View Full Version : Wikileaks: Why Does This Happen & Why is it OK?


11-29-2010, 03:34 PM
Wikileaks is seen on Monday, Nov. 29, 2010.

Document leak an 'attack on America,' Clinton says

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the release of 250,000 secret documents to the Internet represents an attack on America and its allies.

Speaking in Washington, Clinton said the U.S. "strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information," saying the act puts lives in danger, threatens national security and undermines diplomacy.

"Let's be clear, this disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interest, it is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity," Clinton said.

The White House has been scrambling to contain the potential diplomatic disaster spurred by the release of the classified U.S. State Department documents, ordering U.S. agencies to review their safeguards on classified information.

On Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama's administration ordered a government-wide review of how agencies secure sensitive information. Announcing the assessment, the director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew, said that the disclosures are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Clinton said the documents don't expose wrongdoing, and serve no public purpose.

"There have been examples in history in which official conduct has been made public in the name of exposing wrongdoing or misdeeds," Clinton said.

"This is not one of those cases. In contrast what is being put on display in this cache of documents is that American diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do."

WikiLeaks posted the documents on its website on Sunday, just hours after it claimed a cyber attack had rendered the site inaccessible for much of the day.

The documents were nevertheless published on schedule, as they had been given in advance to The New York Times, Le Monde, the Guardian, Der Spiegel and others.

While they do not appear to reveal security secrets, they undoubtedly expose the rough underbelly of otherwise genteel diplomacy.

Highlights from the leaked documents include:

evidence that Gulf monarchies -- including Saudi Arabia -- lobbied for the U.S. to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities calls for U.S diplomats at the United Nations to collect detailed data about the UN secretary general, his team and foreign diplomats
details that the U.S. and South Korea were "gaming out an eventual collapse of North Korea"
accounts of unsuccessful U.S. efforts to have Pakistani officials remove highly enriched uranium from a reactor out of fear that the material might wind up in an illicit bomb
revelations of the hardline tactics used to compel countries to accept freed Guantanamo Bay detainees
The documents also reveal unusually candid impressions of both allies and foes, including a suggestion Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi "appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of [[Russian Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin" in Europe. According to the Guardian, Berlusconi was described in two separate cables as "feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader" whose "frequent late nights and penchant for partying hard mean he does not get sufficient rest."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is described as risk-averse, while Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is described as erratic and in the near constant company of a Ukrainian nurse who was described in one cable as "a voluptuous blonde."

Canada is mentioned too, in as many as 2,648 documents covering a range of topics from arms control to provincial affairs. The majority are not expected to be made public, however, until sometime this week at the earliest.

Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on Sunday called the release the "Sept. 11 of world diplomacy," in that everything that had once been accepted as normal has now changed.

In France, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bernard Valero said "we strongly deplore the deliberate and irresponsible release of American diplomatic correspondence by the site WikiLeaks."

And in London, a spokesperson for British Prime Minister David Cameron said "it's important that governments are able to operate on the basis of confidentiality of information."

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said it was an "irresponsible disclosure of sensitive official documents," while Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, called the document release "unhelpful and untimely."

In Ottawa, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said the "deplorable" leak did not serve anyone's interests and "may threaten our national security."

"If our government is found out to not be telling the truth, that could have a major impact. I have no doubt the other political parties will take this to the bank."

'Not an expression of policy'

But in its statement released Sunday, the White House downplayed the importance of whatever secret opinions the leaked cables may reveal.

"By its very nature, field reporting to Washington is candid and often incomplete information. It is not an expression of policy, nor does it always shape final policy decisions," the White House said.

"Nevertheless, these cables could compromise private discussions with foreign governments and opposition leaders, and when the substance of private conversations is printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it can deeply impact not only U.S. foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world."

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange stood behind the release, charging that the White House was attempting to hide alleged proof of "human rights abuse and other criminal behavior" by Washington.

In Australia, Assange's home country, Attorney General Robert McClelland has said law enforcement officials are investigating whether WikiLeaks broke any laws.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is also expected to address the diplomatic repercussions later Monday, just as she is set to embark on a four-nation tour of Central Asia and the Middle East.

Clinton's first stop in Astana, Kazakhstan, will feature a summit of officials from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a diplomatic grouping that includes many officials from countries cited in the leaked cables.

12-01-2010, 01:10 PM
Very upsetting all these leaks. Next thing you know politicians won't be able to lie any more. Where will it all end?

12-01-2010, 06:15 PM
I was very surprised that this happened and I gather it is not OK.

Usually, I love it when politicians get caught at things because these days, politicians more than ever, are trained liars.

But for the most part, I did not think this was OK.

I did love the part about most of the Middle East wanting the US to bomb Iran! Love that. And loved that China is fed up with North Korea. They will squeeze those guys out of there in the next few years.

12-01-2010, 07:53 PM
Ultimately, Jobete, politicians of whatever outmoded allegience, have no particular perception of reality and no concern except for what they regard for number one. Anything that exposes their idiocy is for the good of mankind. There are no tests for competence befoe they become the spokespersons for their various antiquated and ill-founded concepts - by definition. No surprises if they spend their time criticising other well-meaning, lying dolts. What else would they do? The best thing that could possibly happen for the greater good of the majority of citizens anywhere is if all their clumsy incompetence is leaked, so we are saved the delusion that they are fit for office, or have our best interests in mind. Those people who have those delusions will not be affected, and the rest of us can decide to do something, or not.

No harm can ever be done by truth. There was a time whan the US and the UK could feel confident in that knowledge. Truth hasn't changed, but both of those countries are now unrecognizable in relation to it. Please, someone, convince me that it's otherwise.

12-04-2010, 02:34 PM
When I hear politicians talk, I always think that they mean the opposite of what they say. The leaks may be illegal but I am not sure what harm is done beyond pricking egos and exposing deceit and double dealing in some perceived view of national interest. Getting behind the official speak is refreshing. That these guys represent us and are paid by us, why shouldn't these things be published? I tend to believe that if people know what's really going on and know what others are thinking that there is more chance of reconciliation and peace. But maybe i'm just a relic from the 60s.

12-04-2010, 02:53 PM
I personally think an anti-Obama operative is at work here. The motivation is to weaken his influence, and, to therefore undermine his presidency.

12-04-2010, 07:57 PM
leaking information like this is damaging.regardless of the deceit of politicians worldwide.it doesnt do anyone anygood to know what is being said in confidence,actually secrets are being exposed.
although on first reflection it sounds like a good idea to know what may or not be the true story behind news headlines.you cant "cherry pick" whats ok to leak and what isnt.this clown who's responsible for wikileaks doesnt give a monkeys what damage is being done.he just wants to cause chaos and undermine alliances and breed distrust between countries all in the name of freedom of information.some of this stuff has been interesting,doesnt mean i should have to know it.
what would happen if the iranians took all this on board and decided to carry out a pre-emptive strike on the saudis?
unlikely,i admit,but not impossible.where would all this freedom of knowledge get us all when the jittery stock,currency and commodity dealers get wind of something leaked and push the prices up,more than possible.
assange has no rules [[i dont think anyway) of whats isnt "leakable" so could do untold damage

if wikileaks had exsisted in 1936 around the time of the munich crisis how do you think it would have turned out?one of the most maligned prime ministers,chamberlain came back to england waving a peace of paper,signed by hitler, declaring peace in our time.he knew that was a lie before he said that.he'd bought time to build up our forces so we would have a half decent chance of being able to stop germany if/when they started invading other countries.chamberlain started a massive expansion of the forces.wikileaks would have wrecked any chance of us being ready.the germans would have known [[the munich agreement)the uk didnt believe a word of what the germans were really about and started the war earlier when we werent ready.bottom line we would have lost the war before december 7th 1941. pearl harbour.on the otherhand wikileaks would have told us they were coming and all we'd got was a red carpet.
when they eventually get hold of julian assange i hope he gets life imprisonment they can reduce his sentence when he's given up the names of the leakers,the people that have got the information for him.these whistle blowers should be tried as spies.they are no different to the people who have given away secret information to our enemies.

