A quote from the DoD report published on the 15th that deserves particular emphasis:

Originally posted by joey_hv
reply to post by dalan.

 

no I said "thread" lightly as in be careful what you post online. it is not a typo.

anyways, it is my country these a-holes are cyber attacking by posting sensitive materials on the internet. whatever my country does to ensure we win so be it.

and it is not criminals i want to protect i am into protecting my friends and their friends that are serving overseas.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by joey_hv]

Thread-Lightly? Tread-lightly? Either way, you are still protecting criminals.

Cyber attacking? I didn't know that exposing the truth was an attack? Although I can see how it would be misconstrued as such from your perspective.

whatever my country does to ensure we win so be it.

So like, what are we winning at? Trying to see who can load up the most barrels of oil the fastest?

and it is not criminals i want to protect i am into protecting my friends and their friends that are serving overseas.

Sure, if you take a stance pro-Federal Government you are protecting criminals. There is no middle ground. Your friends are just paid mercenaries fighting for Corporations.

They are also dying for profit.

The people exposing the lies of the Federal Government are doing more to actually protect your friends.

wiki leaks has a goal to bring the truth to the public. that means releasing documents that expose lies. if those lies happen to disclose information that puts our troops in danger, guess what, that means they were already in danger.

shutting down wiki leaks is an affront to truth and freedom. and by hiding these small lies tptb are covering up the bigger lie, like why we are fighting in the first place, what we are doing there and so on.

for those of you that side with the government on this issue feel free to stop posting on here because this site releases info as well. ats could be shut down with the same argument.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Soldier safety is a concern IF they are already in harms' way.

The way to protect your soldiers is that you deploy them when necessary (I understand this word better than our current spate of leaders.) and they fight in a manner which brings HONOR to the cause for which they fight.

Otherwise it's not a democracy for which they fight.

How about that? Maybe they aren't fighting for us but instead a paycheck. They maybe more mercenary than civilians serving their country. Maybe they get paid too well. Maybe they receive too many benefits.

They aren't fighting the Nazis and their ilk anymore. These are wars of our leadership's (??) CHOOSING, not necessity. We bribe the military to participate in these wars of conquest. Otherwise the Armed Forces would be of token size to defend our borders from the Canadians and Mexicans.

If you agree that secrets like the ones that Wikileaks make public are the enemy of freedom and transparancy, then you should logically agree that Wikileaks is on the side of freedom and tranparancy. Wikileaks must be protected. We cannot allow them to be silenced and forgot about.

Originally posted by crazyinthemiddle

Originally posted by devildogUSMC
THIS IS FROM THE DOD REPORT ON THE 15TH
"The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders...

Not to downplay the issue or anything, but these actions are probably stated very clearly in the nondisclosure/topsecret clearance forms that these people had to sign to get these "insider" jobs. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that's the breaks.

There will always be whistleblowers who stick their neck out when they feel the information is worth more than their job. And if I was a federal prosecutor, I would overlook breaking a contract if they could provide concrete evidence of serious wrong-doings.

Anyway, bottom line: Not surprised.

in my mind, if you're aware of illegal or unconstitutional(which is also illegal, but meaning a government's illegal actions rather than a company's or persons)activity, you're duty bound to get the word and evidence out to the world as fast and effectively as possible and at that point nondisclosure agreements and clearances become null and void.

Endanger the troops my arse. Look at Wikileaks for yourself and see the sort of things they release. Intel info on our troops in the Middle East? You can't be serious.

If some "traitor" wants to give us pictures of the govt with their pants down, more power to them. I sure as hell would.

reply to post by joey_hv


Seriously?

There is a massive difference between "Protecting America" and keeping the truth from the masses.

Government all use "National Security" for everything.

Their goal is simple.

To keep us from asking questions....from reasearching....from finding answers.

To keep us from thinking.


That is one of the reasons government exist.

Help the rich get richer by breaking the backs of the poor.

Keep the poor and tired masses from everything.

Keep us uninformed and dull so they can make the decisions for us, because as you know, only politicians can decided what they think is best for us.

I'm glad there are places like Wikileaks.

IF we don't ask questions, if we don't demand accountability...

WE ARE JUST SHEEP.

Wikileaks has topped the board recently, they are really getting everyone's attention on the net. If they actually release the video on April 5th they claim they have of military shooting iraqi journalists then we need to make it go viral. We need to spread it to the point where they have to put it on the news.

Originally posted by joey_hv
The document is from 2008.
also, I don't see what is wrong with the U.S. trying to protect its people against sensitive military information being leaked out by some Euro trash in Iceland and the damm terrorizers getting it.

Hello,
"some Euro trash in Iceland and the damm terrorizers getting it."
Sure, where was the military on Sep. 11, 2001?
You're talking about the department of defense here, right?

As I understand; wikileaks is an organization that devotes it's resources to unveiling the hidden agenda, and who's ever agenda it happens to be. Injustices is key word.

Originally posted by largo
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

Soldier safety is a concern IF they are already in harms' way.

The way to protect your soldiers is that you deploy them when necessary (I understand this word better than our current spate of leaders.) and they fight in a manner which brings HONOR to the cause for which they fight.

Being in a war zone is dangerous. That is about the closest thing to a no brainer there is. I also agree that the best way to keep them safe is not to put them on the front lines. That is about as common as common sense gets.

