Wikileaks, Iraq edition

[GarfieldtheCat]

Does anyone have a direct link to independent analysis of the 285,000 deaths number? All I'm finding is a reference to Al Jazeera saying it's 285,000.

Nope....I've seen a couple of other sites say that the Pentagon lied by ~30,000, making the deaths that they admit to from 77k to ~115k.

So that inital number may be wrong, but regardless, the Pentagon knowing lied about the death count.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

The USA needs to raid the offices/servers of Wikileaks and arrest anyone who is involved.

The government needs to show that this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

Blind obedience to the gov FTL!

Why, because everyone can see how badly we screwed up? See how many innocent people were really killed?

Afraid of the facts?

 

[CallMeJoe]

The USA needs to raid the offices/servers of Wikileaks and arrest anyone who is involved.
The government needs to show that this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

Sweden would not be pleased, nor would be Australia.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Sweden would not be pleased, nor would be Australia.

Neither would any freedom loving person. It's an act loved only by fascists and autocrats.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Neither would any freedom loving person. It's an act loved only by fascists and autocrats.

It's a given that many of the board's "Conservatives" have no problem with an authoritarian government if they can claim that "National Security" is at issue. I thought perhaps national sovereignty of non-Muslim nations might give them second thoughts.

 

[her209]

The USA needs to raid the offices/servers of Wikileaks and arrest anyone who is involved.

The government needs to show that this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_k7WPv2EvY

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Neither would any freedom loving person. It's an act loved only by fascists and autocrats.

Lets say Wikileaks got a hold of a document listing ALL US intelligence personnel working undercover around the world, and went on to publish it. What is the US justified in doing then?

 

[Vette73]

Lets say Wikileaks got a hold of a document listing ALL US intelligence personnel working undercover around the world, and went on to publish it. What is the US justified in doing then?

Last I checked that would probable be breaking the law of the other countries they are in.

Should russia have invaded when their intelligence personnel working undercover were outed?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Last I checked that would probable be breaking the law of the other countries they are in.

Yes, just how naive are you? Even the most enlightened governments run covert operations. That's a part of our world and you should get used to it. This is probably a good part of the reason you live in the warmth of your house and not in a barren desert post a nuclear holocaust.

Should russia have invaded when their intelligence personnel working undercover were outed?

It's more complicated when the outing is done (or initiated) by other countries compared to when it's done by a private body. Countries have some balance between them, even when US discovered the last ring of Russian spies they still let them work uninterrupted for years. There's some balance in the intelligence community, and usually countries would rather not embarrass one another by running to the press when finding spy rings, for many reasons (counter-intelligence being one). Most prefer to finish it quietly.

Intelligence networks take years to build and can be very quickly destroyed. My answer is that if Wikileaks got documents that put intelligence efforts and the lives of field operatives at an immediate and undisputed danger, I won't rule out the assassination of whoever has to die in order to keep this information secret.

This, to me, is no different than assassinating a terrorist that's about to carry out an attack - only that such documents are much more damaging than the inconvenience and sorrow caused by an isolated attack on civilians.

As long as the documents are political in nature, it's an inconvenience, and certainly doesn't warrant loss of life; if Wikileaks had information of US agents operating in Iran, and was about to go public with it, it would be a good idea to make them disappear.

 

[Vette73]

Yes, just how naive are you? Even the most enlightened governments run covert operations. That's a part of our world and you should get used to it. This is probably a good part of the reason you live in the warmth of your house and not in a barren desert post a nuclear holocaust.



It's more complicated when the outing is done (or initiated) by other countries compared to when it's done by a private body. Countries have some balance between them, even when US discovered the last ring of Russian spies they still let them work uninterrupted for years. There's some balance in the intelligence community, and usually countries would rather not embarrass one another by running to the press when finding spy rings, for many reasons (counter-intelligence being one). Most prefer to finish it quietly.

Intelligence networks take years to build and can be very quickly destroyed. My answer is that if Wikileaks got documents that put intelligence efforts and the lives of field operatives at an immediate and undisputed danger, I won't rule out the assassination of whoever has to die in order to keep this information secret.

This, to me, is no different than assassinating a terrorist that's about to carry out an attack - only that such documents are much more damaging than the inconvenience and sorrow caused by an isolated attack on civilians.

