WikiLeaks at it again.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Because by definition they are.

I can't say I wouldn't do the same under the right circumstance (possibly sunk my career just now*) but those people rarely have the adequate perspective to judge the right circumstance. And I will not presume. I will and have not been free with information I'm not at leisure to spread. I have been very able to disclose displeasure without censure.

Look, I'm pro truth, justice, honesty, rational patriotism, nondisclosure agreement, and not being a foolish traitor, all at the same time.

ETA:* not really. those that matter know what I'm about by now and know that I'm generally dissatisfied with how things are. Still have their trust though.

Fair enough, but I think anything that involves torture or the death of innocents automatically warrants the right to full disclosure.

[Lord O' Bones]

Fair enough, but I think anything that involves torture or the death of innocents automatically warrants the right to full disclosure.

I agree as well. Absolutely.

This does not in any scenario allow me to support Wikilinks.

[awesome possum]

Seriously. If the US really wanted him dead, he'd be dead. Their intelligence agencies aren't so incompetent they can't handle that.

I may have seen too many spy/action movies, but unless the guy is protected by top of the line security 24/7, it would be insanely easy for him to have an accident. Maybe he crashes his car after drinking too much. Maybe he falls down some stairs. Maybe he gets hit by a car while jaywalking. Maybe he simply has a heart-attack.

The US isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but can anyone see this guy taking on China or Russia? He'd have been slipped a radioactive cocktail months ago.

I just think it's interesting that you refer to these people as "traitors." Yes, some officials have released a variety of documents they shouldn't have in regards to military operation tactics and informants that, again, could put people's lives in jeopardy but some people have also released information to Wikileaks that they, as moral, good, honest human beings have an ethical obligation to, such as the extent of the damage of Obama's drone program in Afghanistan and US complacency in Maliki's blatant disregard of human rights when it came to torturing civilians in Iraq. How can you, in good conscience, seriously consider these people, who are trying to do the right thing, "traitors?" It's easy to toss around the words "traitor" and "treason" under blind nationalism, which is an extremely dangerous mentality (I daresay that I don't have to back up this assertion). Remember, the founding fathers of the US were considered treasonous "traitors" by the British Empire.

It's not just "referring" to them as traitors. They are traitors. They may have believed in the greater good while doing so, or they may have been seeing a massive paycheck provided by Assange. Either way, they took documents that were classified by the United States government and released them. And, as far as I can tell, for the most part they've been documents that haven't shed light on anything new, haven't done anything special other than provide fodder for those who already shit on the US for being the US.

It's like finding out the most popular guy in high school got herpes from the head cheerleader. You can make fun of him behind his back for it, but you know what? It doesn't change anything; he's still the most popular guy in school. Except that you now know he has sores on his dick.

[Ser Greguh]

I would say that thinking the US is not trying to kill Assange is quite naive.

Wait what?

How fucking hard do you really think it is for a government to kill someone within their own country?

[Horza]

Well, it's doable, but he's a) suspicious to the point of paranoia which makes it hard. B) kinda famous now, yanno? and not in that Carlos the Jackal way and c) hardly ever visits the US.

Which is why I don't think the US Government is remotely interested in killing him. I mean, seriously, how would that work?

Now, if they could embarass, discredit or get hold of his informants and his encryption keys that would be something and would actually be useful rather than lurid and over the top.

[jurble]

Well first interesting bit being reported is that the US has been supporting the PKK in Turkey, even though we've labeled them as a terrorist group, and are allies with the Turks.

[Sariel]

Well first interesting bit being reported is that the US has been supporting the PKK in Turkey, even though we've labeled them as a terrorist group, and are allies with the Turks.

That sound incredibly moronic. Why would they do that?

[jurble]

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=new-wikileaks-files-tie-us-to-pkk-turkey-to-al-qaeda-post-reports-2010-11-26

Turkey was supplying Al-Qaeda.

[Sariel]

Turkey supporting Al-Qaeda sounds even more unlikely. I guess we'll just have to wait for the actual documents.

[Ser Greguh]

The biggest trouble with this sort of a report-of-a-report-of-a-report is that it's nearly impossible to differentiate between something that was actively true, something that drove policy, something that resulted in actual actions, etc., versus something that some politician or intelligence guy spitballed as a hypothesis. Reading through that article, it appears quite a bit of this sort of thing is being lost in translation; if the actual position was that Turkey was poorly controlling its border with Iraq, and that that allowed for more support for Al Qaeda from within Turkish borders, then, well, that's hardly damning toward anyone.

I find this particular allegation (that we supported terrorists within Turkey) extremely unlikely, not because I don't think we're capable of it, but because I don't see how it's in our interests. I also find it incredibly unlikely that Turkey was actually supporting Al Qaeda. Turkey is one of the few true democratic, secular governments within the Muslim world and is the true regional military power in that corner of the globe. I don't see how supporting terrorists in Turkey has any up-side whatsoever for the US.

