What do you think of Wkileaks?

[yomomma1]

That link has a virus dude.

Huh I have noscript on. The scripts running are from legitimate websites, Ie from some google services.

[Octopod]

Could be a false positive. I was just going by what AVG said.

[Limewater]

Could be a false positive. I was just going by what AVG said.

I'm running Avast! and NoScript as well. Avast! didn't complain, and all of the scripts I'm seeing appear to be from legitimate sources. Hmmm...

EDIT: To be on the safe side, I think I'll just edit the relevant text into my previous post and put a warning above the link.

[jfrost]

I agree completely with Hatta. Government shouldn't keep any information from the citizens.

Government itself is a much more immediate threat to the citizens than any foreign terrorist.

???????????????????????/////////////////

You can't ever see a situation where A government shouldn't tell its citizens, etc, about something?

*examples*

I see you're pretty shocked. I'm sorry for that. But no, I can't.

[MrPopo]

Freedom of Press and Public right to information vs National Security

There is very little conflict here. Allowing those in power to do whatever they want in the name of national security is gravely damaging to national security.

Do whatever they want? Of course not, we don't want to allow that. But at the same time the release of information can be very damaging to our national security. Let's say, for example, we're sending in a SWAT team to capture a known domestic serial killer. If they have the element of surprise they can take him down quickly and with no casualties. If, however, information about the raid is leaked and made public the serial killer can either escape to continue his spree or get into a shootout with the SWAT team, leading to fatalities. I'd certainly want that information to stay confidential until after he's in the bag.

I believe any story that would put our soldiers at the battlefront at risk should be censored.

I believe that any politician who would put our soldiers at risk at the battlefront should be censured.

You do realize that putting a soldier at the battlefront is putting them at risk. I hope you're not claiming that the military should be abolished, since it puts soldiers at risk.

If a good story about the horrors of war can drum up public support to bring the boys back home sooner than later, that saves lives. That's the job of a free press.

The job of the free press is NOT to save lives. It's there to ensure the flow of ideas and to hold government officials to a measure of accountablility. At the same time, most major news outlets self censor certain stories to avoid causing harm to American soldiers or other government employees who might be affeted by sensitive information coming out.

Keep in mind that the greatest threat we face as a people comes from our own government. Yes, some people from Afghanistan sent terrorists over here and killed nearly 3000 Americans. In response, our government turned around and sent over 4000 Americans to their deaths in Iraq. This is why we have to keep an extremely strict watch over everything the government does. They are far greater threats than any terrorist.

So I take it you would have been against our involvement in WW1 and WW2, right? Especially WW1, where we lost a bare handful of citizens to German U-Boats but we still send our boys over there and lost many times more than we lost. You're taking an extremely narrow view. We lost 3k in a single attack. The goal of sending our soldiers over to the Middle East is to try and prevent future attacks. Note that I'm not going to argue the efficacy of the actual battle plan, I'm merely talking about the intent of the action. If we didn't take any action after the 9/11 attack that tells the rest of the world (and our own citizens to boot) that we don't care if foreign entities attack our citizens.

[Hatta]

Do whatever they want? Of course not, we don't want to allow that. But at the same time the release of information can be very damaging to our national security.

Yes, we can all come up with scenarios where it would be appropriate to hide information, if we could trust that it won't be misused. But that trust would be incredibly misplaced, as we have more to fear from our own government than any external threat.

You do realize that putting a soldier at the battlefront is putting them at risk. I hope you're not claiming that the military should be abolished, since it puts soldiers at risk.

I think we could do a damn good job of defending the homeland with well trained volunteer citizen militias. We certainly should stop invading foreign countries.

The job of the free press is NOT to save lives. It's there to ensure the flow of ideas and to hold government officials to a measure of accountablility.

Keeping government officials accountable for their actions saves lives. You've seen how well it works when we allow the financial industry and oil industry to regulate themselves. Why would you allow the government to operate in secret and not expect even greater disasters?

At the same time, most major news outlets self censor certain stories to avoid causing harm to American soldiers or other government employees who might be affeted by sensitive information coming out.

Good. I trust journalists to make that decision a lot more than I trust the military.

So I take it you would have been against our involvement in WW1 and WW2, right? Especially WW1, where we lost a bare handful of citizens to German U-Boats but we still send our boys over there and lost many times more than we lost.

Yeah, pretty much.

You're taking an extremely narrow view. We lost 3k in a single attack. The goal of sending our soldiers over to the Middle East is to try and prevent future attacks.

Sure, that's what they want you to think. They sold this plan to the American people based on secret evidence. If we had seen how bad the evidence really was, we could have avoided the war in Iraq. This is a pretty clear example of how government secrecy in the name of national security costs us more lives than it saves.

If we didn't take any action after the 9/11 attack that tells the rest of the world (and our own citizens to boot) that we don't care if foreign entities attack our citizens.

Instead we've shown the rest of the world how willing we are to shoot ourselves in the foot just to look tough. American foreign policy reminds me a lot of this guy.

[MrPopo]

Do whatever they want? Of course not, we don't want to allow that. But at the same time the release of information can be very damaging to our national security.

Yes, we can all come up with scenarios where it would be appropriate to hide information, if we could trust that it won't be misused. But that trust would be incredibly misplaced, as we have more to fear from our own government than any external threat.

So you obviously have a high level of paranoia regarding our government, and I won't be able to dissuade you from that. I'll avoid arguing with you on any points based on said paranoia then, as it'll just be a waste of time.

You do realize that putting a soldier at the battlefront is putting them at risk. I hope you're not claiming that the military should be abolished, since it puts soldiers at risk.

I think we could do a damn good job of defending the homeland with well trained volunteer citizen militias. We certainly should stop invading foreign countries.