12-05-2010, 12:17 AM
I don't think we know the consequences of what was leaked. We may see that over time.

Politicians, these days more than ever, are trained liars. You have to watch every word they say and consider it could mean the opposite of what they say, consider that they might be saying it for someone else to hear and have no intention of following up on what they say etc.

It is a waste of time even listening.

12-05-2010, 12:10 PM
Politicians themselves leak information when it suits them. 'Unofficial sources' is the media term. Confidential letters find themselves in the public domain. To then complain when others leak is to say the least hypocritical. There is a school of thought that Wikileaks were fed the information with approval from a higher level. Who knows the truth?

As for Chamberlain, who can say what would have happened if he hadn't signed the 'peace in our time' document? Britain was certainly not prepared for war in 1939 nor in 1940 when Dunkirk happened. Maybe if he hadn't signed, the world would have taken the German threat more seriously sooner and the subsequent bloodbath could have been reduced or even avoided.

12-05-2010, 01:27 PM
that was an example of "what if wikileaks had been around at that time",to show the damage that could be done,if it had been leaked that all the uk wanted was time not "peace".there might be a "school of thought" that all this is government sponsored,'bout time that school woke up.its nothing short of treachery.

12-05-2010, 06:38 PM
sorry if i can't take this too seriously, tamla617. Leaks happen all the time. Politicians are often responsible for the leaks. They currently seem to be reacting like the biter bit.

as for treachery, maybe you have some inside track on this affair which enables you to speak with authority. I am not on the inside so do not know what is behind the leaks. I do find a lot of the noise coming from governments on these leaks of 'the lady doth protest too loudly' variety.

It seems also curious that various criminal charges against wikileaks founder which have nothing to do with the leaks have suddenly been elevated in priority. Coincidence? Payback? Take your choice. But it does not show politicians in a very edifying light either way.

Experience suggests that politicians are, at best, economical with the truth. What is behind wikileaks I don't know. I do know that honesty is the best policy. Unfortunately that notion seems to scare politicians in power. Their control seems to emanate from a desire to suppress the truth if it doesn't suit their case.

Listening to motown is much more fun than getting uptight about this sordid little affair.

12-06-2010, 12:04 AM
Running through so many of these threads is the theme that politicians are liars ~ a sad consensus these days.

I see there are reports that Turkey and Iran believe the USA might be behind the leaks!

People question everything these days, with good reason.

12-06-2010, 07:46 PM
treachery by definition,the "insiders" leaking the information have been treacherous.
todays wikileaks should put most of the "school of thoughts" out of contention,as if the U.S. would sanction/give away their list of world wide instalations,factories etc.etc. that are deemed critical to the U.S.these places, that have now been advertised, were probably not on the terrorist's radar have now been highlighted.if they want to get at america attack these soft targets.with a bit of luck scotland yard will have him soon.
and you're right about motown btw!

12-07-2010, 01:15 PM
got him!he's got a good brief tho' its all warming up nicely

12-07-2010, 02:40 PM
The TRUTH shall set you free. I will side with truth. Those that would rather live with their head in the sand, and continue to be lied to and deceived- thats your choice. Let it all come out. The witch hunt for this guy and subsequent arrest is wrong.

12-07-2010, 03:08 PM
you can dream of utopia.freedom at any cost?

12-07-2010, 03:11 PM
As usual, the extreme left and right want this man put in jail or even killed when the attention should be on our FAILED US foreign policy.

Ron Paul hits the nail on the head...


We may never know the whole story behind the recent publication of sensitive U.S. government documents by the Wikileaks organization, but we certainly can draw some important conclusions from the reaction of so many in government and media.

At its core, the Wikileaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both political parties, insist on asking the wrong question. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead, the media focus on how so much sensitive information could have been leaked, or how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information.

No one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public. This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does. But state secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name?

In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post-World War II era has made us less secure, not more. And we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often “official” government lies have provided justification for endless, illegal wars and hundreds of thousands of resulting deaths and casualties.

Take the recent hostilities in Korea as only one example. More than fifty years after the end of the Korean War, American taxpayers continue to spend billions for the U.S. military to defend a modern and wealthy South Korea. The continued presence of the U.S. military places American lives between the two factions. The U.S. presence only serves to prolong the conflict, further drain our empty treasury, and place our military at risk.

The neoconservative ethos, steeped in the teaching of Leo Strauss, cannot abide an America where individuals simply pursue their own happy, peaceful, prosperous lives. It cannot abide an America where society centers around family, religion, or civic and social institutions rather than an all powerful central state. There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neoconservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves — namely their great protector, the state. This is why the neoconservative reaction to the Wikileaks revelations is so predictable: “See, we told you the world was a dangerous place,” goes the story. They claim we must prosecute — or even assassinate — those responsible for publishing the leaks. And we must redouble our efforts to police the world by spying and meddling better, with no more leaks.

We should view the Wikileaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy. Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets, we should focus on our delusional foreign policy. We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue, and outright military intervention can maintain our international status as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy of debt and monetary debasement.

12-07-2010, 03:54 PM
It's a fit up, guv. The bloke's been done up like a kipper 'cause he told the truth. If you don't strive for Utopia, you deserve to live in a world where leaders are so lame-brained and oafish that they give themselves away every time they open their mouths. Why do they want him silenced? Because they fear that their crimes will be found out. Will cooking up a phony case with a couple of Swedish sorts change the truth? No, now that the means of communication are in the hands of the individual, and not entirely controlled by fascist dolts, the truth will go on coming out. When everyone knows everyone's secrets, and how boring and idiotic they are, we will be able to get on and live happy lives, and sack the whole grotesque boiling of them. Incidentally, the fit up was done in Sweden because they have a sorry extradition treaty with the States, and the UK miraculously still doesn't.

12-07-2010, 04:37 PM
i dont think you'll get much of an argument from me about dishonest politicians,underhand dealings.
its not just dishonest political stuff tho' this guy put it out there,advertised important/critical instalations,organisations,factories etc.i want to know why everyone has to know why things that are best kept secret,things to do with defence systems,battle plans, should be out in the public domain.we used [[i hope still have) a saying "need to know".if you dont have the need you aint gonna be told.
is there a line that some of you guys wont cross.let 'em all know?you're starting to worry me.
what wouldnt you leak whats your limit?how much money?whats your agenda? we're not talking just about countries,we've got a million different kinds of muslim terrorist out there.
i'm bound by the official secrets act.my dad has never told me his target he was to bomb [[cold war)in the event of a one way [[get back if you can/run out of gas)bombing mission east of germany somewhere.i havent asked him 'cos i know he cant tell me.
i agree the charges in sweden sound a bit too covienient.but he has,admitted he has,got secret/confidential information.he will be done for that.i hope he does,sorry and all that.its a shame. but play with fire and you going to get burnt.