As long as the documents are political in nature, it's an inconvenience, and certainly doesn't warrant loss of life; if Wikileaks had information of US agents operating in Iran, and was about to go public with it, it would be a good idea to make them disappear.

Oh so if china outed all US agents its ok as they also have agents out there as well.
But if someone shows how the Gov is lieing to its own people they should be killed.

Got it. :hmm:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Lets say Wikileaks got a hold of a document listing ALL US intelligence personnel working undercover around the world, and went on to publish it. What is the US justified in doing then?

Let's see that happen first. No one has done anything remotely close.

The ONLY things that ANYONE should EVER be able to 'classify' are troop movements, codes/frequencies, identities of lawful and necessary agents, and the like. Covering up ANYTHING else should be an IMMEDIATE death sentence.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Let's see that happen first. No one has done anything remotely close.

The ONLY things that ANYONE should EVER be able to 'classify' are troop movements, codes/frequencies, identities of lawful and necessary agents, and the like. Covering up ANYTHING else should be an IMMEDIATE death sentence.

Wow, death sentence? I wouldn't go that far. What about intelligence activities that contradict international laws or the laws of the country in which they're performed? Death sentence too? NSA snooping, death sentence?

People just don't see the big picture - well, maybe because it's classified in the first place :hmm:

I'm not for government coverups, but there are some cases in which it's essential. Lets say an American soldier company burned down mosques. Other than the pornographic "need to know everything", what good would disclosing the information do? It will surely cause an uproar within Muslims, serve as an excuse to further harm American targets and wouldn't help the struggling Iraqi government one bit.

So, assuming these soldiers were already punished for their deeds within the military, what good does getting this information out do?

It's one thing to overlook such incidents and let the involved go unpunished, and it's another thing to broadcast this information for the public.

Now, if a soldier from that imaginary squadron went on and leaked the story, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If someone, on the other hand, stole tens of thousands of documents without any discretion, it's another thing altogether. I don't want to see whistle blowers get punished, but this is treachery.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Wow, death sentence? I wouldn't go that far. What about intelligence activities that contradict international laws or the laws of the country in which they're performed? Death sentence too? NSA snooping, death sentence?

Yep.

People just don't see the big picture - well, maybe because it's classified in the first place :hmm:

I'm not for government coverups, but there are some cases in which it's essential. Lets say an American soldier company burned down mosques. Other than the pornographic "need to know everything", what good would disclosing the information do? It will surely cause an uproar within Muslims, serve as an excuse to further harm American targets and wouldn't help the struggling Iraqi government one bit.

It would reiterate to all that such actions were not allowed, both to dissuade others from doing the same and to satiate muslims the world over to reduce the likelihood of blowback (because they'll already know about it or assume it anyway; the only question is rather they see us condemn it or conceal it). Further, it reassures the citizens that controls over the military are in place and that they are indeed acting correctly and being held accountable. It also demonstrates government transparency which is absolutely essential for the continuation of the nation.

So, assuming these soldiers were already punished for their deeds within the military, what good does getting this information out do?

It's one thing to overlook such incidents and let the involved go unpunished, and it's another thing to broadcast this information for the public.

Now, if a soldier from that imaginary squadron went on and leaked the story, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If someone, on the other hand, stole tens of thousands of documents without any discretion, it's another thing altogether. I don't want to see whistle blowers get punished, but this is treachery.

First, I don't think we can assume they would be punished...at least no where near severely enough. The government, ESPECIALLY the military, has a LONG history of covering this stuff up completely and taking NO action until forced by public outcry to do so.

Second, stories (even first-hand accounts) are not overly reliable. Hard data and supporting evidence are essential to fact-finding.

Finally, the treachery is on the part of those who would conceal information from the public.

Again, an absolute fundamental difference of opinion which can be neither resolved nor compromised. One of the two sides is simply going to lose and be disenfranchised.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Yep.

Wonderful, so in one swipe you killed all US intelligence personnel, top-to-bottom. That's a very reasonable position that you hold. If you don't get to know about all the juicy details - everyone should die.

First, I don't think we can assume they would be punished...at least no where near severely enough. The government, ESPECIALLY the military, has a LONG history of covering this stuff up completely and taking NO action until forced by public outcry to do so.