We already have a well trained volunteer force; it's called the US Armed Forces. Yes, I know the provision for the draft technically still exists, but the military doesn't want a conscript force anymore. It's been proven that a vonunteer army is much more effective. And as for the invading bit, that's just short sighted. Let's say for the sake of argument that Canada decided they want to invade us. They push in a bit and capture some of our states on the border. We then push them back to the original borders. Are you suggesting that we stop the conflict there with no reprisals for the invasion?

The job of the free press is NOT to save lives. It's there to ensure the flow of ideas and to hold government officials to a measure of accountablility.

Keeping government officials accountable for their actions saves lives. You've seen how well it works when we allow the financial industry and oil industry to regulate themselves. Why would you allow the government to operate in secret and not expect even greater disasters?

Again, I'm not advocating total secrecy. I'm arguing that some things need to remain secret for some amount of time because there are very specific people who's lives are at risk. I have a deep cover operative in a hostile foreign country. If his identity is revelead he will be killed. It would be irresponsible for someone who comes into possession of his identity to make it public.

At the same time, most major news outlets self censor certain stories to avoid causing harm to American soldiers or other government employees who might be affeted by sensitive information coming out.

Good. I trust journalists to make that decision a lot more than I trust the military.

Here's the fun thing, though. The military has every right to stop a journalist from publishing information that would put the safety of military personnel at risk if the journalist was going to say "Fuck it, the public as a right to know." That whole clause in the first amendment that also prevents you from shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. And the military is in the BEST position to determine if a piece of information should get out or not. The journalist is only working with scraps of information; the military has the full picture.

So I take it you would have been against our involvement in WW1 and WW2, right? Especially WW1, where we lost a bare handful of citizens to German U-Boats but we still send our boys over there and lost many times more than we lost.

Yeah, pretty much.

So let's extrapolate this stance a bit. Let's say a hiker is lost on a mountain. Should we only send one person to look for him, so only one person is at risk? Do you truly see no value in risking many lives for a few? And yes, I realize I'm simplifying the reasons why we got involved in WW1 & 2. There was also the considerations of the state of world affairs, but you seem to have no interest in that sort of thing.

You're taking an extremely narrow view. We lost 3k in a single attack. The goal of sending our soldiers over to the Middle East is to try and prevent future attacks.

Sure, that's what they want you to think. They sold this plan to the American people based on secret evidence. If we had seen how bad the evidence really was, we could have avoided the war in Iraq. This is a pretty clear example of how government secrecy in the name of national security costs us more lives than it saves.

Except you can't calculate how many lives it saved. The best you can do is calculate how many lives it avenged. And can you honestly say that Iraq was better off under Hussein? Just because we don't accomplish one goal doesn't mean we haven't done some good.

If we didn't take any action after the 9/11 attack that tells the rest of the world (and our own citizens to boot) that we don't care if foreign entities attack our citizens.

Instead we've shown the rest of the world how willing we are to shoot ourselves in the foot just to look tough. American foreign policy reminds me a lot of this guy.

See, now you're confusing intention with execution. And we still made the point that if you threaten our citizens we are going to bomb the shit out of your country. It won't stop everything but it does make people think twice.

[Octopod]

And can you honestly say that Iraq was better off under Hussein? Just because we don't accomplish one goal doesn't mean we haven't done some good.

You have to remember though dude that we put him in power in the first place. Who is to say that who ever we leave in power this time is going to be any different.

[Hatta]

So you obviously have a high level of paranoia regarding our government

It's not paranoia when the danger is real. I've shown several times in this thread how the US government has cost more Americans their lives than middle eastern terrorists have. Those are factual numbers, and if you choose to ignore them you're just naive.

And as for the invading bit, that's just short sighted. Let's say for the sake of argument that Canada decided they want to invade us. They push in a bit and capture some of our states on the border. We then push them back to the original borders. Are you suggesting that we stop the conflict there with no reprisals for the invasion?

There's a big difference between self-defense and the colonialism we've been engaged in for the past decade.

Again, I'm not advocating total secrecy. I'm arguing that some things need to remain secret for some amount of time because there are very specific people who's lives are at risk.

I'm sympathetic in principle, but the government has proven untrustworthy.

And the military is in the BEST position to determine if a piece of information should get out or not.

The military also has the most to gain by covering up bad deeds.

Let's say a hiker is lost on a mountain. Should we only send one person to look for him, so only one person is at risk? Do you truly see no value in risking many lives for a few?

Depends on the odds. If there's a better than 50% chance that the guy you send out will come back with the guy you lost, then the odds work out in favor of searching. If, on average, you lose more men then you get back then you should stop.

Except you can't calculate how many lives it saved.

I think an upper limit of one 9/11 attack per decade is a pretty good estimate. They had everything in their favor on 9/11. Unsuspecting public, vulnerable cockpits, etc., etc. I don't think there's a chance in hell that they'd be able to do it again, but once per decade seems fair for the sake of argument. If you look at the statistics, over 50% of suicide bombers manage to kill only themselves. These people are not a serious threat to the American way of life. We are more resiliant than that.

People like Bush, Cheney, Obama, Lieberman, etc. Now *they* are a threat to the American way of life.

And we still made the point that if you threaten our citizens we are going to bomb the shit out of your country.

Actually, we made the point that our hands our totally full with two intractable wars, so our enemies can go ahead and do whatever they want without fear. See Iran, North Korea.

[AppleQueso]

And we still made the point that if you threaten our citizens we are going to bomb the shit out of your country.

Actually, we made the point that our hands our totally full with two intractable wars, so our enemies can go ahead and do whatever they want without fear. See Iran, North Korea.

Oh you mean the two countries that haven't actually done anything other than talk shit?