Wikileaks to out Arab officials in ties with the US

[Gyhrg71]

Sounds like a sick joke to me. How do you out our Arab informants without putting people in danger, not to mention our ability to do foreign policy? Did you notice he acknowledged that coups would happen? No one dies in a coup?

The informants he has information on are Arab leaders, I doubt they will put themselves on trial. And as to remark about the coup, I don't think he actually said that. Its only ynet that has that has added that remark.

“We have more files dealing with defense issues of Central Europe, but I or my staff didn’t have the time to go through all of them.” What is being published by the five media partners of WikiLeaks are publishing only those details which they think are interesting for their readers. There are some Arab officials who are ‘stealing’ oil of their countries.


“We need these media partners to focus more on this issue,” Assange said in this extensive, interesting and last version of his interface with Doha-based Aljazeera. US embassies around the world are very anxious about Israel, Iran, Labour unions, arms dealings (mainly selling of American arms), and spying through high-tech devices.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/qatar/137385-many-arab-officials-have-close-cia-links-assange-.html


Apparently they left out some other details as well.

 

[Infohawk]

So you got nothing.

I don't know what Assange will do, but he hasn't lied about this. Now if he releases information and someone gets killed then you may say he lied. Someone may seize on anything at all no matter how trivial in order to make an excuse. Well we do it all the time. Aluminum tubes. We'll see and how valid the "reasoning" to use it is.

The problem is that anyone who doesn't drip spittle over the keyboard is sees Assange as an idol. I think he's an asshole, but then again I am more concerned about little things like how we caused hundreds of thousands to die for a specious war and that there is no accountability for it, or those tiny little details about how we tend to not blink when talking about overthrowing legitimate governments when it's in our best financial interest. Petty stuff.

Here's one thing I hope comes from all this and that's we'll be a little less secure about causing the deaths of uncounted innocents in the name of global positioning. Maybe someone will think about this and while they don't give a shit about anyone other than their agenda, their ass may be on the line if they get caught.

There may come a time when Assange screws the pooch in fact not in some "the sky is falling" sense and I reserve the right to say anything about him I like, but I'll hang him for cause, not because he upset the tin god.

What do you mean I have nothing? Again, any way you look at his claims he doesn't look good. You seem to think he's an asshole, so what are you arguing about?

Your other rantings have nothing to do with this story. Are you going to reserve judgment about Dick Cheney too? He might decide to release useful information too. Maybe maybe maybe.... give me a break. Sure could Assange could become responsible overnight but I'm talking about what's actually happening...

PS If there were video tapes of US concentration camps he would have released it already. The info he has just isn't that good.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What do you mean I have nothing? Again, any way you look at his claims he doesn't look good. You seem to think he's an asshole, so what are you arguing about?

Your other rantings have nothing to do with this story. Are you going to reserve judgment about Dick Cheney too? He might decide to release useful information too. Maybe maybe maybe.... give me a break. Sure could Assange could become responsible overnight but I'm talking about what's actually happening...

Originally I was making a comment about the clear logical inconsistency between what might be and what is. Assange MIGHT spill the beans and a lot of people get killed. Now "Wilileaks to out Arab officials in ties with the US" fails to accurately reflect what was said. That's where Alice and Bob came in. I had thought you would understand what I meant, which is "may" isn't "will". I had made an assessment that you had a greater distance from the subject emotionally and therefore responded accordingly.

Regarding Cheney, I'm upset not because he isn't behind bars, but that there has not been a proper investigation of the disconnect between the stated reasons for war and what was discovered to be true. If at that point there was criminal wrongdoing then he should be punished to the limit the law allows. Otherwise, it was a circus run by fools. I'd like to know the difference before I light the fire and burn the witches. YMMV.

In any case I'll not make the same error in my estimation of your mindset.

 

[William Gaatjes]

It is good we all agree politics can be dirty and that sometimes dirty laundry must stay hidden until about 25 years from now. Then the news is old, and the agents already fled the scene. But you need integer politicians. Might be a problem in the US. I can remember an administration that leaked the identity of its own secret agents as revenge, i find that childish. What worse can wikileaks do ? So some politicians have nicknames for others. wow that sure is front page news. And what most people suspected about Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be true. Scoring while you already stand in the goal. Wikileaks is the least of the concerns i would think. It reminds me of an article i read about how the US responded in the seventies to 2 similar whistle blowers who worked for the us government. I wish i could remember their names.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally I was making a comment about the clear logical inconsistency between what might be and what is. Assange MIGHT spill the beans and a lot of people get killed. Now "Wilileaks to out Arab officials in ties with the US" fails to accurately reflect what was said. That's where Alice and Bob came in. I had thought you would understand what I meant, which is "may" isn't "will". I had made an assessment that you had a greater distance from the subject emotionally and therefore responded accordingly.