12-16-2010, 07:49 AM
if these secrets were so important, why were they not guarded better? Having freely available lists of strategic targets sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
If they were so easy to obtain, it could well be that they were already well known to those that would want to know.
in any event, terrorists attacks are based on surprise, in looking for the unthought of target. In this respect having these locations out in the open probably lowers the risk of attack.
Had it not been for leaks, we in the UK would still be paying millions to MPs to repair moats and duck houses and to finance their excessive lifestyles..
If there had been leaks, maybe sexed up dossiers would have been exposed and led to a more insightful decision on whether to invade Iraq.
The swedish charges and unlawful restrictions placed through the back door on Wikileaks takes away the moral high ground the governments may have claimed.
Besides I'm far from convinced that these leaks weren't authorised. Time will tell on this.
btw I have also signed the official secrets act and have respected it. However my faith in politicians is very low. Much of what has been disclosed exposes duplicity and incompetence and as such belongs in the public domain since people who voted for these guys are suffering [[and some dying) as a result. I was always taught that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Our politicians do little to disprove this.

12-16-2010, 02:16 PM
they are "guarded".all it takes is a misguided person,unpatriotic etc. who is "in" the system and has access to the information to leak it.
[[i've already said this before) you cant pick and choose what is good to be leaked and what isnt.the mp's expenses scandal is an exception.this was reporting an illegal act by mp's commiting fraud.even though only 3 are going to answer charges in court.not bad considering over 500 conned the [[non)system!
"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"[[ who said that btw)so all the 1000's of people that kept to the off.secrets act.didnt sell their country down the swannee are somehow scoundrels.some of the definitions of scoundrel is persona non gratia,unreliable,unwanted,villianous,unprincipled ,dishonerable.stand up for the anthem,clutching chest. all scoundrels?
so i'm all those things am i?why if you believe the freedom of information dont you stick your head over the parapit and break the official secrets act.[[hypathetically of course,i think i just contravened part of the act then!) i wonder what your employers,neighbors would think who was the scoundrel.the old you or the one that "let the cat out of the bag"

12-16-2010, 02:49 PM
It was Doctor Jonson who uttered thos immortal words, Tamla - in fact he defined patriotism that way in his dictionary. The truth is that all this security nonsense and official secrets act is not hiding anything the enemy doesn't already know. It's just a grand charade, except in the sense that it hides what we, the honest citizens shouldn't know about our own 'representatives'.

I'm sure it would be a breach of the official secrets act for ayone in government employ to mention that the recession has more to do with the money spent on war than the credit crunch or the bank crisis. Make the punters wrong and it diverts attention from the real problem. Teach yourself Thatcherism, lesson one.

12-16-2010, 03:55 PM
got it bankhouse!
the bank crisis had the same economic effect as ww2 did.nothing like the cost of iraq and "stan".even if it is dragging on and on....

12-16-2010, 05:40 PM
The whole idea behind whistle blowers is to reveal information that could pose a threat or uncover corruption.

Assange IMO cannot be seen as a true whistle blower since most of the info released amounted to gossip and embarrassment. Plus much of it was the biggest non kept secret of secrets of the decade.

It didn't serve any constructive purpose unless, someone can explain how the size of Kadafi's, nurse/companion's boobs threatens national security here and around the world. [[and I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere)

I do not advocate shutting down wikileaks because to me that's censorship but I do think people like Assange should show more responsibility in the handling of this type of info.

The idea behind Diplomacy is to settle issues before they escalate. Interfering with that process could cause problems down the road.

If informants fear they will be found out because of leaks, they could refuse to cooperate with the US. What would have happened if info had not been shared about the last two potential terrorist attacks?

True whistle blowers I applaud, they serve a real need and purpose. Nothing I've seen so far from these leaks could come close.

Another concern should be [[Manning) a 20 something year old Private, who supposedly had the type of security clearance to access more than 200,000 classified documents.

12-16-2010, 07:13 PM
I don't see Assange as a whistle-blower Ms M. Rather he is publishing information that comes into his hands and probably making a good deal of money out of it. He is clearly going to run the gauntlet with the dirty tricks of various governments including my own so I guess he will spend every penny in lawyers fees. The many notable people who have supported him suggest his work has much support.
Since this information was so easily available to him, it raises several questions:
1 was the leak authorised for some purpose that will become clear in time?
2 If the information was so easily available to him, is it really that secret?
3 if the information is really that secret, why was it so easily available?
some of the information released seems to suit American foreign policy as well as the strong US pro-israel, anti-Iran lobby. All this released just before talks started on Irans nuclear capability. It couldn't have been scripted better.

Tamla, Assange is Australian not American, the Official Secrets Act is British not American, so am not sure of your reasoning. He can't have committed treason nor breached a law which doesn't apply in either US or Australia. What is more concerning is, if this information is so confidential, why was it so freely published and distributed within the US government services? I haven't changed my view of Official Secrets Act but am not sure that hiding the twisting of the truth to further a politicians aims at the cost of others lives is truly following the Act, nor is concealing that politicians claim unjustified expenses in bucket loads on the principle of 'I thought I could get away with it, Guv'. Many claims were paid back before they could be investigated so a form of amnesty prevented many other cases being considered [[including David Cameron and his £1800 wisteria). I understand that even with the new tight system [[less than a year old) over £14m of recent expenses is under scrutiny by the independent commission. They still haven't got it, have they? If you're happy to blindly trust these guys, that is your democratic choice. I tend to come back to another old sayng 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. There has to be a way to keep a check on these guys. Relying on them to tell you the truth and only act in the nations best interest is at best naive and counter-democratic. The death and damage caused by the sexed-up dossiers that enabled UK to take part in the Iraq war and the many families living in grief after losing loved ones deserves better than this.

12-16-2010, 07:30 PM
btw Ms M, it's good to see you posting here again. Even if there are things we see differently, it's a pleasure following your reasoning which is always challenging and well thought out

12-16-2010, 07:43 PM
I agree he's not a whistle blower bobkayli. He's not even some kind of hero in my book.

There is more to all of this than meets the eye and in addition to what you have already laid out, the Dept Of Homeland Security is teaming up with RIAA to close down web sites....as you say, it could not have been scripted better and I will add the timing seems strange.

I also just read that Assange and his people had promised to help fund Private Manings defense fund and now suddenly are pulling back from that offer.

I think Maning is where the answers can be found in terms of the secrecy of the documents but I have seen [[and I'll try to find it) most of the docs were marked highly classified.

I'm still curious how an Army Private gets that type of security clearance. I know people who have been in Federal govt for years that don't have that type of access.

I don't know what the heck is going on and ironically I just mentioned this to someone else but until the people of this country truly start to understand the importance of Campaign Finance Reform and get corporate dollars out of our elections....

....what can I say?

12-16-2010, 07:53 PM
Thanks, it's good to have someone like you I can debate with bobkayli:cool:

Still looking for that info but I did email it to a friend when this first came out. Maybe he still has the email but in the meantime I ran across this.

