Assange Protected Under 1st Amendment?

[SemperFiUSMC]

Maybe he got to bikini wax Hillary

Madeleine Albright

 

[ATOMonkey]

Did I say that? No. However, would you admit that there are others more knowledgable of the value of certain information sources, and who could more accurately assess what the loss of those sources would mean to them being able to do effectively do thier job than you who have never had to do their job? That's a fair question.

Absolutely, there are more people that know more than I do. If they do have good reasons for why this is bad I'd love to hear them.

I'm mostly just getting a lot of "this is the worst thing ever" without any reasons to back it up.

And when I ask if this will compromise the ability to turn assets in the future, I get silence or shoulder shrugs.

We have notoriously been given bad or old intel by assets and there are only a very small number who are reliable. We've been burned so many times by even unpaid informants (especially in Afghanistan), not to mention the paid informants who will tell you anything for a buck, that anything they say is taken with a huge grain of salt. I'm not a big fan of humint. It only gives you a vague idea of what might possibly be going on. Let's face it, people lie, and their memories aren't the best. When you throw translation into the mix, it just gets worse. Sometimes the humint ends up being really really good, but that's the exception, not the rule. Even then we follow up on all humint with our own guys putting eyes on the target, giving us actionable intel.

Most assets we use are not official informants. It's paying a local guy $100 to dime his buddy. That kind of humint is under no more danger than they were before the cables were released. So, their motivation to give up intel (money) doesn't change.

Also, you have to realize that the average lifespan of a person in Afghanistan is only about 37-40 years. Meaning, most of our informants have a short shelf life to begin with. They're readily if not easily replaced with others willing to make some cash by spilling the beans. Furthermore, our guys out there conducting ops are only in the field for maybe a year or so at a time. So, they have a very short amount of time in which to develop a relationship with their asset. By nature, these sort of things are short lived.

So, that is why I'm not getting all spun up about this like it's the end of the world. I do acknowledge that it is going to make some people's jobs harder in the short term, until they can develop new assets, but it won't keep us from conducting our operations effectively.

 

[Eddie]

Wouldn't it make far more sense to go after the actual leaks? If not for them the guy wouldn't have that information to broadcast to the rest of the world.

Or is that just too logical?

This was the point of one of my earlier posts. The real criminals are the ones who failed to safeguard our secrets. Manning should not have had access to this information in the first place.

 

[CombatVet]

This was the point of one of my earlier posts. The real criminals are the ones who failed to safeguard our secrets. Manning should not have had access to this information in the first place.

Holy crap did some one just use common sense? QUICK GET THE JACK BOOTS!

 

[Hoosier Gun Coat]

Madeleine Albright

Hellen Thomas possibly? Chikka Bow Bow

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I just gouged my eyes out with a pencil.

Hellen Thomas possibly? Chikka Bow Bow

 

[Hoosier Gun Coat]

I just gouged my eyes out with a pencil.

 

[Sylvain]

He didnt do anything elegal in the US, his servers are not based in the US.
He is not a US citizen either.
He didnt stole the informations, he's just a journalist publishing what someone gave him.
I dont know why everybody is talking about him, the real thing the US should be concerned is who was at the origin of the leaks.
Who stole the documents?
That's the guy who did that that they should be looking for and be mad at.
Nobody talks about that.They dont want to find out that it's a "good US citizen" working for the government who stole those documents.

 

[kcw12]

Let me see if I can make some reasonable analogies here.

If you're playing basketball or baseball, or chess or checkers or any other game involving two or more teams or individuals, there are "rules" to be followed. If you don't follow the rules, your opponent(s) will either stop playing with you, penalize you, or start cheating just like you are. If your opponents are cheating, you are at a disadvantage if you aren't cheating as well.

In most forms of poker or other card games, you avoid showing everyone else your hand. Why? To prevent your opponent from knowing what you have and what you are going to do with it.

If your wife asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?", do you tell her the truth, no matter how much it may harm relations between you?

Governments try to protect information that may help their opponents if it comes out. While the process is often abused, it is a sound policy, in the main, partially because all nations do it. Exposing secret information can provide information concerning methods, personnel, resources, knowledge, and intentions. Governments spend huge amounts of money to discover their allies' and enemies' intentions, capabilities, assessments, and resources. In foreign relations, as in business and many other areas, knowledge is power. It is not in our interests to allow anyone to disseminate our secrets with impunity because it puts us at a disadvantage in our relations with the rest of the world.

In poker, I show my hand when I win or lose at the show down. When everything is said and done these documents should be released. Just like my poker hand.

We should penalize anyone who doesn't follow the rules, agreed. What is keeping our government following the rules if we don't know what they're doing. They could be killing puppy's and Kitty's and we wouldn't know it.

So there's no value in protecting the means of collecting intelligence? It's OK to out an asset that risks their life to provide information as soon as the operation is over? It's OK to publish to the world your assessment of your friends and enemies and their capabilities? Tell an enemy you know about a missle silo? This is what you advocate?



The only reason to assassinate him is because he won't stop doing what he's doing. He's come out now with a statement that Hillary Clinton needs to go. That is certainly open to debate (she was wholly unqualified to start with, but it was the only job they could offer her that they could control her), but he's not a US citizen and none of his f*****g business!

