• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WikiLeaks Founder Describes Possibility of Casualties as Acceptable Risk

The fact he was gay(or assumption, this is actually the first I heard of it) is entirely irrelevant. Most gay people, like most strait people, are able to honor their commitments and live within the law. Some gay people, just like some strait people, cannot be trusted.
 
Because he's gay right....:roll:

If that was one of the reasons then yes we must consider that he was acting out partly against don't ask don't tell.


Release it based on actually need for secrecy.

Who determines that? You?


You know stuff that would actually aid people that seriously intend to physically harm others.

Yes, because in war, no one should get harmed....:roll:


Withholding information on Pakistan when they are taking our tax money and sending it to the purported enemy is not right.


Can you see any down side at all by calling out Pakistan?


Afghan police vehicles, that we gave them, showing up in the hands of the Taliban, is a waste.

And you have what credentials that I should listen to your opinion on what to do concerning the training up of Afghan police?

Military members accidentally killing journalists, should be shown as true and not run through the spin machine by higher officers.

What? so you think that the military is killing journalists why? because they are journalists?


Things like that should be let loose.

So in other words you want to use classified information to damage the US military in any way you can.....Ok then, :shock::doh:roll:


BTW, you didn't address the middle of my last response, why?


j-mac
 
If that was one of the reasons then yes we must consider that he was acting out partly against don't ask don't tell.

It is irrelevant.
Your making this stupid now.

Who determines that? You?

Yes.

Yes, because in war, no one should get harmed....:roll:

Then why are you mad about the documents being released?

Can you see any down side at all by calling out Pakistan?

Who's calling them out?


And you have what credentials that I should listen to your opinion on what to do concerning the training up of Afghan police?

My credentials are, you asking me what I would do.

Well I know one thing for sure, that letting the police vehicles end up in the hands of the Taliban, isn't successful training.

What? so you think that the military is killing journalists why? because they are journalists?

They have killed 2 Reuters journalists.


So in other words you want to use classified information to damage the US military in any way you can.....Ok then, :shock::doh:roll:

That's exactly what I said. :roll:

BTW, you didn't address the middle of my last response, why?


j-mac

I read over it to quickly and my response wasn't accurate.
 
If that was one of the reasons then yes we must consider that he was acting out partly against don't ask don't tell.

That makes absolutely no sense. How is this acting out against DADT?
 
That makes absolutely no sense. How is this acting out against DADT?


On his Facebook account he had made some suggestion that he was upset at this policy, and that they (the military) would pay.


j-mac
 
It is irrelevant.
Your making this stupid now.


Not at all, we have to make sure that we screen carefully who is privy to sensitive information.


No way!


Then why are you mad about the documents being released?


You don't recognize sarcasm?


Who's calling them out?

You would


My credentials are, you asking me what I would do.

IOW, nothing.....

Well I know one thing for sure, that letting the police vehicles end up in the hands of the Taliban, isn't successful training.

Yep, not good, I am pretty sure they would have put a halt to that.

They have killed 2 Reuters journalists.

Why? Cold blood? Link please.

That's exactly what I said.

Wow! you admit it...This then is the exact reason why you will NEVER see classified documents unless other traitors to this country release them.


I read over it to quickly and my response wasn't accurate.

Thank you.....Maybe your haste is causing some other outrageous statements by you in this thread?


j-mac
 
On his Facebook account he had made some suggestion that he was upset at this policy, and that they (the military) would pay.


j-mac

Actually, that does not seem to be true. The reports you talk about stem from this article: Bradley Manning, suspected source of Wikileaks documents, raged on his Facebook page - Telegraph

The problem is that the article does not say what you and some other reports are claiming(though they do source the article I just linked).

From the linked article:

At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: "Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn't have anything left."

Five days later he said he was "livid" after being "lectured by ex-boyfriend", then later the same day said he was "not a piece of equipment" and was "beyond frustrated with people and society at large".

His tagline on his personal page reads: "Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!"

That is as close to your claim as it gets, but clearly is not what you and some reports are claiming. His page is down off facebook now, so I can't get complete quotes.
 
Whether there is something we can do with the asshole who owns WikiLeaks, I dunno. I hope so, but I doubt it. There is no excuse, none, for releasing the documents unredacted. If any one is killed as a result of his publishing the documents, I hope the US helps the family of them sue the living **** out of him.