Fair enough, there can be independent mechanisms in place for disclosure of such information, or for assuring effective handling. An audit body that has no relations to the Pentagon and isn't funded by the DoD. Put some former DA's in there and let them do their work. I still think it's shouldn't be handled on the front pages.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Wonderful, so in one swipe you killed all US intelligence personnel, top-to-bottom. That's a very reasonable position that you hold. If you don't get to know about all the juicy details - everyone should die.

Not at all. You specifically names actions deemed illegal. The US isn't special...we don't get to do things we'd condemn others for. We don't get carte blanche to run the world any way we choose. Our rights end at our borders, and ANYONE who acts outside that influence has committed a crime...both against the nation in question AND against the american people (by operating outside the scope and purpose of our foundations, and by risking retributions against innocent people for their actions).

I've already agreed that there are some few things people shouldn't get to know. Outside that, intelligence operatives should feel free to operate at will within our borders (though not against our citizens), or in accordance with international law and agreement. Just remember that doing so authorizes EVERY other nation to do the EXACT same things against us that we do against others.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Not at all. You specifically names actions deemed illegal. The US isn't special...we don't get to do things we'd condemn others for. We don't get carte blanche to run the world any way we choose. Our rights end at our borders, and ANYONE who acts outside that influence has committed a crime...both against the nation in question AND against the american people (by operating outside the scope and purpose of our foundations, and by risking retributions against innocent people for their actions).

I've already agreed that there are some few things people shouldn't get to know. Outside that, intelligence operatives should feel free to operate at will within our borders (though not against our citizens), or in accordance with international law and agreement. Just remember that doing so authorizes EVERY other nation to do the EXACT same things against us that we do against others.

90% of the intelligence that the US has, where does it come from?

* Clandestine agents and spies (illegal)
* Paramilitary operations (doubly illegal)
* Wiretapping on a massive scale (NSA operations, not FBI-scale; illegal, and in part pertaining to US citizens as well)
* Hacking (illegal)
* Surveillance flights (US has been running SR-71s for years over sovereign airspace of various countries - illegal). The same goes for violation of territorial water using submarines.
* Interrogation (illegal)

And that's only dealing with intelligence, not prevention. That's an even darker world of disappearing people. Obviously US is not alone on this, that's how every intelligence organization works. So dissolve all intelligence services and everything will be just fine, right?

International law is a comfortable facade to keep liberals and bleeding hearts happy, but no one abides by them. Whoever thinks the international law has any meaning is a fool. That's why Miloshovitz can find himself in Hague but Bush will never have to face a tribunal (not that he has to, in my opinion).

 

[PrinceofWands]

90% of the intelligence that the US has, where does it come from?

* Clandestine agents and spies (illegal)
* Paramilitary operations (doubly illegal)
* Wiretapping on a massive scale (NSA operations, not FBI-scale; illegal, and in part pertaining to US citizens as well)
* Hacking (illegal)
* Surveillance flights (US has been running SR-71s for years over sovereign airspace of various countries - illegal). The same goes for violation of territorial water using submarines.
* Interrogation (illegal)

And that's only dealing with intelligence, not prevention. That's an even darker world of disappearing people. Obviously US is not alone on this, that's how every intelligence organization works. So dissolve all intelligence services and everything will be just fine, right?

International law is a comfortable facade to keep liberals and bleeding hearts happy, but no one abides by them. Whoever thinks the international law has any meaning is a fool. That's why Miloshovitz can find himself in Hague but Bush will never have to face a tribunal (not that he has to, in my opinion).

And that's everything that's wrong with the world. People who believe as you do are TERRIBLE human beings. You're either stupid, deluded, or purely evil, and frankly you're a threat to the continued existence of mankind. *shrug* that's how I see it.

 

[JS80]

And that's everything that's wrong with the world. People who believe as you do are TERRIBLE human beings. You're either stupid, deluded, or purely evil, and frankly you're a threat to the continued existence of mankind. *shrug* that's how I see it.

In your utopia you'd be bowing to the other power who is willing to do what you are not. By doing both while pretending not to and/or denying it, we are having our cake and eating it too.

 

[PrinceofWands]

In your utopia you'd be bowing to the other power who is willing to do what you are not. By doing both while pretending not to and/or denying it, we are having our cake and eating it too.

No, you're becoming the vile, self-serving, egocentric evil you claim to be opposing.

As to bowing, nothing suggested implies an inability to respond with military action decisively. It merely changes the purpose, method, and the threshold for initiating it.

