Want to donate money to Wikileak? Do it soon, some day it may get you blacklisted.

[CurtSibling]

Unfortunately, many people are indoctrinated to be trapped in a strange contradiction between
supporting their leader's demands for "freedom and human rights" and their leaders demands for
"national security"...I think if people think about it too much, their heads will explode...

 

[MobBoss]

Tell me why we should be kept in the dark about the activities of people WE voted into power?

Its quite simple. You dont need to know everything. You elect people for that.

Do you like being regarded as a slave who gets told to shut up and look away?

Rofl, nice use of the kneejerk word 'slave' there, Curt, but I aint biting. I dont really care if we keep tabs on what kind of cigarettes the Sultan of Brunai smokes. Why should you?

You served in the legions, you have a right to more respect from the suits.

I also understand the concept of 'need to know' and how leaked information can get people killed.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I also understand the concept of 'need to know' and how leaked information can get people killed.

So has anyone been killed because of the leaks?

Ben Ali averted it, apparently.

 

[carlosMM]

Its quite simple. You dont need to know everything. You elect people for that.
[...]
I also understand the concept of 'need to know' and how leaked information can get people killed.

True enough - and wikileaks should have a procedure in place that anonymises or removes information that directly endangers people.

Oh, wait, why should they? After all, a recent US government actually gave out the names of agents out of spite! Equal rights for all!

 

[MobBoss]

So has anyone been killed because of the leaks?

Ben Ali averted it, apparently.

I think its certainly made it easier to.

Consider that the combat footage released of the AH-64s:

1. It gives detailed information about our target selection process.
2. It gives detailed informatin on our helicopters visual and weapons capability and how we acquire targets.
3. It gives detailed information on how we operate in an urban environment.

Now, since your not a soldier, you may not appreciate how this helps the enemy. But I can tell you this type of information simply makes a soldiers job harder since it does indeed help the enemy determine our operations and capabilities....which in turn puts soldiers lives at more risk if our enemy becomes more effective due to the release of such information.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I think its certainly made it easier to.

Consider that the combat footage released of the AH-64s:

1. It gives detailed information about our target selection process.
2. It gives detailed informatin on our helicopters visual and weapons capability and how we acquire targets.
3. It gives detailed information on how we operate in an urban environment.

Now, since your not a soldier, you may not appreciate how this helps the enemy. But I can tell you this type of information simply makes a soldiers job harder since it does indeed help the enemy determine our operations and capabilities....which in turn puts soldiers lives at more risk if our enemy becomes more effective due to the release of such information.

You're gonna have to break that down into layman's terms, because, you're right, I can't appreciate what amounts to me as "the enemy knows what the view's like from our helicopters" as very good evidence that its risking lives.

I'd like to mention also, that being over there period is the single greatest risk to any soldier's life. This has increased that risk, at most, minimally.

 

[MobBoss]

You're gonna have to break that down into layman's terms, because, you're right, I can't appreciate what amounts to me as "the enemy knows what the view's like from our helicopters" as very good evidence that its risking lives.

I'd like to mention also, that being over there period is the single greatest risk to any soldier's life. This has increased that risk, at most, minimally.

Lets just say we have a vested interest in not letting our enemy know exactly how far we can shoot or how far we can see them. If they know this it helps them counter our weapons and tactics.

Its why we try to guard that kind of information and not allow it to be released say, to youtube, for instance.

Got it?

 

[CurtSibling]

Its quite simple. You dont need to know everything. You elect people for that.

Oh really? I had better just toddle off and watch "X-Factor" then, and stop being awkward!
Why don't we need to know data ? You might be satisfied to shut off your mind, but I am not.

Intellectual cowardice and snivelling at the feet of the elite is not my style.

You are welcome to it!

Rofl, nice use of the kneejerk word 'slave' there, Curt, but I aint biting. I dont really care if we keep tabs on what kind of cigarettes the Sultan of Brunai smokes. Why should you?

That some bloated despot smokes "turkish" is not the real reason for the US Government "being at war" with wikileaks, eh?

It's about a bunch of dishonest people spitting blood about being caught out. And you for one should be angry at the situation.

Do you honestly think these suits love you, MobBoss? Surely you are not that gullible?

I also understand the concept of 'need to know' and how leaked information can get people killed.

I also understand the concept of 'we elected you, so don't treat us like cattle.'

Sure careless lips sink aircraft carriers and all that, but I think it is more the dirty
deeds of these suits that is more the problem. I am not wishing to know what the
US army's order of battle in Iraq is. I know that is lives at risk info...

Credit me with some savvy, MB!

 

[MobBoss]

Curt, I dont care about the 'suits' I care about my fellow soldiers that have to deal with the ramifications of the release of such information.

Also, get over yourself. You dont have a right to top secret information. Ranting about intellectual cowardice/sniviling wont change that simple fact.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Lets just say we have a vested interest in not letting our enemy know exactly how far we can shoot or how far we can see them. If they know this it helps them counter our weapons and tactics.

Got it?

So this amazing system that gets two journalists, two children, and several men killed shouldn't be leaked to the "enemy"?