They don't have to be killed, that the organization which published the intelligence acted in such a blatantly reckless manner and that their lives have been so drammatically altered with the release of their names to the public is plenty of reason to sue for damages, the risk posed and the recklessness of the firm are so obvious and blatant that the decision would be a no-brainer. It would be like a newspaper publishing ten boxes of FBI files on the internet that contained the names of undercover FBI agents and confidential informants within the mafia.

Now if people are killed as a result of this they can be prosecuted for criminal negligence and face jail time.
 
They don't have to be killed, that the organization which published the intelligence acted in such a blatantly reckless manner and that their lives have been so drammatically altered with the release of their names to the public is plenty of reason to sue for damages, the risk posed and the recklessness of the firm are so obvious and blatant that the decision would be a no-brainer. It would be like a newspaper publishing ten boxes of FBI files on the internet that contained the names of undercover FBI agents and confidential informants within the mafia.

Now if people are killed as a result of this they can be prosecuted for criminal negligence and face jail time.

The guy who owns WikiLeaks does not live in the US, so I doubt it would be possible to do that unfortunately. The one(s) in the US should be prosecuted and put away for the rest of their lives no matter what. I have zero patients for **** like this.
 
The guy who owns WikiLeaks does not live in the US, so I doubt it would be possible to do that unfortunately.

They would just need to sue his ass in the country that he's from. Or if he has assets in the U.S. they could probably sue him here as well.

The one(s) in the US should be prosecuted and put away for the rest of their lives no matter what. I have zero patients for **** like this.
[/quote]

Agreed.
 
The fundamental conflict is that the secrets act is being abused and its hard to unwind the stuff that should be secrets vs coverups and other shenanagans. Its unfortunate that it has to come to this, but it wouldn't have been an issue if the pentegon and other agencies had been more responsible.

Be that as it may, it's not the responsibility of a private citizen to determine what should and what should not be released.
 
Not at all, we have to make sure that we screen carefully who is privy to sensitive information.

No way!

You don't recognize sarcasm?

You would

IOW, nothing.....

Yep, not good, I am pretty sure they would have put a halt to that.

Why? Cold blood? Link please.

Wow! you admit it...This then is the exact reason why you will NEVER see classified documents unless other traitors to this country release them.

Thank you.....Maybe your haste is causing some other outrageous statements by you in this thread?


j-mac

Well, all I can say is that I'm not automatically biased in favor of the military like some of you here are.

I don't think it's right to play 3 card monte with information, in order to cover up transgressions.
You obviously have different feelings on the subject.

Not much I can do to change that
 
The guy who owns WikiLeaks does not live in the US, so I doubt it would be possible to do that unfortunately. The one(s) in the US should be prosecuted and put away for the rest of their lives no matter what. I have zero patients for **** like this.

However, it would be very easy to send a couple-a-brothers with a pair of pliars and a blow torch to show this goofball what could possibly happen to a covert operator when some asshole illegally reveals that operator's identity on the internet.
 
Well, all I can say is that I'm not automatically biased in favor of the military like some of you here are.

I don't think it's right to play 3 card monte with information, in order to cover up transgressions.
You obviously have different feelings on the subject.


Not much I can do to change that

I don't think it's right to do that, either. At the same time, not just any Joe Shmoe off the street gets to decide what information needs to be leaked.

If I had to choose between 3 card monte with the information and an operator (who isn't guilty of any wrong doing) losing his life over an illegal leak, I'll choose the fore, everytime.
 
I don't think it's right to do that, either. At the same time, not just any Joe Shmoe off the street gets to decide what information needs to be leaked.

If I had to choose between 3 card monte with the information and an operator (who isn't guilty of any wrong doing) losing his life over an illegal leak, I'll choose the fore, everytime.

It doesn't always have to be like that but there are a ton of Joe Schmoes handling that information on a daily basis.
 
It doesn't always have to be like that but there are a ton of Joe Schmoes handling that information on a daily basis.

There is a system in place that safegaurds this information from unauthorized release. Are there some things hidden within that system that the American people oughta know? Probably so, but how many legit covert operators, as well as common soldiers, are we willing to put in danger to reveal that information? If a single American agent, or soldier is put in danger, so that the American people can be informed of some sorta cover up, then I would say that we really don't need to know.
 
Back
Top Bottom