With reading and accessing WikiLeaks documents, some law to consider [[http://llsblog.lls.edu/faculty/2010/12/the-law-behind-reading-reading-wikileaks-documents.html)

12-16-2010, 07:58 PM
I read in the December 13 issue of Newsweek that almost all of what was released by wikileaks had already been published over the years by news outlets. They said that one of the main points the leaks showed was that American diplomats were doing their jobs. Also, as noted above, how come nobody in government seems concerned about where they got the information they leaked. Sounds like all our wonderful government is concerned about is killing the messenger. Echoing ms_m just above, how does a private have access to that info? I spent 28 years working in state government and I had access to a lot of information. But, I also knew there was much more info I did not have access to. Something is wrong when the bottom of the feeding chain eats what those several levels above him did not have access to.

12-16-2010, 08:27 PM
Does anyone think that Turkey and Iran might be right........and that the whole thing is a setup?

Or is it possible that the American Government really doesn't care and they see some good in this?

12-17-2010, 01:07 PM
a foreigner can be charged under the official secrets act.you dont even have to sign the official secrets act to contravene it.
a private or equivalent grade in any other force,civil service etc.can have access to information from confidential to a classification he/she has been cleared to.for instance the army/airforce/navy do not put an air marshall/admiral/field marshall on receiving and sending signals.signalers send and recieve up to the minute information,its their job they've been vetted and so have their close family.
classification of documents/information as far as i can remember.
most secret
top secret
non of the above has an age limit, rank/paygrade limit.
its down to "need to know" usually because its their job to carry out tasks within any of the above classifications.
i didnt know what my 21 year old next door neighbor was up to most of the time,we used to go out to the pub alot.i didnt need to know where he'd been or going to etc.he wasnt going to tell me anyway,and vice versa.he was 2 up from the bottom rank in the airforce.
he would have been privvy to more sensitive info than some of these wikileaks

12-17-2010, 02:49 PM

There are a few things you've stated I agree with but I'm going to call foul on some of your info unless you can provide a source.

The US does not have a Secrets Act.

Under Bush there was [[and I'm guessing still is) something called an unofficial secrets act but I can't find anything to confirm it would apply to non citizens of this country.

The article "Bush's Unofficial 'Official Secrets Act': How the Justice Department Has Pushed to Criminalize The Disclosure of Non-Security Related Government Information" by John W. Dean was published in the September 26, 2003, edition of FindLaw's Writ. The article addresses what clearly appears to be a manipulation of provisions delineated in Patriot Act I and other United States laws and statutes.
Dean wrote that, "Except in a few highly egregious circumstances relating to national security information [[espionage and atomic secrets), the U.S. Congress has, in the past, never made it a crime to leak information to the news media. As a result, for over two hundred years, our government has operated without an official secrets act.

Read More [[http://www.sourcewatch.org



More Sources:

Intelligence Authorization Act, 2001
• National Security: Classified Information, ACLU.
• Jack Nelson, Government Secrecy: What Leaks are Good Leaks?, Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2003.
• On Criminalizing "Leaks", January 8, 2002 [SECRECY NEWS from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy].
• Bill Berkowitz,Escalating Secrecy Wars, WorkingForChange.com, July 9, 2003.


Also from what I can tell [[unless I missed something) this would all be under an Executive Order and not under any laws which could possibly get thrown out with a really hard fight, money and a dayum good attorney. Probably why it's never been used. But again, I see nothing that applies to citizens outside the US.

Now war crimes and acts of terrorism are a whole other ball game.

12-17-2010, 02:54 PM
BTW this unofficial act applies to Non-Security Related Government Information"

The last link I provided deals specifically with law in regard to Wikileaks

12-17-2010, 03:17 PM
One more thing. I'm not sure where you are from but you may be confused with British law which does have a secrets act. [[see links)

12-17-2010, 06:26 PM
sorry i only know about/mentioned the uk official secrets act.i dont know the U.S. laws.what was klaus fuchs tried under or the walker family [[family of spies film)the youngest was a signals specialist code opperator on his 1st posting as far as i remember the film,although artistic licence could have been used in the film.
uk forces bases/instalations all have a sign warning that the area is covered within the meaning of the official secrets act.
ANYBODY can be arrested within 10 MILES of any uk forces base by millitary and/or civil police.even in germany assisted by/with the politzie
people using cameras,telescopes,bino's,note taking etc. aircraft spotters can have everything confiscated.all this very rarely happens,its there to use when required not as a matter of course.

ANY country's embassy/diplomatic plated cars [[cd,corp diplomatique) and all have specific number plate prefixes.any of these in the 10 miles of a base is supposed to be reported to the nearest base or police station.i reported one once,by the time i'd got thru' i was told i was the 10th caller at least.
all these regulatins our 10 mile sphere of influence,corp diplomatique etc was [[i did) learnt in the 1st 13 weeks of basic training and an exam sat.thats the importance attached to the act.i'm pretty sure the us forces would have the same rules around their bases.they do in the uk .USAF base at RAF mildenhall,suffolk for instance.

12-17-2010, 06:34 PM
No problem. After I read the links more thoroughly and thought about it, I figured you were referring to the UK.

It seems Bush Jr did try to do something along those lines under the Patriot Act. Clinton had already vetoed it in his admin.

I don't think it would fly here but then again, it all depends if another Republican gets back in office.

12-17-2010, 06:41 PM
there are a miriad of laws that can be used i guess to make sure everything is covered.i imagine its got more "tricky" since mobile/cell phones with cameras and computers,emails,twittering,blogging places like this forum [[!)etc have become an everyday thing aswell.
you were quick answering btw!

12-17-2010, 06:45 PM
I'm going to have to check out the UK Constitution one of these days. I never realized there were so many things you guys were use to as a matter of course, we don't do. At least not officially. :)

Don't really know the protocol for military bases outside the States. When I drive on a base here, they run my tags before I'm allowed to go through the gate, but that's about it as far as I know.

12-17-2010, 06:47 PM
you were quick answering btw!

LOL, coincidence. I just happen to check SDF and saw your reply.

12-17-2010, 06:51 PM
and again!enough already lol!

what constitution? they wont give us one!been promised by the previous bunch of no hopers,i think it got cancelled when they found out they couldnt tax it,or stop people with money having it!

12-17-2010, 06:55 PM

Okee dokee....have a few things I need to do anyway. I will return though. LOL

12-18-2010, 03:32 PM
With reading and accessing WikiLeaks documents, some law to consider [[http://llsblog.lls.edu/faculty/2010/12/the-law-behind-reading-reading-wikileaks-documents.html)

Sorry for taking some time to reply, I've had flu. I'm not sure if I was infected as a part of some MI5 dirty trick because of my support for Mr Assange.

Then today there has been a deluge of snow and I've been clearing it and gritting the road I live in so I've a chance of escaping to work on Monday morning. Am hoping to complete the clearance tomorrow. I am also wondering if the CIA is behind the snowfall as a way of aiding their MI5 buddies.

My favourite football team [[soccer team to you!) is having a tough period as well so I have clearly upset someone big time [[since they are owned by a Russian, there may be a KGB influence here, the owner has made some strange decisions lately).

I'm wondering what dirty trick I'll suffer next. There are rumours of an Assad operative having been seen in the neighbourhood so i'm taking no chances. It may of course just be the extra postman taken on to clear the seasonal mail.

Good analysis from Prof. Glazier. If I've understood, I can access and read them and am not going to be thrown in Alcatraz next time I hit JFK Airport? But they'll probably quiz me further about my answers to the questionnaire about why I am visiting US.