How many incidents like this can happen, and still be considered acceptable?

It sounds to me like you care more about soldiers being able to fire their guns than the repercussions those shots can have.

 

[carlosMM]

MobBoss, you're taking the easy way out here, but it is not true: if the enemy knows what you're capable off that may well be a show stopper. "We can see you in total darkness, we can shoot you from so far away you don't even hear our planes or helicopters, we can film you inside buildings and shoot you through the walls" - I guess that message makes people think twice. So it can work both ways.

 

[CurtSibling]

Curt, I dont care about the 'suits' I care about my fellow soldiers that have to deal with the ramifications of the release of such information.

I can nod in agreement there.

Also, get over yourself. You dont have a right to top secret information. Ranting about intellectual cowardice/sniviling wont change that simple fact.

Data that uncovers the lies that they build wars upon should be known to the people who support and die for these wars.

Not just hidden away because these elitist rats use their "secrecy laws" to cover up their own vile crimes and deeds.

It's not just about military security, it is about criminal lies from leaders that are meant to be trusted.

Don't you see the point here?

.

 

[Camikaze]

Lets just say we have a vested interest in not letting our enemy know exactly how far we can shoot or how far we can see them. If they know this it helps them counter our weapons and tactics.

Its why we try to guard that kind of information and not allow it to be released say, to youtube, for instance.

Got it?

Would it be too much to ask for the government to demonstrate just how vital the secrecy of this information is in a court?

And as much as I don't like quoting myself, an answer to this would be nice, Mobby.

So you're cool with the government blacklisting first and asking questions later? Doesn't this go against the idea of due process? What framework is established to ensure that any allegations are aired in a court of law in a timely fashion, and to counter the government's ability to blacklist anyone they don't like?

I don't know where you're getting the idea that people didn't see this coming. The point is that now that it has come, people can actually discuss it. This is no shock news, but I don't think anyone is claiming that it is.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Why does the fact that I clicked a button on facebook expressing support for wikileaks justify the state obtaining my information?

Umm, where are you getting this? The article which you were nice enough not to post a link of made no mention of it. It seems it's a blog post too and not a news article.

 

[Zelig]

Good thing I'm not American.

If I ever end up on too many blacklists, I'll just change my name again.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Rather shocked that people are surprised by this.

Wikileaks essentially declared war on the US government. Did you think they would sit and take it up the keester without responding?

They didn't declare war on the US Government. They declared war upon wrongly keeping information from US citizens which is not Constitutitutional to keep.

Also, the Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government the right to prosecute anyone for giving money to anyone. Only the States can do that legally. And since Wikileaks isn't a terror organization, I don't see why donations should be illegal.

I think the thing Wikileaks should keep in mind is some things SHOULD be kept secret, so only reveal things if they are WRONGLY kept secret.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wait, so, the state is attempting to intervene in the financial affairs of private citizens? That sounds like communism to me! MobBoss, are you a communist?

 

[Silurian]

I think its certainly made it easier to.

Consider that the combat footage released of the AH-64s:

1. It gives detailed information about our target selection process.
2. It gives detailed informatin on our helicopters visual and weapons capability and how we acquire targets.
3. It gives detailed information on how we operate in an urban environment.

Now, since your not a soldier, you may not appreciate how this helps the enemy. But I can tell you this type of information simply makes a soldiers job harder since it does indeed help the enemy determine our operations and capabilities....which in turn puts soldiers lives at more risk if our enemy becomes more effective due to the release of such information.

Mobboss is correct about this but mainly due to the length of the video. Most of the information could be gained from the video would require watching numerous authorised video releases etc and then producing a briefing document but it is easier just to watch one thing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There almost always seems to be some rationalization why the public shouldn't know information which is already in the public domain, and in this particular case is patently obvious by playing any Apache flight simulator game, or by simply observing helicopters in any combat zone, or, as Silurian just pointed out, by simply looking at multiple videos already in the public domain. This is basic Hitler Channel stuff. You just have to look at enough propaganda puff pieces about the military to have a far greater understanding of our capabilities and how we use weapons in the modern battlefield than what could be gleaned from that video.

But there is a very important lesson to be learned from watching the video. If you see an Apache helicopter circling around you in Iraq or Afghanistan, it might be a good time to call your mom and say goodbye, because the inexperienced crew may have very well mistaken you for an actual target, even when you clearly are not.

Wikileaks has no more "declared war" on the US than Daniel Ellsberg and the NY Times did. This sort of reaction would have been quite predictable under the GWB administration, but I find it disconcerting that it is still happening in the Obama one. It again shows how conservative he and and his administration really are.

The only policies I've seen hurt by the leaks so far are the absurd ones.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

MobBoss, you're taking the easy way out here, but it is not true: if the enemy knows what you're capable off that may well be a show stopper. "We can see you in total darkness, we can shoot you from so far away you don't even hear our planes or helicopters, we can film you inside buildings and shoot you through the walls" - I guess that message makes people think twice. So it can work both ways.

Yes, it can work both ways. The leaks can also tell the enemy that you can't do those things and embolden them.