WikiLeaks

[TimG]

I don't have the email to put in context you moron. Your word is not enough for me to assume that this email even exists. Give me the goddamn email or shut up.

My mistake. I assumed you are actually informed about something you have an opinion on and were already aware of the relevant emails. Here is it:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt

Edited November 30, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

What? Are you serious?

Yeah.

The US State Department has refused to accept the olive branch offered by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to negotiate on publication of the documents later on Sunday.

Instead, the US sought immediate handover of documents and resist from publicatiooon or distribution of the documents, failing which it said action will be taken against the whistleblower website.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/86272/20101128/wikileaks-state-department-us-terror-threats-publication-documents-global-security.htm

.....Same thing happenned with the Afghanistan War documents:

The Pentagon has said thanks, but no thanks, to WikiLeaks' offer to help the military review about 15,000 classified Afghanistan war documents the whistleblower website intends to publish.

The Defense Department Wednesday refused the request by a lawyer for WikiLeaks and again demanded the site return all the documents and abandon its plans to make them public, The Wall Street Journal reported.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/18/pentagon-refuses-wikileaks-offer-to-help-review-classified-war/

[TimG]

The US State Department has refused to accept the olive branch offered by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to negotiate on publication of the documents later on Sunday.

To be fair it puts the government in an impossible situation because it grants legimacy to people who leak documents and possibily undermines the legal case against the leaker. Also any 'negotiations' would not be a level playing field because Assange could walk away at any time and claim he tried to negotiate.

[dre]

Yeah.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/86272/20101128/wikileaks-state-department-us-terror-threats-publication-documents-global-security.htm

.....Same thing happenned with the Afghanistan War documents:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/18/pentagon-refuses-wikileaks-offer-to-help-review-classified-war/

Gotcha... so does this seem about right?

1. US government loses control of hundreds of thousands of documents because of abject incompetence.

2. Someone sends these documents to WikiLeaks.

3. WikiLeaks tells the US gov they have these documents, and gives them a chance to redact any damaging data.

4. US government declines.

5. Retards call for WikiLeaks employees to be put in prison, and say nothing about the idiots that actually lost control of the documents in the first place.

[dre]

To be fair it puts the government in an impossible situation because it grants legimacy to people who leak documents and possibily undermines the legal case against the leaker. Also any 'negotiations' would not be a level playing field because Assange could walk away at any time and claim he tried to negotiate.

But if theres stuff in the documents that really compromises national security then isnt the legitimacy of WikiLeaks kindof a secondary concern?

Especially since WikiLeaks is just the messenger. The real problem is that the US government cannot secure sensitive data.

[TimG]

say nothing about the idiots that actually lost control of the documents in the first place.

Becareful what you wish for. All security measures must balance productivity vs. robustness. i.e. the more security measures you put in place the harder it is for employees to do their job. If you are going to judge governments solely by their ability to keep documents secret you are telling them that security is more important than employee productivity. Is that what you really want? If you agree that there is a balance then you must agree that a security breach is not evidence of failure in itself because even good systems can be breached. We need to know why the breach occurred before coming to a conclusion. Edited November 30, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

To be fair it puts the government in an impossible situation because it grants legimacy to people who leak documents and possibily undermines the legal case against the leaker. Also any 'negotiations' would not be a level playing field because Assange could walk away at any time and claim he tried to negotiate.

A difficult situation, sure. But you said there had been "no attempt," when plainly there had.

Why did you make the assertion in the first place? And what other topics do you speak--asserting opinion as if it's demonstrable fact--with supreme confidence, and of which we should be suspicious?

[TimG]

A difficult situation, sure. But you said there had been "no attempt," when plainly there had.

Sorry. My bad. It never occurred to me that a leaker would even attempt such a thing and I had not seen in the media reports. But now that I think about it is would be a win-win for the leaker - makes him look good no matter what the outcome.

Besides. Reading these boards is one of the ways I find out this kind of stuff.

Edited November 30, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

My mistake. I assumed you are actually informed about something you have an opinion on and were already aware of the relevant emails. Here is it:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt

Considering there are thousands of emails and all you gave me was a vague description there was no way I was going to be able to just know what email you're talking about.

On to the email first off FOI doesn't include personnel emails, which is what these are so it doesn't make sense that they would delete emails because of FOI. So your premise is wrong. The emails are also about the IPCC fourth assessment report, not about the raw data they were using which is what the FOI request was for.

I find it odd that your going on about emails being deleted when there is the very real story about them deleting the raw data they used.