However I shouldn't copy them, store them, print them or pass them on or transmit them or I'm in the slammer and they'll throw away the key.

As regards Mr Assange, is there any similar legal analysis of what criminal charges could be considered against him? He seems very well represented from a legal viewpoint so it seems unlikely that he has published these documents of knowing what legal ground he has to stand on. sorry to put on you with this question but you are generally a fount of knowledge in these matters.

12-18-2010, 05:23 PM
you should be slung in alcatraz for supporting ch****a! lol.pity the match is off tomorrow,i was looking forward to that.the next time we meet i bet abromavitch has added some more players to the squad in the jan window.

12-18-2010, 05:34 PM
bobkayli since Assange is not a US citizen, I doubt that law applies to him. When I posted that link I was thinking about Private Maning. I don't care for Assange but I'm more concerned with the actions of the Private.

I'm guessing the US will wait to see how his [[Assange) case in Sweden plays out.

...and if I'm not mistaken he may have other charges out there.

I've said from the beginning I don't think Wikileaks should be taken down but that doesn't mean Assange wasn't irresponsible in how he handled this.

Supposedly he contacted our govt to see if they wanted to redact any of the material, The govt said, we want our documents back.
I've heard some people say at least he tried to work with the US and it was the US that wasn't cooperative. I call BS on that.

If someone was in possession of your stolen property and said, I'll let you trash some of it but I'm keeping it. Would you still think the person was being nice?

12-18-2010, 05:35 PM
Sorry for taking some time to reply, I've had flu. I'm not sure if I was infected as a part of some MI5 dirty trick because of my support for Mr Assange.

Then today there has been a deluge of snow and I've been clearing it and gritting the road I live in so I've a chance of escaping to work on Monday morning. Am hoping to complete the clearance tomorrow. I am also wondering if the CIA is behind the snowfall as a way of aiding their MI5 buddies.

My favourite football team [[soccer team to you!) is having a tough period as well so I have clearly upset someone big time [[since they are owned by a Russian, there may be a KGB influence here, the owner has made some strange decisions lately).

I'm wondering what dirty trick I'll suffer next. There are rumours of an Assad operative having been seen in the neighbourhood so i'm taking no chances. It may of course just be the extra postman taken on to clear the seasonal mail.

Good analysis from Prof. Glazier. If I've understood, I can access and read them and am not going to be thrown in Alcatraz next time I hit JFK Airport? But they'll probably quiz me further about my answers to the questionnaire about why I am visiting US.

However I shouldn't copy them, store them, print them or pass them on or transmit them or I'm in the slammer and they'll throw away the key.

As regards Mr Assange, is there any similar legal analysis of what criminal charges could be considered against him? He seems very well represented from a legal viewpoint so it seems unlikely that he has published these documents of knowing what legal ground he has to stand on. sorry to put on you with this question but you are generally a fount of knowledge in these matters.

Hope you start to feel better soon.

12-19-2010, 08:59 AM
Tamla617, supporting the Blues is a cross I've borne for many years. Alcatraz would be a picnic compared to some of the heartache they've caused me, not so much now but particularly in the late 70s and 80s.
I was looking forward to the game too, i think both teams were really up for it. With this, England bringing us back to earth in the cricket and the remaining pile of snow to be cleared from my road, I'm still wondering if my support for Assange is being punished in some way.

Ms M, thank you, the flu is clearing slowly.

The leaks may or not be irresponsible but they are an interesting insight. That the diplomatic world effectively run state-sponsored gossip-mongers is an aspect I'd never really considered before. I've enjoyed this aspect a lot seeing the gossip on a par with a section of the UK press [[News of the World and the like). I've particularly enjoyed the analysis of Prince Andrew as an arrogant, rude freeloader. He clearly takes after his father the Duke of Edinburgh who comes across as a pompous buffoon of the first order. I'm imagining US diplomats recoiling in horror when the UK ambassador arrives and announces to his US counterpart that as some great honour the Queen of England has deigned to allow her family to visit your country. The glazed smile on the face of the recipient of such news is now clearer to me. Behind his smile and sycophantic pleasantries is clearly dread and the thought 'Oh no, not that Prince Andrew. Must remember to lock up the jewellery and keep an eye on the toiletries in the visitors suite at the White House. This guy takes everything that isn't screwed down. And how are we going to stop him upsetting the staff with his outrageous comments as he acts like some boorish drunk uncle at the family christmas party.'

On a serious note this type of information clearly has an official purpose since it lets all know who they are dealing with and what to expect. This is a must in the nuanced world of diplomatic relations where appearances and behind the scenes relationships are everything. Whether it is truly secret information to be protected is another matter. I for one feel better informed and more assured that there is some humanising process in place in international diplomacy. Also knowing how others see us is priceless in understanding our place in the world and benefitting from the lessons learned as a result.

The more sensitive information is clearly of another order. I was once told by a friend from Naples some Neapolitan logic. 'I'm from Naples and everybody believes that people from Naples are thieves. I walk past your house and see a window left open. On the table next to the window there is a wallet and it is left open so I can see lots of money inside. I'm from Naples so I do as you expect, I take the money. Sure I am a thief, but you already knew that. So why did you leave your wallet open next to an open window? Where does your responsibility begin and end in this and who are you to want to punish me just for being myself?'

If the press are to be believed, in this case the Neapolitan [[Assange) didn't take the wallet but rather was handed it through the window by one of the servants of the house [[the Private). This Private was acting in a context where clearly his individual actions were wrong but it begs many other questions as to how a state gathers information, decides what is confidential, who should have it, how it is stored and protected. It is not for me to decide how the US Government should do this, this is clearly their decision to make. However how they do this is important because the US is a key player in world security and so their decisions affect us all. This case exposes that the current mechanisms in place are not adequate. I wouldn't like to see the humble private be a scapegoat for this in some cover-up, he has acted in a context. probably with, as a minimum, others condoning or tacitly accepting what he was doing or leaving him the opportunity to do so knowing the risks involved.
I agree that Wikileaks shouldn't be shut down and as i read that Bank of America is the latest who will not process transactions involving Wikileaks, I see the underhand response to the embarrassment carrying on. Not doubt they will produce some interesting legalese to justify their decision but this type of action is an attack on press freedom and should be resisted. it could also be that Wikileaks has some dirt to dish on the banking system and this is a case of getting your retaliation in first. After defending Google against attacks to shut them down in China, the democratic west is now acting no better than the Chinese actions we all condemned. It just adds to the suspicion that there are no good guys or bad guys in this, only hustlers seeking to guard their position for their own real or perceived interests.

12-19-2010, 11:02 AM
You actually proved one of my points concerning the gossip and I agree much of it gives the intended reader much needed insight. That insight serves a distinct and useful purpose. However, now Diplomats or whomever may be reluctant to be so insightful and descriptive. That can't be a good thing. [[with exceptions of course, eg. "boobs")

I wouldn't like to see the humble private be a scapegoat for this in some cover-up, he has acted in a context.

Your "humble" Private is not so humble and if this transcript is to be believed he has been working with Assange for quite some time. He also claims Wikileaks even decoded some of the docs. This is only a partial excerpt of the transcript and from what I understand will be used against the Private in his case.

How the Private was able to access all of this is not something I will speculate on. It is however something I would like answered.

Nice piece of maneuvering but stolen property is still stolen property no matter how it 's acquired.