Regarding Cheney, I'm upset not because he isn't behind bars, but that there has not been a proper investigation of the disconnect between the stated reasons for war and what was discovered to be true. If at that point there was criminal wrongdoing then he should be punished to the limit the law allows. Otherwise, it was a circus run by fools. I'd like to know the difference before I light the fire and burn the witches. YMMV.

In any case I'll not make the same error in my estimation of your mindset.

You act like there's some big difference between might and will in this case. They're not. I might blow your head off, but hey don't get mad at me I just said "I might." It's like a child putting a finger in your face and reminding you that they're not touching you.

I shouldn't have brought up Cheney because obviously you're obsessed with bringing up Iraq even though it has no bearing here. Like that time you wrongly suggested I supported the war. The real issue here is you defending Assange based on semantics that aren't really material to the debate.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Anyone here calling for assassination IMO is a murderer morally, worse than a serial child rapist. The armchair hides their moral deprivation.

Where's the line after which his life become expendable, how much damage should he cause in order to become a target? 1 dead US intelligence source? 100? Riots claiming the lives of thousands? Another 9/11? Where is the line?

 

[SamurAchzar]

it's a secret the middle eastern elite were selling out their own people to appease white oil interests??? facing death? cool.

How are they selling their own people? By not founding Muslim theocracies? By not attacking Israel? By selling oil to the USA?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It is good we all agree politics can be dirty and that sometimes dirty laundry must stay hidden until about 25 years from now. Then the news is old, and the agents already fled the scene. But you need integer politicians. Might be a problem in the US. I can remember an administration that leaked the identity of its own secret agents as revenge, i find that childish. What worse can wikileaks do ? So some politicians have nicknames for others. wow that sure is front page news. And what most people suspected about Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be true. Scoring while you already stand in the goal. Wikileaks is the least of the concerns i would think. It reminds me of an article i read about how the US responded in the seventies to 2 similar whistle blowers who worked for the us government. I wish i could remember their names.

"The nation" is often seen as being identical to the government. While in theory the government has as it's sole concern the best interests of those it supposedly represents, there comes a point where it is self serving much like the two main parties, which if you consider their actions haven't acted in ways that suggest that the stewardship of liberty is their prime concern. It would be naive to think that things aren't done that won't pass public muster and that there are difficult decisions between wrongs that must be made in the interest of the country. Most of us get that. Nevertheless, there comes a certain feeling of invulnerability that bureaucracies come to expect and that whatever they decide is the beginning and the end. It's all too easy. That's where danger lies. If one can get away with murder than sometimes murder is it.

At some point Assange may cross the line and release nuclear secrets or name our operatives outright overseas and then he's going to get it and I think rightly so. What unnerves many I suppose is that he could do it, that someone has the potential to say something really damaging.

That leads to a couple observations. First, it isn't the wrong done, but the amount of potential damage compared to the size of the offending party. The US might have nuns killed, but the real crime would be to reveal it. Rather perverse IMO.

That leads to the next thing, which is that some people who were against Iraq are doing to Assange precisely what the Bush administration did to Saddam. They took a character no one loved and made their statements stick because he should have had a nuke program. He should have had massive numbers of WMDS to use against us. He should have been training terrorists for Al Quada, because he should be that kind of person who must hate us enough to do them.

Well Assange isn't likable. He's thumbed his nose at us and others. He should not have the potential to muck things up. He should be planning to ruin civilization, therefore he should be executed or imprisoned. After all he should be that kind of person who must hate us enough to do so.

 

[Gyhrg71]

How are they selling their own people? By not founding Muslim theocracies? By not attacking Israel? By selling oil to the USA?

How do you know this isn't about Saudi Arabia?

And they're selling out their people the same way the John Pollard sold out the US to Israel, or another wikileaks cable revealed a German politican was selling out his country to the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-first-scalp-german-aide

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You act like there's some big difference between might and will in this case. They're not. I might blow your head off, but hey don't get mad at me I just said "I might." It's like a child putting a finger in your face and reminding you that they're not touching you.

I shouldn't have brought up Cheney because obviously you're obsessed with bringing up Iraq even though it has no bearing here. Like that time you wrongly suggested I supported the war. The real issue here is you defending Assange based on semantics that aren't really material to the debate.

I suppose it's you remarkable resemblance to those who did which caused my mistake. I could do the standard "OF COURSE YOU DID BECAUSE WHAT I BELIEVE DETERMINES REALITY" thing, but I accepted your statement without any thought that you might have been less than honest.

Still it's true that Saddam had to go according to your reasoning because he might attack us is the same as he will.

Clearly you are so emotionally involved that the ordinary meaning of words is trumped.

Let's make this easy. You continue on in your worldview, and I won't.

 

[SamurAchzar]

How do you know this isn't about Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a theocracy (funny but I just made this mistake in the other thread; consider it a typo ). It's been in control by more or less the same blood tree for centuries now.

And they're selling out their people the same way the John Pollard sold out the US to Israel, or another wikileaks cable revealed a German politican was selling out his country to the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-first-scalp-german-aide

No one said they were spies. Unless I'm mistaken, this information included only diplomatic material and does not reveal any direct spying activities (which are classified much higher). It could very well be personnel that were sent to speak to US officials on the behalf of the state. What's certain is that with the way things are run in Arab countries, even those who were sent to talk with Americans will get punished to appease the mob.

 

[Infohawk]

I suppose it's you remarkable resemblance to those who did which caused my mistake. I could do the standard "OF COURSE YOU DID BECAUSE WHAT I BELIEVE DETERMINES REALITY" thing, but I accepted your statement without any thought that you might have been less than honest.

Still it's true that Saddam had to go according to your reasoning because he might attack us is the same as he will.

Clearly you are so emotionally involved that the ordinary meaning of words is trumped.

Let's make this easy. You continue on in your worldview, and I won't.

What the hell are you talking about? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.

Saddam (do you really have to go back to Iraq every time?) didn't have the means to threaten us seriously. All the power Assange has is to release documents, which he can do. They're not really the same. It's a thinly-veiled threat from Assange. As someone who many consider to be a journalist that is entirely inappropriate.

I'm not that emotionally involved. In fact you're the one desperately trying to seize on any ad hominem. You really should ask yourself what you're arguing for since you seem to concede Assange is a douche.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What the hell are you talking about? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.

Saddam (do you really have to go back to Iraq every time?) didn't have the means to threaten us seriously. All the power Assange has is to release documents, which he can do. They're not really the same. It's a thinly-veiled threat from Assange. As someone who many consider to be a journalist that is entirely inappropriate.

I'm not that emotionally involved. In fact you're the one desperately trying to seize on any ad hominem. You really should ask yourself what you're arguing for since you seem to concede Assange is a douche.

<Shrug>

If you don't get it, then OK. I make plenty of mistakes and one was that misjudged your mindset initially. We'll agree to disagree and I won't address you any more regarding this issue.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Gyhrg71]

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a theocracy (funny but I just made this mistake in the other thread; consider it a typo ). It's been in control by more or less the same blood tree for centuries now.

Being a monarchy doesn't mean its not a theocracy as well.

No one said they were spies. Unless I'm mistaken, this information included only diplomatic material and does not reveal any direct spying activities (which are classified much higher). It could very well be personnel that were sent to speak to US officials on the behalf of the state.

How could you possibly say none of these people were spying when the information hasn't actually been released yet? And yes, someone has said they were spies:

"These officials are spies for the US in their countries," Assange said

What's certain is that with the way things are run in Arab countries, even those who were sent to talk with Americans will get punished to appease the mob.

By who? The people talked about in your article are senior officials, not just some private in the military.

 

[sportage]

Who is really shocked with all this...
When you have an American president of past, holding hands, strolling arm in arm, and kissing the Saudi leaders.
Somethings not quite right with America... and it has nothing to do with Wiki Wiki.

 

[William Gaatjes]

"The nation" is often seen as being identical to the government. While in theory the government has as it's sole concern the best interests of those it supposedly represents, there comes a point where it is self serving much like the two main parties, which if you consider their actions haven't acted in ways that suggest that the stewardship of liberty is their prime concern. It would be naive to think that things aren't done that won't pass public muster and that there are difficult decisions between wrongs that must be made in the interest of the country. Most of us get that. Nevertheless, there comes a certain feeling of invulnerability that bureaucracies come to expect and that whatever they decide is the beginning and the end. It's all too easy. That's where danger lies. If one can get away with murder than sometimes murder is it.

At some point Assange may cross the line and release nuclear secrets or name our operatives outright overseas and then he's going to get it and I think rightly so. What unnerves many I suppose is that he could do it, that someone has the potential to say something really damaging.

That leads to a couple observations. First, it isn't the wrong done, but the amount of potential damage compared to the size of the offending party. The US might have nuns killed, but the real crime would be to reveal it. Rather perverse IMO.

That leads to the next thing, which is that some people who were against Iraq are doing to Assange precisely what the Bush administration did to Saddam. They took a character no one loved and made their statements stick because he should have had a nuke program. He should have had massive numbers of WMDS to use against us. He should have been training terrorists for Al Quada, because he should be that kind of person who must hate us enough to do them.

Well Assange isn't likable. He's thumbed his nose at us and others. He should not have the potential to muck things up. He should be planning to ruin civilization, therefore he should be executed or imprisoned. After all he should be that kind of person who must hate us enough to do so.

The motives of Assange we can only guess. But i find it to far to execute him for what he knows or claims what he knows. I mean the US as many other countries has also some dirty laundry. Should we therefore just nuke everything ? For what the CIA has caused, the rest of the world should nuke the US with that way of thinking. And the point is that every country or nation has some skeleton in their closets that are far more worse. I mean i do not hear you about killing the Bush family or killing Cheney or Rumsfeld ?
Because of abusing the image and the power of the USA being and acting as the global police ? The damage they caused is far worse, even to your own country. Think about it the next time you take a flight for example. I find you people over react. As long as you can present the information Assange has as your own it is ok. But because it is a foreigner you over react. Do some research about those whistleblowers in the seventies. Native Americans wanted to have those whistleblowers hanged. They still are alive because it turned out that n the end it is good to have whistle blowers. Because usually whistleblowers work together with other people and as a group find ethics is important. Then again , if you are going to kill him, why should he be ethical, i say let him throw it all on the street for everyone to see why you want to kill him. People are not stupid and everybody who knows a little bit of history knows the US or other west european countries have secretly good ties with a lot of arab nations, even the ones that present themselves as hostile towards the west. Everybody who does not see that is delusional.

 

[Infohawk]

Who is really shocked with all this...
When you have an American president of past, holding hands, strolling arm in arm, and kissing the Saudi leaders.
Somethings not quite right with America... and it has nothing to do with Wiki Wiki.

Something's not right with the _world_. Sorry but there's no country on Earth that doesn't suck up to foreign countries that have something they want (or use military force).

Wasn't it McCain's idea to have a league of democracies? Also, what do you really want to do? Cut off Saudi Arabia? If they're people want freedom they should fight for it themselves. Iraq shows there's no bringing democracy at the end of the barrel of a gun.

 

[Jadow]

and all this shlt was unsecured on a PC that an E3 had access to.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Yahooo. I found the name of the person. Daniel Ellsberg was the whistleblower during the 1969. Similar as then we hear now about Assange.


The pentagon Papers : About how the american public was told lies about the vietnam war and casualties. The investigation was started by Robert Macnamara.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

The release of these papers was politically embarrassing to not only those involved in the Johnson and Kennedy administrations but also the incumbent Nixon administration. Nixon's Oval Office tape from June 14, 1972, shows H. R. Haldeman describing the situation to Nixon:
[then cabinet-member Donald] Rumsfeld was making this point this morning. To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing.... It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.[15]

John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General, almost immediately issued a telegram to the Times ordering that it halt publication. The Times refused, and the government brought suit against it.

Although the Times eventually won the trial before the Supreme Court, an appellate court ordered that the Times temporarily halt further publication. This was the first successful attempt by the federal government to restrain the publication of a major newspaper since the presidency of Abraham Lincoln during the US Civil War. Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to 17 other newspapers in rapid succession.[16] The right of the press to publish the papers was upheld in New York Times Co. v. United States.

As a response to the leaks, the Nixon administration began a campaign against further leaks and against Ellsberg personally.[17] Aides Egil Krogh and David Young, under the supervision of John Ehrlichman, created the "White House Plumbers", which would later lead to the Watergate burglaries.[citation needed]

In August 1971, Krogh and Young met with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt in a basement office in the Old Executive Office Building. Hunt and Liddy recommended a "covert operation" to get a "mother lode" of information about Ellsberg's mental state in order to discredit him. Krogh and Young sent a memo to Ehrlichman seeking his approval for a "covert operation [to] be undertaken to examine all of the medical files still held by Ellsberg&#8217;s psychiatrist." Ehrlichman approved under the condition that it be "done under your assurance that it is not traceable."[18]

On September 3, 1971, the burglary of Lewis Fielding's office &#8212; titled "Hunt/Liddy Special Project No. 1" in Ehrlichman's notes &#8212; was carried out by Hunt, Liddy and CIA officers Eugenio Martinez, Felipe de Diego and Bernard Barker. The "Plumbers" failed to find Ellsberg's file. Hunt and Liddy subsequently planned to break into Fielding's home, but Ehrlichman did not approve the second burglary. The break-in was not known to Ellsberg or to the public until it came to light during Ellsberg and Russo's trial in April 1973.

Ellsberg was discredited by the administration at the time by leaking that he was a psychiatric patient and make it seem worser then reality. Similar as Assange now suddenly has been turned into a rapist.

 

[actuarial]

I love the wikileaks things just to watch the Americans show their incongruent views.

PCF Manning releases state secrets to a foreigner - hang him.
Assanage may reveal foreigners that released THEIR state secrets to the US - don't let him else their country will hang them.

Essentially, there is no principle involved at all even though the arguments people are making seem to imply there are. Either revealing state secrets is a punishable crime or not. If you support PCF Manning being punished you should support Assanage helping reveal similar 'traitors' abroad.

Nevermind the fact that the likelihood that the information Manning released (which was essentially nonsense) was more traitorous than what the ME dudes were releasing is quite low (especially if their countries were at war with the US).

 

[dmcowen674]

So what P&Ner is missing now?

 

[Jhhnn]

Samur Achzar is probably acting in his usual capacity as an Israeli propaganda outlet. Here's a different & less biased take on the Assange interview in question-

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bab...ia-conspiracy-spies-wikileaks-al-jazeera.html

His right to publish the information, under US law, was established in the Ellsberg case, and re-affirmed with the goings-on in the Plame outings case as well.

Samur Achzar is just going hysterical, trying to silence Assange before he airs out any dirty Israeli laundry.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Samur Achzar is just going hysterical, trying to silence Assange before he airs out any dirty Israeli laundry.

Jhh nn is just hoping Israel gets screwed by the leaks, and the hell with a few Arab officials losing their lives in the process. Jhh nn thinks it's worthy to sacrifice American interests if that causes any harm to the Jews. Jhh nn supports those who publish stolen records from his country with no regards to human lives at the other end.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I do not know if this is true but assuming it is :

Ellsberg later claimed that after his trial ended, Watergate prosecutor William H. Merrill informed him of an aborted plot by Liddy and the "plumbers" to have 12 Cuban-Americans who had previously worked for the CIA to "totally incapacitate" Ellsberg as he appeared at a public rally, though it is unclear whether that meant to assassinate Ellsberg or merely to hospitalize him.[24][25] In his autobiography, Liddy describes an "Ellsberg neutralization proposal" originating from Howard Hunt, which involved drugging Ellsberg with LSD, by dissolving it in his soup, at a fund-raising dinner in Washington in order to "have Ellsberg incoherent by the time he was to speak" and thus "make him appear a near burnt-out drug case" and "discredit him". The plot involved waiters from the Miami Cuban community. According to Liddy, when the plan was finally approved, "there was no longer enough lead time to get the Cuban waiters up from their Miami hotels and into place in the Washington Hotel where the dinner was to take place" and the plan was "put into abeyance pending another opportunity".[26]

Amazing stuff.

On June 17, 2010, Ellsberg was interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez on the Democracy Now! program regarding the parallels between his actions in releasing the Pentagon Papers and those of Pfc. Bradley Manning, who was arrested by the U.S. Military in Kuwait after allegedly providing to the WikiLeaks web site a classified video showing U.S. military helicopter gunships strafing and killing Iraqis alleged to be civilians, including two Reuters journalists. Manning reportedly claims to have provided WikiLeaks with secret videos of additional massacres of alleged civilians in Afghanistan, as well as 260,000 classified State Department cables. Ellsberg has said that he fears for Manning and for Julian Assange, as he feared for himself after the initial publication of the Pentagon Papers. WikiLeaks initially said it had not received the cables, but did plan to post the video of an attack that may have killed 140 Afghani civilians in the village of Garani. Ellsberg expressed hope that either Assange or President Obama would post the video, and expressed his strong support for Assange and Manning, who he called "two new heroes of mine".[33][34]

On December 9, 2010, Ellsberg appeared on the Colbert Report where he commented that existence of Wikileaks helps to build a better government. [35]

 

[Jhhnn]

Waaaahhh!

You are an utterly transparent propagandist.