Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
WikiLeaks: Important petition for all Australians and supporters of free speech
wraith808:
How, specifically, is it a "handicap", and is that only true because of the way politics is conducted today? If so, can that change to remove this "handicap", or do you consider it a fundamental reality of international relations?
-JavaJones (December 13, 2010, 08:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
It is a handicap because of the way that negotiations are handled on such a scale (from a position of strength... where equal sharing of information is an equalizer), and I don't think there's any realistic way to remove this handicap as long as the conditions that I refer to exist. People negotiate for their own well being in most cases- selflessness is unfortunately rarer than selfishness.
The thing is, I don't mind leaks if they expose wrong doing that should be made public, after appropriate measures have been taken to take it through proper channels and nothing has been done. But leaking just because 'information should be free' is complete BS IMO. Even the openleaks.org will still be a front, because they won't make *everything* public. There's no way. Unless they tape everything 24 hours a day while they work (which would then make the information useless because of information overload), there's no way.
-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 09:01 AM)
--- End quote ---
But would you really leave it up to Assange - or whomever actually leaks documents to him - to separate the wheat from the chaff and "expose wrong doing" only? Just who is the arbiter of wrong vs. right info that "should be made public"? The government that classified non-secret-related but embarrassing documents? Obviously that hasn’t worked.
-J-Mac (December 13, 2010, 09:49 PM)
--- End quote ---
*In your opinion* they are non-secret-related. But, in the same way that your medical records are secret if you discuss them with your doctor, these diagnoses of the condition of patients- many times from within the patient's 'body', were given with the same expectation of secrecy. And they can, and indeed probably will have negative effects on delicate national negotiations and situations.
J-Mac:
Most certainly is NOT my opinion. Why are you assuming that? Have you even seen any of the documents? Do you have any idea of what their classifications are? Or are you just extending your "doctor-patient relationship top secret" presumption across all possible leaked documents? (A senseless analogy when in fact the actual classification of the documents is known!)
The 251,287 documents released are classified as follows:
[*] Just over half of the cables are not subject to classification.
[*] 40.5 percent are classified as "confidential".
[*] Only 6 percent or 15,652 dispatches as "secret".
[*] The release contains 4,330 messages which are "not meant for foreigners".[/list]
That's why I stated "non-Secret-related but embarrassing documents" in my previous post. That is what many of them are. Definitely more so than are "Secret".
Jim
wraith808:
Most certainly is NOT my opinion. Why are you assuming that? Have you even seen any of the documents? Do you have any idea of what their classifications are? Or are you just extending your "doctor-patient relationship top secret" presumption across all possible leaked documents? (A senseless analogy when in fact the actual classification of the documents is known!)
The 251,287 documents released are classified as follows:
[*] Just over half of the cables are not subject to classification.
[*] 40.5 percent are classified as "confidential".
[*] Only 6 percent or 15,652 dispatches as "secret".
[*] The release contains 4,330 messages which are "not meant for foreigners".[/list]
That's why I stated "non-Secret-related but embarrassing documents" in my previous post. That is what many of them are. Definitely more so than are "Secret".
-J-Mac (December 13, 2010, 11:26 PM)
--- End quote ---
By definition, the cables are secret-related, even if not 'classified' rating. A good write-up on what a cable is was done by Slate.
From that article:
Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance.
--- End quote ---
And no, I haven't trolled the release, other than a few documents and news media outlets such as NPR and such. (the very nature of the release means that to do so would take a lot of time I don't have, so I leave it to those that do). But that's what I meant by in your (and the slanted view of those that report this) view- nothing as a slight. But if the gatherers of the information deemed it to be placed in such regard, then who are we to say that they aren't, not knowing the full picture?
J-Mac:
By definition, the cables are secret-related, even if not 'classified' rating. A good write-up on what a cable is was done by Slate.
From that article:
Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance.
--- End quote ---
-wraith808 (December 14, 2010, 01:33 PM)
--- End quote ---
There is no such definition of cable classification, in that article or anywhere else. "meant to be" is what the article says, yet federal regulations call for any restricted communication to receive a classification designation. And 15,652 (6%) of the cables were indeed classified as Secret as noted in my last post. The rest were not.