I think there are good guys and bad guys in this, the problem, we may or may not ever know who they were and are but, Assange can't be counted among the good guys yet.

The only thing that has come out of this so far is a possible security breech. It doesn't take revealing all this mess to expose those leaks and again, according to the transcripts above, the Private has been working with Assange since 2007. That means we are in Bush Jr. territory so who knows how deep this goes or why?

12-19-2010, 11:07 AM
BTW....BOA is not a government entity. [[they have paid back their loans http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/02/business/main5868082.shtml ) If they choose to dissociate with Wikileaks, it's their right.

12-19-2010, 12:43 PM
bobkayli your piece on prince andrew and the stuff i've seen about him on wiki.. is spot on.he is all those things.he came to brize norton with charles on a parachute course late 79/early 80.where charles appeared interested on what we were doing.andrew never joined in and just gaffawed with his minions.he does have my respect tho'.during the falkland war he sat in a hovering helicopter [[drawing fire a possibillity)in an air raid,ships being sunk people in the water etc.he also flew radar picket duties sitting on the outer edge of ships radar and using the choppers radar extending the early warning of argentinian attacks.not a safe place to be.
btw assange is holed up in a stately house about 10 miles from where i live.

ms_m you're right,everyone has forgoten that it is theft aswell

the great chelsea side was......the late 60's osgood,tambling,cooke,mc cready,hollins,bonetti,webb,hutchinson,houseman,bo yle,berchinall hope i didnt leave anyone out!great side,how they didnt win the league i dont know but the 1970 fa cup replay at old trafford was one of the great finals! and i'm a united fan! i know i've missed a defender out,i can see his face but not the name!not bad for an "off the top of my head" tho'

12-19-2010, 12:54 PM
got it bobkayli........ron harris?

12-19-2010, 12:58 PM
I'm really sick of hearing about this. Boy, technology really ruins the world. This would never have happened to this extent before! Just give me my typewriter and my Motown Records and I'm happy!!!

12-19-2010, 01:04 PM
ms_m you're right,everyone has forgotten that it is theft aswell

yep, that does seem to be an important piece of the puzzle people are forgetting about. Even if this were done in the name of a "good deed" the docs were stolen and there are laws against theft.


Something else occurred to me. Don't know how things work there but in the US, security clearance levels are given on a "need to know basis." That means, no matter what your job is, if info accessed does not relate specifically to your direct job description, you will not/ should not have clearance for said info.

Also, part of the reason BOA and other banking institutions have given for the stopping of processing payments has to do with [[and I'm paraphrasing) the hacking of their computers by alleged supporters of Assange and Wikileaks.

HACKING....now there is a word to contemplate in the middle of all of this. hmmmmm

Possibilities are endless but there is nothing in this so far, that points to Assange as being on the side of right, good, decency, or giving a dayum about anyone but Assange.

12-19-2010, 01:30 PM
see my post #31 page 1
security clearence could be given to personnel to the highest level top secret or even black ops level [[that isnt even a "level" its so black),but if there was something they didnt need to know they wouldnt be told.
for example "bravo 2 zero" SAS unit [[gulf war 1) didnt know what "bravo 2 one" was up to [[or even knew it existed).in other words cleared to the same level but not everything on that level.

12-19-2010, 02:02 PM
Nice post Bob.

No civilised country would treat the private the way he is being treated whatever he had done. This is a mammoth state bullying someone who is little more than a child. For ***'s sake, how childish is it to put him in solitary confinement without even a pillow or blanket for his bed? Serial killers are treated better, and all he did was to show up some liars - if, indeed he did that. There used to be this thing where no one was guilty until it was proven in a court of law, with jurors and all. Now any bunch of treacherous gits can pick on the little guy as long as they are instruments of the knudklehead state.

12-19-2010, 02:09 PM
Tamla617.: not bad for a ManU fan. I would add Dempsey, Hudson, Baldwin, Hinton and Tommy Hughes [[the hapless reserve goalkeeper nicknamed 'Five Goal' because of the likely goals against tally whenever he played). The proximity of the Kings Road and its temptations during the Swinging Sixties in London played its part in the club under-achieving. The closest they came to winning the league was in the mid-60s under Tommy Docherty. Top of the league going into an Easter match at Burnley. The match was preceded by a a training camp at Blackpool [[of all places for a group who loved partying). Many players sneaked out from the hotel on a night ignoring the curfew and enjoying the Blackpool high-life. The Doc got wind of this and caught them coming back in at some obscene hour [[with female company it was rumoured). He sent them all home and played the reserves at Burnley. The match was lost 6-2. the form slumped thereafter and it was the beginning of the end for the Doc. He was sacked a few months later. Loads of great tales from this era even if an underfilled trophy cabinet. Ossie and Alan Hudson were two of the finest players I ever had the privilege of watching. Even on a bad day, these two were worth the admission money alone. Besides the skill Ossie also knew how to look after himself against some of the toughies of the time, Jack Charlton and Norman Hunter of Leeds were always worth watching against him to see who was still standing at the end.
btw i'm sure many forwards of the day would have remembered Ron Harris instantly pointing to the scar tissue on their legs coming from Choppers less than cultured approach to defensive problem-solving.

12-19-2010, 02:22 PM
The Truth Will Always Win
by Julian Assange

In 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's
The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems
inevitable that truth will always win."
His observation perhaps
reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were
being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the
shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch
would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the
disastrous Gallipoli campaign.
Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.
grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds
bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be
corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the
Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to
what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the
These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created
around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use
internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.
coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with
other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is
true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to
click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you
can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it
Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks
is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest.
WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars,
and broken stories about corporate corruption.
People have said I
am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to
war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a
government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same
citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies.
If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide
whether to support it.
If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq
war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the
things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all
media to be able to report these things freely.
WikiLeaks is not
the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets,
including Britain ?s The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain
and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.
it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has
copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government
and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an
Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls
in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin
says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill
sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational
threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime
Minister's office has called on national television for me to be
assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son,
here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than
to get at me.
And Australians should observe with no pride the
disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Prime Minister Gillard and
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism
for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New
York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet
young and small.
We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is
trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth
revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political
Has there been any response from the Australian
government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and
other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime
minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there
have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime
Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out
their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two
mean to save their own skins. They will not.
Every time WikiLeaks
publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian
politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department:
"You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then
they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It
can't be both. Which is it?
It is neither. WikiLeaks has a
four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole
governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has
been harmed. But the US , with Australian government connivance, has
killed thousands in the past few months alone.
US Secretary of
Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no
sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the
Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence
the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan.
NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed
protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No
Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have
But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:
US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information
from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints,
iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in
violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats
may be targeted, too.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US
Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran ?s nuclear program stopped by
any means available.
Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".
Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.
US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees
from Guantanamo Bay . Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian
President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour
Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.
its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court
said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose
deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today
reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the


12-19-2010, 02:27 PM
Governments are corrupt and anyone who wants information to be suppressed is suspect to me. Whether one feels the information leaked is gossip or a national security violation is besides the point. Let the reader decide. We are always being fed untruths and lies and some people will just accept that. I say bring it on.

12-19-2010, 02:31 PM
in another world assange wouldnt sit with murdoch,a man who controls all.
murdoch an information "eater" and never over fed would say that wouldnt he?

12-19-2010, 02:33 PM
Probably be a good idea to do some fact checking on the Private's so called treatment.