Now it's reported he has at least another couple hundred thousand documents to release. It is insanity that we are talking about this as if it's a good thing. Good people who risked their lives providing us intelligence in Afganistand, Iraq and across the globe are dying because of this guy. It is reducing our ability to gather intelligence that keeps this country safe.

Espionage is the right charge. He is engaging others to spy on the US and using the information gathered through those sources to damage this country.

I see where your coming from. Thats why it should be released when everything is said and done.

 

[Expat]

I see where your coming from. Thats why it should be released when everything is said and done.

In intelligence and National Security that day never comes or at the least very far into the future. You just never know when you will need to draw water from that well again.

 

[rjstew317]

Hellen Thomas possibly? Chikka Bow Bow

I'd hit it.



JK

 

[Expat]

I doubt I could ever drink that much...

 

[rjstew317]

I doubt I could ever drink that much...

you know you could, the question is what would you use to sever your arm so you could get away in the morning.

 

[dross]

Let's frame the philosophical parameters of this issue so we can really see where everyone stands.

Hypothetical: A guy is about to publish a leaked document that will expose dozens of our undercover agents, currently working undercover in dangerous places, ensuring their almost certain torture and death. The guy is a foreign national. Are we justified in killing him as an enemy combatant?

I say yes.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Let's frame the philosophical parameters of this issue so we can really see where everyone stands.

Hypothetical: A guy is about to publish a leaked document that will expose dozens of our undercover agents, currently working undercover in dangerous places, ensuring their almost certain torture and death. The guy is a foreign national. Are we justified in killing him as an enemy combatant?

I say yes.

I'll drop the hammer myself.

 

[mrjarrell]

Let's frame the philosophical parameters of this issue so we can really see where everyone stands.

Hypothetical: A guy is about to publish a leaked document that will expose dozens of our undercover agents, currently working undercover in dangerous places, ensuring their almost certain torture and death. The guy is a foreign national. Are we justified in killing him as an enemy combatant?

I say yes.

Unfortunately, this has no bearing on the currently leaked diplomatic cables. There has been no indication that any intelligence agents or assets have been exposed by these. Most of them just seem to be embarrassing to the US and other countries. Hardly worthy of murder.

 

[9lock]

They should stop screwing around with this flea and accident him. Today.

Maybe that's because most military guys are not programmed to believe that we are all evil incarnate. We wait for facts to emerge.

Point is, the media painted it as an unprovoked attack. Everyone was against these pilots. When the facts emerged and it was determined it was an unfortunate accident of war, the cameras were all off, the reporters all gone to tell the world about the latest war attrocities committed by our military.

So if we reserve judgment until the facts come in and that hurts you're feelings, you'll have to deal with it (I don't mean that disparagingly). I for one won't condemn anyone until they've been found guilty by a jury that's heard all the evidence. Once proven guilty, well that's a whole nuther thing.
__________________

 

[dross]

Unfortunately, this has no bearing on the currently leaked diplomatic cables. There has been no indication that any intelligence agents or assets have been exposed by these. Most of them just seem to be embarrassing to the US and other countries. Hardly worthy of murder.

We use hypotheticals to define the parameters. They aren't supposed to meet the criteria for the particular sticky example. They are supposed to be more simple and clear cut, so we can find out the core issues and premeses each person holds.

For instance, if your answer to my hypothetical is "No" then we understand better where you stand and some of the particular details of the real life example become moot and the argument moves to more fertile ground.

If, however, you answer "yes" to my hypothetical, then we can narrow the details down until we find the philosophical premise upon which you are basing your opinion.

But I think you're a very intelligent guy, and you already know that. I also know you have a history of being evasive about your root principles and you seem to prefer arguing in an arena where you have a lot of cover in which you can move around.

Step up and tell us the principles you use to support your opinion and try not to hide in the particular details of a particular case.

 

[hornadylnl]

Repped!

 

[mrjarrell]

We use hypotheticals to define the parameters. They aren't supposed to meet the criteria for the particular sticky example. They are supposed to be more simple and clear cut, so we can find out the core issues and premeses each person holds.

For instance, if your answer to my hypothetical is "No" then we understand better where you stand and some of the particular details of the real life example become moot and the argument moves to more fertile ground.

If, however, you answer "yes" to my hypothetical, then we can narrow the details down until we find the philosophical premise upon which you are basing your opinion.

But I think you're a very intelligent guy, and you already know that. I also know you have a history of being evasive about your root principles and you seem to prefer arguing in an arena where you have a lot of cover in which you can move around.

Step up and tell us the principles you use to support your opinion and try not to hide in the particular details of a particular case.

OK. I go with no. Murder is murder and the "kill one to save many" is a false premise. While I might mourn the loss of those individual human, they reasonably knew that they might be exposed and done harm, by their presence. As an aside, if you know that this info is going to be released and you have the time to seek out and murder this person, you should also have the time to warn your spies and assets, giving them plenty of time to bug out. The persons reason for publishing the information would also be a factor, for me. Is the overriding reason to expose bad practices and the exposures of assets just a side effect? Or is it the exposure of assets the primary reason? It's not a simple matter.