However, the troops are on the front lines. So releasing information that exposes their weakness or tactics makes it more dangerous. Even though I disagree with the war, I disagree even more with people (especially Americans) doing things to make them more vulnerable. I want as many to come home in one piece as possible.

My grandpa volunteered for three tours of duty in Vietnam. He didn't do it for freedom. He did it because he didn't want to see other Americans die. He volunteered to save the lives of men being forced in to war against their choice. So, do not lecture me about serving with honor. My grandpa came home with two purple hearts, an oak leaf cluster, and an exemplary service award. The people of this country repaid him by spitting in his face while he walked through the airport. They never took time to think about the fact he crawled through underground tunnels with nothing but a knife and Colt 1911 so they wouldn't have to.

You want to talk about honor? How about honoring the men and women serving by not making their lives harder. Protest the war in the streets if you want too. I have done it. Write your congressman. Refuse to do business with companies profitting off of war. But, do not dare say that by releasing info that makes them vulnerable you are doing them a service. That is a lie with out justification.

How about that? Maybe they aren't fighting for us but instead a paycheck. They maybe more mercenary than civilians serving their country. Maybe they get paid too well. Maybe they receive too many benefits.

They get paid too much? Really, do you believe that? An E1 Private in the army makes $17,366 a year. An E2 pay grade makes $19,465 dollars a year. That isn't exactly raking in the money. If you have two kids you qualify for food stamps and medicaid.

My cousin was an air traffic controller in the Air Force. After six years he was making about $30,000 a year. That is about 1/3 of what the private sector pays for the same position.

As far as benifits go, they are a joke. The V.A misdiagnosed my grandpa's lung cancer for over a year. It was everything from allergies to pneumonia. By the time they diagnosed it properly it had receached stage four. It was terminal. They never ordered the right test because they didn't want to tax a system that was overburdened. That came out of his primary doctor's own mouth.

They aren't fighting the Nazis and their ilk anymore. These are wars of our leadership's (??) CHOOSING, not necessity. We bribe the military to participate in these wars of conquest. Otherwise the Armed Forces would be of token size to defend our borders from the Canadians and Mexicans.

Let me get this right. By paying our soldiers less than a used car salesman, offering them free medical, and barracks that make college dorms look nice we are bribing them? Yes they can get money for college, but I had that last time I worked in retail. They get hazard pay for going to war. A lot of police officers get hazard pay when they work for the SWAT team. It isn't a bribe, it is called a compensation package. Just like when you go to your job for the agreed benifits and salary. It is compensation for services rendered.

What wrong doing is prevented by revealing the authentication codes for military aircraft? What evil did they stop by posting the security analysis for a missle range facility? What was accomplished by posting the location of our nuclear sites?

National security is an over used excuse. However, the choices aren't complete secrecy or complete disclosure. We have to realize that even when we disagree with a war getting more Americans killed doesn't make the war any less wrong. Putting more lives in unnecessary danger does not some how make the anti war side more right. A higher body count leads to nothing but more heart ache and misery for families.

So, yes there is a responsiblity to exercise discretion in leaking information. You must weigh the actual benefits versus the human cost. If the information does not prove or prevent an illegal action/wrong doing then the burden is even higher.

Originally posted by joey_hv
reply to post by dalan.

 

no I said "thread" lightly as in be careful what you post online. it is not a typo.

anyways, it is my country these a-holes are cyber attacking by posting sensitive materials on the internet. whatever my country does to ensure we win so be it.

and it is not criminals i want to protect i am into protecting my friends and their friends that are serving overseas.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by joey_hv]

So...

Last time I checked, your friends overseas choose to join the military, and fight in a war (actually it's a conflict, war was never officially declared by congress (unlike WWII) in either Iraq or Afghanistan).

Sucks to be shot at, especially when you knew joining up that you'd be a target.

To use the intel that is spread by wikileaks (like the nuclear sites for example) -- you'd have to have VAST resources, complex organizational structure...

Not live in CAVES like how we are told these "NEBULOUS TERRORISTS" do.

What a load of BS, we can see what type of screw (flat or phillips) is on the wing of a moving Boeing 747 from space--we can't find some rag-tag a-holes in caves?

The stupidity of the American people shames me.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by MystikMushroom]

reply to post by devildogUSMC


Very big story thanks for posting, i'm going to keep my eye on this one very closely. I haven't been on this site for long but i'm sure issues like this are exactly what the site was created for.

I think Obama needs to address this issue to the public before it gets out of hand.

If they close down Wikileaks then surely there will be some revolt.

reply to post by indigothefish


Wikileaks are the group that leaked the UK MP's expenses docs in 2009 as well as many other topics heres a link to a british paper The Guardian wrote about Wikileaks www.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by jibeho
Let's just hope that any intel leaked into this site does not result in the deaths of innocent American Civilians or our Troops abroad.

Any confidential information leaked to this site should be considered a criminal act by the person who shared it. Let's talk treason, traitor, and thief... We know what can happen to these treasonous folks.

Kind of reminds me of a network reporter embedded with troops who subsequently reveals the troops movements and location via live TV broadcast.

Yah, We know what happens to them. They go on to become Vice Presidents and Presidents and White house staffers. Like "DICK" Chenney and George "BUSH"

wiki leaks is making the PTB anxious.....

thankfully most sheeple are resistant to uncomfortable truths