Let's start with the fact he's at Quantico, a Marine instillation. Many in the military are showing an intense hatred for the Private and his deeds. For some it's seen as unpatriotic. It's possible that being in general population would not be very good for Private Maning's health.

Also it's reported that he has access to religious counseling as well as psychiatric counseling and he's not totally isolated. He can speak with other inmates in solitary AND is allowed visitors of his choosing.

Greenwald the blogger, who first reported conditions has since recanted much of it, although not as prominently as he first reported the story.

The thing that really sent red flags up for me though, was the Private's own attorney. He stated he was well aware of the conditions but hoped they would be addressed without public pressure.

This guy has been in solitary for months and the lawyer wasn't in any hurry to address it?

PLEASE! [[insert rolling eyes here)

12-19-2010, 02:48 PM
see my post #31 page 1
security clearence could be given to personnel to the highest level top secret or even black ops level [[that isnt even a "level" its so black),but if there was something they didnt need to know they wouldnt be told.
for example "bravo 2 zero" SAS unit [[gulf war 1) didnt know what "bravo 2 one" was up to [[or even knew it existed).in other words cleared to the same level but not everything on that level.


I'm not sure what you're saying. I can only tell you how it works in our government. Here, even if you have a high security clearance, it's still broken down into sub categories and on a need to know basis. The reasoning behind it is to hopefully prevent these types of breeches.

12-19-2010, 02:58 PM
thats what i was saying,i think!meant to say anyway!
its the only way to run the security clearance and a who sees what information system correctly

12-19-2010, 03:03 PM
My 3rd cup of coffee is kicking in:)

Another thing to remember. It is the job of the Department of Justice and the POTUS to follow the laws of the land. Even if that law was signed by your predecessor. [[an even better reason to research who you place in office, since laws have consequences.)

Good or bad it's still the law and you are sworn to uphold our laws until you can get it changed by act of Congress.

I've said this in my thread, things are not always as simple as they appear.

12-19-2010, 03:08 PM
thats what i was saying,i think!meant to say anyway!
its the only way to run the security clearance and a who sees what information system correctly

Ok, got it.:)

12-19-2010, 03:13 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot. The picture of Maning's cell was actually a stock photo. Not necessarily Manning's cell.

You would think the lawyer would provide an actual photo of the actual cell, if conditions were "so deplorable."

12-19-2010, 03:26 PM
Ms M: Just to be clear on two points, 1. of course the Private should be charged as a thief. If found guilty, he should be punished in a proper way [[with due regard for process and his rights though). 2 Mr Assange is a hustler like the rest and I certainly don't see him as a good guy. True or false, the rather seedy conduct he is being charged with in Sweden sets a context for him. Another guy abusing his position when given a platform. I do wonder though if these charges have also an element of 'honey-trap the celebrity' in them from the ladies concerned given the rather unusual nature of the charges.

I'm not so sure that revealing this gossip monitoring will really stop people gossiping, everyone loves a gossip in right company. Was it Hilary Clinton who said the other day something like 'the allies I've spoken to have said don't worry about it, you should hear what we say about you.' In my eyes more transparency about the human elements behind international diplomacy will have a good effect rather than bad. If dealing with a pompous buffoon alienates people, it must be better for this to be out in the open rather than letting it drag on like a sore that no-one wants to heal. Gossip is such that everyone on the inside knows it already. I see people rushing around my company every day saying that something is confidential and must not be discussed not realising that everyone is laughing at them behind their backs because everyone knows the secret anyway. Big organisations communicate in formal and often tardy ways so don't rely on them to know what's going on. It's better to be by the coffee machine in the morning when the cleaner takes her coffee. Through her job she has contact with everyone and everything and generally has to have a bit of personality in order to maintain the status quo with some of the egotists whose offices she cleans. You'll found out more about what's going on and get more done listening to her than anywhere else. Wikileaks is doing a bit of the cleaners job in that process.

That the private should pass through due process is clear to me, what is not clear is how the moral responsibility of the US Government and its employees is being taken on board in this. If this has been going on since 2007, it further strengthens the point that the wallet was left open by the window. If it was in the owners pocket where it should have been, the theft could not have taken place. In this respect someone in higher authority must have known or should have known what the private was doing. That information of a classified nature could be gathered in such a way doesn't alert someone in responsibility for guarding privileged information is astonishing. The CIA has ears everywhere but doesn't know what's going on in it's own backyard? The questions are endless but the conclusion comes back to the Neapolitan story. If you want to keep something out of others hands, the best thing to do is to look after it. This plainly has not been done here and the fault with this does not lie with Assange or the Private even if they have benefitted from this deficiency.

I hadn't imagined BOA to be government owned. My point is that it is another example of an organisation under American influence acting in a way that suits the US Government. It doesn't shock or surprise me. Probably I'd do the same in BOAs position. They can justify it as others have done before them [[Paypal, Mastercard and the like) and I'm sure that no-one will ever prove that the US Government nudged them in this direction. However it does strike a blow to the freedom of the press and in an insidious way has implications similar to the Chinese backdoor manipulation of Google by denying a non-favoured website finance. As such it also blurs further who is the good guy and bad guy.

I hope that you don't take my comments as anti-American or anti-Obama because they don't come from that optic. I love the US and a lot of people there. My love of US music is the reason I'm on this site. A lot of my political views have been influenced by what I've learned from soul music and the insights that gave into the struggles many Americans suffered over centuries. As a result I am always suspicious when a big shot claims a moral superiority and calls foul against a little guy and then starts using his muscle to get his way. I am much harder still on my own government and I voted for them only 6 months or so ago [[at least I voted for the current Home Secretary who is my local Member of Parliament).

12-19-2010, 03:35 PM
Last but not least [[and then I have a few things I need to do on the home front)

Another blogger was curious and decided to contact Lt. Villiard, one of th sources in the story. [[he tired to interview the second source but was denied an interview)

These are the questions [[below) that were asked and the answered. The blogger also noted, any other questions could be asked directly of Lt Villard since access to the Lt. can be easily found and obtained.

Bottom line, believe Greenwald [[who has recanted much of his article) or believe the Lt. but, informed opinions should be based on info from as many sources as possible and from all sides.

Q1) Is Pfc. Manning restricted on what he can watch on television?

A1) Pfc. Manning, as well as every other maximum custody detainee, is allotted approximately one hour of television per day. He may view any of the available channels. Viewing time may fluctuate slightly depending on the number of detainees being held at the time, but each detainee will be allotted an equal amount.

Q2) Is there anyone Pfc. Manning is not allowed to correspond or visit with?

A2) Pfc. Manning, as well as all other maximum custody detainees, is allowed to correspond and visit with only those HE has personally identified as whom he would like to correspond and visit with.

Q3) Is Pfc. Manning allowed to converse with other detainees?

A3) Pfc. Manning is allowed to converse with other detainees as long as the conversation does not interfere with good order and discipline.

Q4) How much time does Pfc. Manning get outside of his cell each day?

A4) Pfc. Manning is allotted one hour of recreation time per day, as is every other maximum custody detainee. Depending on the weather, his recreation time may be spend indoors or outdoors. Activities may include calisthenics, running, basketball, etc.

Q5) Is Pfc. Manning allowed to exercise in his cell?

A5) No detainees are allowed to exercise in their cell. As a matter of safety, all exercise must be supervised.