[dre]

Becareful what you wish for. All security measures must balance productivity vs. robustness. i.e. the more security measures you put in place the harder it is for employees to do their job. If you are going to judge governments solely by their ability to keep documents secret you are telling them that security is more important than employee productivity. Is that what you really want? If you agree that there is a balance then you must agree that a security breach is not evidence of failure in itself because even good systems can be breached. We need to know why the breach occurred before coming to a conclusion.

Becareful what you wish for

I told you what I wish for. More rules around secrecy, and stop invoking national security to keep the public from finding out that a diplomat made fun of another diplomats pants.

[dre]

Sorry. My bad. It never occurred to me that a leaker would even attempt such a thing. But now that I think about it is would be a win-win for the leaker - makes him look good no matter what the outcome.

I suspect that US government didnt cooperate because they knew there was nothing in there that matters much.

[bloodyminded]

Certainly, if they're worried about "saving lives," as they claim, then a self-perception of eating a little crow would be a moral (and arguably legal) requirement.

i imagine they're a little more worried about the embarrasment of the inner workings of the imperium being exposed.

Edited November 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

The emails are also about the IPCC fourth assessment report, not about the raw data they were using which is what the FOI request was for.

There were different FOIs for different reasons. This particular FOI was for correspondence between IPCC authors which colluded to break IPCC rules. They do not meet the definition of 'personal email'. In fact, UEA has acknowledged that emails between IPCC reviewers and IPCC lead authors are not personal emails and are subject to FOI. The weasels then turned around and claims that communication between authors is secret.

I find it odd that your going on about emails being deleted when there is the very real story about them deleting the raw data they used.

That is not the 'real' story as far as sceptics are concerned. The 'real' story is how senior CRU scientists engaged in numerous dirty tricks and rule breaking in order to suppress sceptical points of view and push their view of the science. It calls into question the scientific judgement of these scientists and the scientific institutions that have lined up to rationalize their odious behavior. Edited November 30, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

There were different FOIs for different reasons. This particular FOI was for correspondence between IPCC authors which colluded to break IPCC rules. They do not meet the definition of 'personal email'. In fact, UEA has acknowledged that emails between IPCC reviewers and IPCC lead authors are not personal emails and are subject to FOI. The weasels then turned around and claims that communication between authors is secret.

The FOI is about access to data held by the state and public bodies. There is a very good case that emails like this are not included.

That is not the 'real' story as far as sceptics are concerned. The 'real' story is how senior CRU scientists engaged in numerous dirty tricks and rule breaking in order to suppress sceptical points of view and push their view of the science. It calls into question the scientific judgement of these scientists and the scientific institutions that have lined up to rationalize their odious behavior.

Except they didn't no one has found one actual example of this happening. An email expressing the desire to do something is not the same as actually doing it.

[dre]

This god damn thread isnt about climage gate. We have DOZENS of threads about global warming.

[M.Dancer]

Why should the US negotiate with possible criminals?

The US did respond to their offer...they advised them of legal consequences and the Wikilinks people chose to publish anyway....

I imaqine Julian feels that he won't be extradited for this charge or the other less tasteful ones...

[Guest TrueMetis]

This god damn thread isnt about climage gate. We have DOZENS of threads about global warming.

Sorry.

[BubberMiley]

But I'm glad many of the individuals in the forum that were so outraged at the events that took place regarding her. Are now applauding the same type of thing. Pathetic.

It would be pathetic(rolleyes) if it were true. Who are these individuals in the forum who were so outraged by the Plame incident and are applauding this?

Or is this just an instance of you lumping everyone who ever disagred with you into a broad entity you call "the Left?"

[dre]

Sorry.

Heheheh no worries all. Derailing threads is the norm around here, and everyone does it. I shoulda been more civil there, and feel like a spaz now.

Edited November 30, 2010 by dre

[August1991]

Leaked diplomatic telegrams have started wars in the past. These wikileakers really have no concept of the responsibility they have donned upon themselves.

Morris, diplomatic telegrams mattered in the past. They don't anymore. We live in an era where Obama can pick up the phone and talk to Sarkozy or Harper on a daily basis.

These leaked cables simply show how irrelevant the State department is.

They should be treated as violations of official secrets and the leakers imprisoned accordingly. They are doing anyone any favours.

Unfortunately the US does not have an Official Secrets Act.

Good and just but politicians have another way of dealing with leaks - they avoid using the bureaucracy completely. The White House uses State for official representations and organizing travel abroad. Officers abroad write these cables but nobody important in Washington bothers to read them.