[kiko]

Actually, I find that somewhat believable. PKK->Kurds->Kurdish state on the teritory of the Irak is a supporter of the coalition of the willing or something. And we all knew that the Bushies did almost everything to get support for their Irak war

[Lord Mord]

Commodore,

Release of classified information in a time of war is as treasonous as it gets.

I disagree. If among its major purposes a free press is supposed to point out lies and misrepresentations by its politicians, then when those lies are about the war effort, there is no less imperative and arguably more to discredit them. To the extent we have been lied to in order to help an administration wedded to war appear more attractive by making that war appear less horrific, then those lies are about as treasonous as it gets, and exposing those lies is an act of patriotism if anything is.

And, of course, a press cannot operate without sources, whose efforts I am find myself obliged to support also.

[VarysTheSpider]

The US isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but can anyone see this guy taking on China or Russia?

Yes.

In an interview published on Tuesday, Oct. 26, in Russia's leading daily newspaper, Kommersant, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said that "Russian readers will learn a lot about their country" after one of the site's upcoming document dumps. "We want to tell people the truth about the actions of their governments."

He's a brave guy.

[Lord O' Bones]

And, of course, a press cannot operate without sources, whose efforts I am find myself obliged to support also.

I support the free press; and uncovering things is their job. I support the legality of flag burning; or else what does that flag truly mean? I support civilian oversight of the military, something which we suck at now, as members of Congress are only civilians in the Geneva Convention sense of the term.

But any source that has sworn to keep their fucking mouths shut and don't are traitors, and I cannot support them.

[The Iceman of the North]

But any source that has sworn to keep their fucking mouths shut and don't are traitors, and I cannot support them.

+

I guess you support to scrap the Federal Witness Protection Program as well?

[kungtotte]

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

They don't swear to keep their fucking mouths shut, they swear to uphold the Constitution and act in accordance with the UCMJ.

But whatever.

[Lord O' Bones]

+

I guess you support to scrap the Federal Witness Protection Program as well?

Of course not. As that doesn't really apply here.

But you know that don't you?

They don't swear to keep their fucking mouths shut, they swear to uphold the Constitution and act in accordance with the UCMJ.

But whatever.

That's the first day. If you think that's the last time they swear anything, you don't understand our process of information protection. These sources* were absolutely aware that the information they were disclosing was not allowed and that they were sworn to that.

*non international spy/ stalwart reporter/ teenage mutant ninja turtle Division.

ETA: I see that kung stopped by with no comment and Iceman has posted elsewhere in the last several minutes.

Look, like my Scandinavian brothers, I'm in the club of let's make sense/ not hurt people/ be a good person; be good people.

But I've been in this field for 18 years. These sources were well aware of what they did.

[Galactus]

Of course not. As that doesn't really apply here.

But you know that don't you?

That's the first day. If you think that's the last time they swear anything, you don't understand our process of information protection. These sources* were absolutely aware that the information they were disclosing was not allowed and that they were sworn to that.

*non international spy/ stalwart reporter/ teenage mutant ninja turtle Division.

ETA: I see that kung stopped by with no comment and Iceman has posted elsewhere in the last several minutes.

Look, like my Scandinavian brothers, I'm in the club of let's make sense/ not hurt people/ be a good person; be good people.

But I've been in this field for 18 years. These sources were well aware of what they did.

They obviously see their oaths as conflicting, and that in the case that they do, their oath to protect the constitution overides their oath of secrecy.

Honestly, I'm not up-to-date on jurisrudence, but while it is probably criminal, I'm not sure it's actually *treasonous*. The US has a fairly strict definition of treason (and by the way, has te US actually declared war yet?)

Raidne can probably cite case history for us :P

[Spastic Plastic]

They obviously see their oaths as conflicting, and that in the case that they do, their oath to protect the constitution overides their oath of secrecy.

Honestly, I'm not up-to-date on jurisrudence, but while it is probably criminal, I'm not sure it's actually *treasonous*. The US has a fairly strict definition of treason (and by the way, has te US actually declared war yet?)

Treason has a really strict definition in the US, and carries the death penalty. AFAIK, the last time they declared war was in World War 2.

[Altherion]

They obviously see their oaths as conflicting, and that in the case that they do, their oath to protect the constitution overides their oath of secrecy.

That argument is not going to fly -- it's carte blanche to break any oath whenever one finds the actions of the government inconsistent with the Constitution (this is not a hard thing to do if you interpret it strictly enough). It's not their place to make that call on the basis of the limited information they have.

Honestly, I'm not up-to-date on jurisrudence, but while it is probably criminal, I'm not sure it's actually *treasonous*.

Colloquially speaking, it is treason. Legally, it is extremely hard to prove so they'll probably be charged with something else. Gratifying as it would be to see Bradley Manning & Co. given the Roose Bolton treatment, the founders of the US wisely decided that such power is easily abused and thus both the high standards of proof and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.