 

[SamurAchzar]

No, you're becoming the vile, self-serving, egocentric evil you claim to be opposing.

You forgot "self hating"

As to bowing, nothing suggested implies an inability to respond with military action decisively. It merely changes the purpose, method, and the threshold for initiating it.

With no intelligence (you executed most anyone who was in charge of getting it, save but few newspaper analysts, remember?), how exactly will you respond with military force, and against whom? How will you build your target banks? What kind of early warning will you receive? How could you preempt an impending attack?

Very peculiar ways of conducting things down in La La Land, I tell you...

 

[routan]

-snip-
-John

I read a lot of this guys post. I cant believe what an idiot he is. Some people are trying to tell him facts. He brings up more randomness. Incredible.

 

[ElFenix]

so the report says "285,000 casualties" and the newpaper thinks "285,000 deaths"? is that what happened? because a casualty is not necessarily a death.

 

[BeauJangles]

And that's everything that's wrong with the world. People who believe as you do are TERRIBLE human beings. You're either stupid, deluded, or purely evil, and frankly you're a threat to the continued existence of mankind. *shrug* that's how I see it.

If you get everyone else to lay down their weapons, then sure, let's terminate our clandestine programs. In the meantime, this country has real threats from both sovereign states and terrorist organizations and our best counter-measure against them are clandestine operations that are of questionable legality. It's the reality of the world we live in.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You forgot "self hating"



With no intelligence (you executed most anyone who was in charge of getting it, save but few newspaper analysts, remember?), how exactly will you respond with military force, and against whom? How will you build your target banks? What kind of early warning will you receive? How could you preempt an impending attack?

Very peculiar ways of conducting things down in La La Land, I tell you...

You don't 'preempt' you tunnel-visioned automaton. Have you heard NOTHING I've been talking about??? Pre-emption is an evil act because it's a guess, followed by direct action against a target who is, at least at that point, innocent of any wrongdoing. This is NOT Minority Report, and if it was I'd be in active armed revolution against it.

YOU ONLY RESPOND TO ACTUAL FORCE.

Might as well just walk down the street randomly plugging all the ******s you see. After all, they're statistically more likely to commit a crime against you. While you're at it, hang any author who write a work about revolution, since it could be construed as training for a future insurrection.

My bet is you wouldn't support those actions, but this is very very similar. You can ONLY respond with force when force is ALREADY in use against you.

 

[SamurAchzar]

You don't 'preempt' you tunnel-visioned automaton. Have you heard NOTHING I've been talking about??? Pre-emption is an evil act because it's a guess, followed by direct action against a target who is, at least at that point, innocent of any wrongdoing. This is NOT Minority Report, and if it was I'd be in active armed revolution against it.

Drunk drivers should not be arrested until someone die
An armed man standing outside a kindergarten should be left to his own devices
Someone broadcasting his intents to murder his fellow classmates on YouTube should not be questioned
etc etc

YOU ONLY RESPOND TO ACTUAL FORCE.

And, lacking intelligence that originated in unlawful activities - i.e. most of the meaningful intelligence - who do you respond against? Even if another nation attacked you, how are you supposed to hit it back when you have no information about it? Google Earth?

My bet is you wouldn't support those actions, but this is very very similar. You can ONLY respond with force when force is ALREADY in use against you.

Really, even if this force is nuclear? You should actually wait until attacked before you do anything? Is that how a country protects its citizen, by a blind retaliatory force and zero prevention capacity?

Lets try imagining a sequence of events here:

The reasonable way:

1. Terrorists get a nuclear device from, lets say, Paksitan
2. American intelligence - unlawfully - intercepts their plans
3. The said terrorists are either kidnapped and brought to trial (or better yet, Gitmo) or assassinated by a Predator

Terrorists die.

Your peculiar way:

1. Terrorists get a nuclear device from, lets say, Paksitan
2. Americans don't know shit about it because their intelligence officers have been executed
3. Terrorists get to the US and sneak in
4. The bomb goes off, millions die
5. US scratches head on where to retaliate. Without intelligence, it's very difficult to pinpoint the source of the bomb
6. In the good case, nothing happens. In the not so good case, US retaliates against the wrong target with a nuclear device of its own.

Millions die. Earth is, possibly, destroyed. All because you wanted to be a smartass.