I think Trudeau said, and this was in the 1970s, that he got better information and analysis about foreign affairs from reading newspapers. He was being typically combative at the time but he had a point that is largely true now.

What gets people killed is that we allow our governments to act in secrecy with very little in terms of real oversight. Look at the Iraq war... hundreds of thousands of people dead because the US government was allowed to CLAIM there was evidence of WMD's while still keeping that evidence SECRET.

dre, that's a stupendously dumb argument.

Do you think the Allies could have defeated Hitler and Tojo by allowing complete transparency?

The fact is that western politicians still rely on secrecy - and they know that their large foreign policy bureaucracies are not capable of keeping secrets (among other failings). So, they don't use them, and these cables demonstrate that point well. The cables are pointless drivel reporting the obvious.

Edited November 30, 2010 by August1991

[dre]

Why should the US negotiate with possible criminals?

The US did respond to their offer...they advised them of legal consequences and the Wikilinks people chose to publish anyway....

I imaqine Julian feels that he won't be extradited for this charge or the other less tasteful ones...

The US has negotiated plenty with much worse criminals than WikiLeaks when national security is at stake.

And Id like some support for your continued allegations that wikileaks is doing something illegal. No doubt you would just LOVE to see whistleblowers and those that aid them hung from the nearest tree for daring to expose your dear leaders but from what I can theres no issues with legality. The data is disseminated in sweden the constituion protects this type of activity.

Even in the US when the pentagon papers were leaked, and the Nixon administration claimed that "the First Amendment was subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information", the supreme court told him to go jam it up his ass, and the NewYork times had the injunction against publication of these documents lifted.

Nixons Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold later called the Papers an example of "massive overclassification" with "no trace of a threat to the national security". The Papers' publication had little or no effect on the ongoing war because they dealt with documents written years before publication.

Gosh... Nixons Solicitor general said almost the exact same I did. MASSIVE OVERCLASSIFICATION... which refers to the governments ongoing habit of brutally abusing their right to secrecy on the grounds of national security.

The only right the US government has to keep documents secure is to SECURE THEM. It cant leak millions of millions of documents like a busted sieve, then cry to the courts about their own stupidity when someone finds them and makes them public.

To be quite honest it boggles the mind that anyone could suggest that websites or newspapers should "go to prison" for publishing documents the government does not want public. Thats the entire reason for the first amendment, and only in countries like China do people actually go to jail for that kind of thing.

Edited November 30, 2010 by dre

[dre]

Morris, diplomatic telegrams mattered in the past. They don't anymore. We live in an era where Obama can pick up the phone and talk to Sarkozy or Harper on a daily basis.

These leaked cables simply show how irrelevant the State department is.

Good and just but politicians have another way of dealing with leaks - they avoid using the bureaucracy completely. The White House uses State for official representations and organizing travel abroad. Officers abroad write these cables but nobody important in Washington bothers to read them.

I think Trudeau said, and this was in the 1970s, that he got better information and analysis about foreign affairs from reading newspapers. He was being typically combative at the time but he had a point that is largely true now.

dre, that's a stupendously dumb argument.

Do you think the Allies could have defeated Hitler and Tojo by allowing complete transparency?

The fact is that western politicians still rely on secrecy - and they know that their large foreign policy bureaucracies are not capable of keeping secrets (among other failings). So, they don't use them, and these cables demonstrate that point well. The cables are pointless drivel reporting the obvious.

dre, that's a stupendously dumb argument.

Whats stupendously dumb is that would even comment without reading my position.

Do you think the Allies could have defeated Hitler and Tojo by allowing complete transparency?

Did you miss the part where I said that limited secrecy for things like ongoing military and intelligence operations was legitimate? Whe the hell said anything about complete transparency besides you? Rufus the stunt-bum maybe?

Like I said... The Iraq war is a perfect example of what happens when government is a black box we cant look into.

[M.Dancer]

And Id like some support for your continued allegations that wikileaks is doing something illegal.

Unfortunately the US does not have an Official Secrets Act

....And Id like to be smert like Dre and have his reedin comperheshun

[dre]

....And Id like to be smert like Dre and have his reedin comperheshun

Sorry all your hyperbolic rambling about "criminals" and "prison" lead me to believe you might think something illegal is happening. Glad we could clear that up that wikileaks is just a media organization thats legally disseminating information that they legally obtained from a third party and that their activities would be protected in any country that you or I could tolerate living in.

Edited November 30, 2010 by dre

[M.Dancer]

Sorry all your hyperbolic rambling about "criminals" and "prison" lead me ....

You are easily led, no need to apologize.