Q6) What type of bedding is Pfc. Manning issued?

A6) Pfc. Manning, as well as all other detainees, is issued adequate bedding.


A maximum custody detainee is able to receive the same privileges that a detainee classified as general population may receive. These privileges include but are not limited to sending and receiving mail, command visitation, personal visitation. A maximum custody detainee also receives daily television, hygiene call, reading and outside physical activity without restraint. He receives the same approved daily meals from the base food service master menu as any other service member would receive. Due to a potential of either high probability of escape, those likely to be dangerous or violent, and those whose escape would cause concern of a threat to life, property, or national security; maximum custody detainees are under constant supervision and have regular interaction with authorized supervisory personnel assigned to the facility to include physicians.

12-19-2010, 03:40 PM

This is my question. [[actually 2) What did you learn that was so important to your overall knowledge base?

Did you learn anything that would keep you safer and make you sleep better at night?

12-19-2010, 03:59 PM

I can't speak for any other country, I can only report what I know about the one I live in. In spite of what many believe our President is making an effort in the need for more transparency. But you and I both know there will always be things that are a matter of National Security.

What should and should not be classified or why it's classified is not my job or yours. So in truth, neither of us can speak on that subject with authority.

Also, I don't know about your country but here,there are too many in the general public that can't comprehend or get the facts straight even when they read the facts in black and white or hear them reported. They are too busy trying to twist those facts to reflect their personal beliefs. All the transparency in the world will not change that.

I don't knock transparency. I relish it but reality tells me when all is said and done, people will believe only what they want to believe whether the facts are transparent or not.

Obama To Nominate A Defender For Whistle-Blowers

by Ari Shapiro

A federal office that ran aground under the Bush administration is about to get a new leader. The White House plans to nominate Carolyn Lerner to run the Office of Special Counsel, which represents federal whistle-blowers and other victims of discrimination within the government.

Whistle-blower groups applaud the nomination and call it long overdue.

Read More [[http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132058706/obama-to-nominate-a-defender-for-whistle-blowers)

Now the question is, will the USA Republican Party block this nomination like so many others they have blocked?

12-19-2010, 04:17 PM
I really have to go but something you said was alarming.

A lot of my political views have been influenced by what I've learned from soul music and the insights that gave into the struggles many Americans suffered over centuries.

...and I said this in my own thread.

Whether I post it, or you read and or hear it from the media or the internet PLEASE, check it out for yourself and use as many resources as possible.

Please do not be influenced by ANYTHING political you read on a music forum. This forum is only a small representation of the people living in this country.

12-19-2010, 04:26 PM
1 In itself I learnt many things, the most important:
- the US Government manages a very good gossip service and I'd love to subscribe to it
- the Saudi neurosis on Iran was brought into sharp profile. Probably Iran knew this already so this would come as no surprise to them. But it has added a new dimension to me to comprehend the level of Saudi duplicity in the Gulf. Without excusing Bin Laden, I understand a bit better [[not to justify or excuse any terrorist action) why many Middle Eastern people are so anti-western. I never believed it was about religion, it's about western interest in Oil and defending Israel being used by some in the middle east to further their own wealth and interests at the expense of others. These 'others' need to fight back some way and some have chosen terrorism. It shows how dangerous the middle east is and that this extremism finds UK nationals in their ranks. It probably adds to my conviction that the Iraq invasion was unnecessary since the west was probably also being manipulated by some in the middle east that wanted Hussein put down and could have been handled differently
- it also confirms what I knew about you already that you are an excellent and determined analyst of what is going on in the US with a fine attention to detail

2 Unfortunately I still haven't found a holy grail to keep me safe and sleep better at night. Even alcohol seems to keep me awake more than it allows me to sleep so I rarely drink these days. However I do find the more information I have about what's going on in our name, the more I realise that those in control are humans like me so generally are incompetent, distant and disorganised. By keeping them slightly off-balance they can be stopped from becoming dictators and doing something truly dreadful. In that way, Wikileaks helps

12-19-2010, 04:33 PM
my influences do not come so much from the forum but from the music and the artists, hearing many of the artists I loved as a child talk about living and working in pre-civil-rights days and what they and their forebears suffered was an awkward wake-up call to me. Curtis Mayfields gentleness is handling this remains an inspiration. It opened up going to Memphis and visiting the Lorraine Motel and Civil Rights Museum and seeing what people would do to another because of the colour of his skin and these things were condoned by authority at the time. these are the things I meant by mistrusting what the big government says. It doesn't mean everything government does is wrong but if you don't question it, don't be surprised if it comes back and bites you

12-19-2010, 04:43 PM
Ms M enjoy the rest of your day!

12-19-2010, 05:10 PM
I don't knock transparency. I relish it but reality tells me when all is said and done, people will believe only what they want to believe whether the facts are transparent or not.

Obama To Nominate A Defender For Whistle-Blowers

by Ari Shapiro

Read More [[http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132058706/obama-to-nominate-a-defender-for-whistle-blowers)

Now the question is, will the USA Republican Party block this nomination like so many others they have blocked?

Seems like the previous appointment was the classic 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

The new appointment seems a step in the right direction. Lets hope both Obama and the Republicans can come to an agreement on this.

12-19-2010, 07:11 PM
You're so full of it.;)

You knew all of that stuff before this wikileaks scandal hit the 24 hr news cycle, and I have the emails to prove it.;):D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Nice try though and thanks, on the compliment.:cool:

12-19-2010, 07:28 PM
Seriously though

Bush jr. left a big mess and that's an understatement but he can't even take credit for all of it.
A lot of it started with Reaganomics and his dumbing down of America. It snowballed from there, including help from Pres. Clinton.

It's why I have taken up the cause for Campaign finance reform in our country. Until we free our election system from corporate money we're going to continue to be screwed.

I've said it before, it doesn't matter the party. The political party only determines how bad the screwing and whether you get a thanks, dinner and doggie bag after.

President Obama to his credit is trying to work around it but only he can do so much until the rest of the country gets the message.

We really are the change we've been looking for. Once we stop fighting one another, whining, being scared and paying attention, maybe we will finally realize it. Hopefully the next generation will.


12-19-2010, 07:40 PM

I should say it started full force with Reagan because you can actually trace things back even further.
Franklin Roosevelt was probably the only true Progressive president this country has seen in modern times. There is a reason there hasn't been one since.

Carter tried and was bulldozed by Republicans and turned into a joke by the media back then. It's only now people are realizing what he was trying to tell us. Sadly the same will probably happen to Obama and most people will not recognize what he did until another Bush Jr. or worse takes over.

12-19-2010, 11:10 PM
There is a certain irony in this headline [[shaking head)

Assange Lawyers Furious Over Leaked Police Report

Lawd love a duck!:rolleyes:

The story if anyone is interested. [[http://www.newser.com/story/107897/assange-lawyers-furious-over-leaked-police-report.html)

I especially like this part.

The next sound you hear will be the world’s tiniest violin playing for Julian Assange.

12-19-2010, 11:31 PM
Let me see if I understand this. The are upset about leaks about the leaker? Brings a smile to my face.

12-20-2010, 01:12 PM

when you get a chance, please chk your SDF email.
and hope you're feeling better.

12-21-2010, 07:16 PM
Hi Ms M, have replied on SDF mail.

am feeling better more or less, thanks for asking.

12-21-2010, 08:51 PM
Okee dokee;)