And no, I haven't trolled the release, other than a few documents and news media outlets such as NPR and such. (the very nature of the release means that to do so would take a lot of time I don't have, so I leave it to those that do).
--- End quote ---
Hmm.. And here I consider that people have "read" or "perused" the released documents. You seem to be implying that to do so is trolling...
But that's what I meant by in your (and the slanted view of those that report this) view- nothing as a slight. But if the gatherers of the information deemed it to be placed in such regard, then who are we to say that they aren't, not knowing the full picture?
--- End quote ---
OK, "nothing as a slight", and yet you call my view "slanted" along with others who report this? Slanted compared to what? Your view? Which I guess is "normal" or "standard"? Please explain.
On second thought, I think I will end my input here as it seems to be getting a little too personal for you. Politics and religion and all that; guess it's true!
TTFN
Jim
wraith808:
On second thought, I think I will end my input here as it seems to be getting a little too personal for you. Politics and religion and all that; guess it's true!
-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)
--- End quote ---
We'll start with this, and my response to an earlier thread. I don't know where you got the 'personal' slant to things, but to each his own, especially since I said earlier:
We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this.
-Renegade (December 13, 2010, 09:25 AM)
--- End quote ---
Perhaps you're right. But I continue to try to see the point.
-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 11:04 AM)
--- End quote ---
But if this truly was a question, rather than just a rhetorical post as your last part made it seem to be, I'll answer, and you choose to read or not, and continue to debate or not. I'm having no problems with it, so it's up to you... :)
By definition, the cables are secret-related, even if not 'classified' rating. A good write-up on what a cable is was done by Slate.
From that article:
Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance.
--- End quote ---
-wraith808 (December 14, 2010, 01:33 PM)
--- End quote ---
There is no such definition of cable classification, in that article or anywhere else. "meant to be" is what the article says, yet federal regulations call for any restricted communication to receive a classification designation. And 15,652 (6%) of the cables were indeed classified as Secret as noted in my last post. The rest were not.
-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)
--- End quote ---
That part I quoted was from the article, so to say it's not there is... puzzling. What a 'cable' (and I put it into quotes for the very reason that it is called into question) is, is a classification (or to make it clearer, a nomenclature, perhaps?) that refers to e-mails that have information in them, and is stored for those that have security clearance to be able to access. That was the part that I referred to.
And no, I haven't trolled the release, other than a few documents and news media outlets such as NPR and such. (the very nature of the release means that to do so would take a lot of time I don't have, so I leave it to those that do).
--- End quote ---
Hmm.. And here I consider that people have "read" or "perused" the released documents. You seem to be implying that to do so is trolling...
-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)
--- End quote ---
What?!? Ummm... ok. Maybe it's my fault. Again, for the sake of clarification, maybe if I had used the word trawled (which indeed is an alternate version of troll?) I would have thought that context would have made the intent clear, but I guess not?
But that's what I meant by in your (and the slanted view of those that report this) view- nothing as a slight. But if the gatherers of the information deemed it to be placed in such regard, then who are we to say that they aren't, not knowing the full picture?
--- End quote ---
OK, "nothing as a slight", and yet you call my view "slanted" along with others who report this? Slanted compared to what? Your view? Which I guess is "normal" or "standard"? Please explain.
-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)
--- End quote ---
Slanted as in looking at only one view? Again, it seems not to be me that is taking things personally. I consider non-slanted reporting to be unbiased, which I have heard (NPR and other news outlets) that report both sides of the story. But many outlets are reporting on this as if then ends justify the means, and take any wrongdoing out of this whatsoever. As I stated on another thread, I don't think that Assange has done anything that he should or could be prosecuted over. I wouldn't have done it, and I don't think it was right... but it wasn't illegal by any means. But illegal no. But laws were broken in obtaining these documents, and I think that whomever was responsible should be held accountable. And I think that whatever legal remedies can be taken to get this information should be done.
Security clearance is required for a reason, and is not optional. It's not something that you're forced into- you can choose not to take the position if you don't agree with the agreement. But once you do, you're bound by it, and should take it seriously- as seriously as any breaches of it should also be taken.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version