press and as I mentioned, we don't have an Official Secrets Act or anything approaching it. How about you?.
I call trademark dibs on 'Fakileaks'.
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
And now a new *Leaks...
IndoLeaks has arrived and has apparently already posted a number of Indonesian related "leaks".
I note a declassified copy of a meeting minutes between Ford and Suharto fromt eh Gerald R Ford Library.
Flanagan. Not arrested yet? Interesting.
Then there is Bob Beckel in the US, on Fox News he said:
That I must admit makes Flanagan look like an amateur.“A dead man can’t leak stuff,” Bob Beckel
“We’ve got special ops forces. This guy’s a traitor, he’s treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I’m not for the death penalty, so if I’m not for the death penalty, there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a b**ch,” Beckel said.
Last edited by JMA; 12-12-2010 at 08:44 PM.
Told you
our news media is pathetic -- "...our media can't even report that properly. They are or should be the laughing stock." They're mostly ignorant and play for headlines. You can pay attention to them if you wish; few in the US really do.
Flanagan proves there are idiots in Canada. Beckel proves the US also has some. As for other places in the world...
Then there's Australia
I think that I lost an earlier post to the sunspots.
Could some of our Aussie friends comment on the media kerfluffle with that senator Ardil or whatever? Some of that early reporting seemed over the top.
Idiots are everywhere. Something like 5-15% of males are idiots.
The real question is whether the society rewards their idiocy by paying them handsomely for spouting crap on national media. It's here where the U.S. is really worst among all democracies.
Think of Kristol or o'Hanlon...puke.
Pravda, with suitable gravitas, weighs in on the Wikileak issue
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col...aden_vortex-0/
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
OK, some perspective from down under by a 60 year old.
1. Equity And Fairness. I fail to understand why Assange and Wikileaks are not treated like any other news organisation. It is not as if Administrations all over the world don't haemorrhage classified information to selected Newspapers and journalists when it suits their purpose, or even when it does not. Look no further than the case of Valerie Plame.
To put that another way and apply the golden rule; what would happen if Wikileaks received and published a similar dump of Iranian diplomatic cables?
To put it yet another way; why aren't the journalists of the New York Times in jail right now for reporting the contents of the Wikileaks cables? Would they have reported on them if they received them directly? You betcha!
2. Content. Most of the content is cocktail party chatter. I hear variations on almost all the themes in the cables whenever I go to lunch in my city club. I am quite sure that the information contained in most of the cables is common knowledge in one circle of Washington or another as well as Board rooms of larger corporations.
As far as I can tell from the very small number of redacted cables released by Wikileaks so far, the security information content merely confirms long held suspicions. For example I surmised that there must be some kind of "Gentleman's agreement" between China, Russia, Europe and America regarding MANPADS because they do not appear to be turning up in the hand sof terrorists very much (although I stand to be corrected.) Wikileaks confirmed there is an ongoing world dialogue and action on this matter.
3. Personal damage. Prince Andrew is a jerk when it comes to Diplomacy. Australian Senator Mark Arbib cuddles up to the U.S. Ambassador. King Fahd thinks the Iranians are snakes. So what?
4. Legalities. The alleged leaker, Manning, is in trouble, but not for theft. The documents contents are owned by the American people. They cannot be copyright to the Government. I find it hard to see that there is any legal case against Assange. I believe shield laws would apply or there must be a secret American prison full of convicted journalists somewhere.
The "Rape" allegation is obviously fraudulent.
5. Risks. The biggest risk to America is the perception of total and complete hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty surrounding this issue:
President Obama talking of China:
The more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves.
....well maybe that doesn't apply to us. This issue has the potential to complete the destruction of Americas reputation when it comes to human rights. I guess one could argue that Guantanamo, rendition, torture and drones have already destroyed that reputation, so waterboarding and Tasering Assange for the crime of Lese Majeste won't do much more damage...
But seriously, I've noticed non political people starting to talk about this issue and all are sympathetic to Wikileaks, and these folks aren't "leftists" they are sober business people. Prime Minister Gillard and the Australian Attorney General have all had to back peddle as well and the media here are on the Wikileaks side. It should give you pause for thought that Assange was given the Op-ed page of "The Australian" to vent, and you should know that it's owned by Rupert Murdoch. Interestingly Assange invokes Murdoch's father, in his piece. Keith Murdoch famously started his career as a "Leaker" at the Gallipoli campaign.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-d...-1225967241332
My personal belief is that the best approach to Cablegate by the current administration would be to ignore it, even perhaps say some nice words about freedom of the press being essential to democracy, no matter how much it hurts sometimes.
I think the world would have forgiven America for the cables. I am aware of the "breaking down the silos" information sharing mentality that took hold after 911. I believe the obvious stupidity of giving a Twenty Two year old "Intelligence Analyst" (What an oxymorn when applied to a 22 year old!) access to the conversations of Kings and Presidents would be glossed over.
What I think the world will not forget or forgive is the vicious, petty and dangerously chilling attack on Wikileaks and Assange, since if they can successfully do it to them and get away with it, they can do it to anyone in future. It is also likely to spawn a cyber war.
If the Obama Administration is smart, they will prevail on the Swedes to allow their extradition case to fall apart. Geoffrey Robertson QC is defending Assange next week, and as the greatest British Human rights lawyer of the decade, he has the potential to do a great deal of damage to the reputation of the British, Swedish and American Governments if allowed to build this matter into a cause celebre.
The Obama Administration should grin and bear it, maybe even celebrate the free press a little.
Last edited by walrus; 12-13-2010 at 02:14 AM.
Very few politicians have the principles and spine to say something like this.
Remember; the harshest critiques come from the U.S. right wing - a political party which hailed labour unions as expressions of freedom when they form in socialist countries and at the same time they denounced them as socialist and killers of the industry when they were active at home.
The German minister of the interior got recently great praise for not ringing alarm bells but instead choose moderate words when the latest incompetent wannabe jihadist caused some trouble. That's how low the bar has sunk. The self-evident has become praise-worthy.
Good post, mate.
IMHO the US has made the serious mistake of not simply following the legal path where they are able and not getting up to all the illegal stuff.
What was left of the US reputation of a democracy functioning under the rule of law now lies in tatters.
It makes it difficult for friends of the US (and there are many) to support these actions. Pity.
Doesn't matter which party they come from... only a fool believes a politician... any politician.
What specifically has the United States done that was illegal in this affair? Other than innuendo and verbalizations what has the United States government actually done?
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Me thinks the problem were the framing of Assange and the DDOS attacks, both of which may be the result of covert actions against Wikileaks (and both illegal).
A legal reaction would have been to address the traitor (Manning) himself in a trial and possibly also to address the publication of restricted info by the NYT (instead of launching rhetorical attacks against a foreign organization).
Part of the problematic scenery are also quotes of senators and the like - who are perceived as government people by foreigners, even though they're not part of the government and not acting under coordination.
Then why are you paying the slightest attention to
what they say on the Assange matter???
I'd also press your quote into addressing the most of the media as well -- they tend to be over excitable...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks