lets discuss Wikileak

Poor kid, he can legally be assassinated now. 

Oh boy....



And I finally got on, maybe a lot of people were jamming the place


Edited by JJLehto - July 26 2010 at 19:06

I think it's a shame if it further endangers the lives of our soldiers.  So long as the O-man wants to keep us there, it is important that we prevent such breaches of security.  I heard one analyst say that the documents could reveal the identities of crucial sources, Afghans who are helping us gather important information, who may now be murdered by the good ole' Taliban because their cover has been compromised.  Nice work by Wiki man.

"Someone inadvertently or on purpose gave the Taliban its new 'enemies list,'" declared Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who said the White House indicated the disclosures compromised a number of Afghan sources.

"Whenever you have the potential for names and for operations and for programs to be out there in the public domain besides being against the law has the potential to be very harmful to those that are in our military, those that are cooperating with our military," said Robert Gibbs. (Obama's press guy)

"It's not the content as much as it is the names, operations, logistics, sources -- all of that information out in the public has the potential to do harm," Gibbs said

I hope that's not the case.  But at least this Wiki guy made a name for himself, because certainly his ego and his agenda are more important than the White House strategy or fighting the Taliban.   

Although if this all turns out to be true, he should have not spilled the beans.
If I leaked classified military information I would not say it to a single soul.


Edited by JJLehto - July 26 2010 at 19:38

^ i bet Voltaire og Montisque are smiling now (the founders of elightment)

"Poor kid, he can legally be assassinated now."

Sign me up for the firing squad.  If he finds himself that much at odds with the military he should get out when his hitch ends and run for office.  He knew the job when he signed on and knew the possible consequences of his actions when he chose to put fellow American citizens and soldiers at risk.  If you want play at being a spy be prepared for the outcome.

Time for a "Code Red".


Edited by Trademark - July 27 2010 at 12:08

Edited by The T - July 27 2010 at 14:37

The T wrote: For soldiers, yes. Soldiers have to follow orders and shut the f**k up or people get killed. The rest of society, no.  I support a site like wikileaks and I'm in favor of disclosing the truth. But this idiot who put lives in danger shouldn't be made into some kind of hero now.

It is a sticky wicket, though some could argue he'll be some type of martyr, for the name of free information.
Besides, how do these leaks happen? Magic? Someone has to do it

I know nothing of military going ons, if this guy is convicted any idea what the penalty is for it?


Edited by JJLehto - July 27 2010 at 17:18

"So you don't find Auschwitz soldiers morally culpable for any atrocities committed there?"

The person who gave the order is morally culpable, the person who carried it out in a military action is not.  Check the outcomes of the Neuremburg trials for confirmation of this fact of military justice.

"In fact, you would think they deserved death for disobeying orders?"

There is a remarkably huge difference between disobeying an order and espionage.  Check the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the possible punishments for these extremely different offenses.


Edited by Trademark - July 27 2010 at 17:26

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Trademark wrote: "So you don't find Auschwitz soldiers morally culpable for any atrocities committed there?" The person who gave the order is morally culpable, the person who carried it out in a military action is not.  Check the outcomes of the Neuremburg trials for confirmation of this fact of military justice. "In fact, you would think they deserved death for disobeying orders?" There is a remarkably huge difference between disobeying an order and espionage.  Check the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the possible punishments for these extremely different offenses. As a moral justification you offer the outcome of a trial and a code of conduct written by the military. That is so thoroughly convincing.  I'm not disputing that what he did was unlawful, but that does not make it wrong. Then again if you're not willing to place any culpability on the hands of soldiers I'm done talking to you.