I might say that the public has a right to know who the security risks are in the government, and therefore Wikileaks should make public the names of its sources. Why am I wrong?
What’s the evidence this needs to be a secret?
The Taliban are the ones using the heat seeking missiles to shoot down the helicopters. They’ve been using the same weapon for decades. I think they already know iit works.
Then the context needs to be public, too.
I disagree.
[First blush] I agree with you on that point.
I thought that was the issue: the government has its opinion on what needs to be private, but their opinion isn’t the only one. (That said, I know names of informations were made public and I don’t see a compelling reason for that to be published.)
Unless it’s kept secret by default. Or because someone considers it embarrassing. Or because there’s no particular reason for them to make it public. It’s possible there’s a compelling national security interest. It’s also possible there isn’t.
And is the public supposed to have any recourse or ability to review those judgments?
You’re not. Of course, the government takes care of that on its own and investigates the leaks. The analyst alleged to have leaked the “Collateral Murder” video is looking at 60 years in prison.
Certainly…you get such recourse every time they come up for election. If you don’t trust them, or feel that they lack judgment, then by all means, vote for the other girl or guy next time.
Then our elected officials are letting us down, if they are keeping things secret simply to keep someone from being embarrassed. That’s why we HAVE elected officials from both parties on such committees that review this kind of data, to judge if it’s something the public needs to know or not…and to decide if the public’s trust is being abused for non-security related reasons.
-XT
Surely you know you’re asking a question that cannot be answered. No government in their right mind is going to give detailed explanations of why leaked documents harmful. “You see, what the Taliban didn’t know is that if they use the Stinger at a three-quarters aspect ratio at altitudes of less than 1,000 feet on cloudy days, the helicopter’s missile warning system won’t pick up the signature of the launch. So that’s why we kept that secret until Wikileaks posted it for everyone to see. Our jig is up!”
No, you’re missing the point. They probably do not know how our helicopters’ anti-missile defenses work. By posting incidents in which missiles hit, and which they did not hit, they may be able to figure out how to use their missiles to defeat our countermeasures.
What’s your basis of disagreement? How much interaction do you have with the press, and on what subjects?
Actually, I was referring to a toilet.
No, not really. You caught me. Fat finger. 
That’s an easy mother’s skirt strawman to hide behind, The fact of the matter is that if our government’s activities are that easily exposed, then they should be, because that’s what our enemies can do. In WWII, there was no internet, but there were segregated water fountains, so bleah.
We’re fucking around in places we shouldn’t be fucking around in, at a tremendous cost of lives and capital. I’m not willing to just give a nudge and a wink and trust the spooks, because they’re comitting equivalent atrocities to our supposed enemies.
This is a bad analogy. A better analogy would be if the Allies had told the people that they had successfully broken out from Normandy when in reality they had been repulsed, pushed off the beachhead, and sent scurrying back to England.
Where we stand strategically is always of importance to the populace. That’s why the Pentagon Papers were such a bombshell. It wasn’t the specifics that were so damning, it was the lack of progress towards some sort of winning path in Vietnam (which was never clearly defined). We were told that the light was at the end of the tunnel. The reality was we had not defined the conditions of victory in a strategic sense (which is why progress was being defined by body counts and other meaningless metrics), we had expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia without informing the public, and we seemed to be mostly motivated by a desire to not lose than a desire to actually achieve anything.
We face a similar dilemma in Afghanistan. What are we fighting for? Are we achieving it? When can we expect to be done?
Your analogy is worse, since it implies that the military/government has been saying that we are winning the war in Afghanistan when in fact we are actually being driven out. The military/government hasn’t been saying we are winning, and we aren’t being driven out…the conflict has been portrayed pretty much as what it is. Some of the DETAILS have been left out, some events slightly altered, but it isn’t at all like your analogy. Honestly, Sam’s was closer to the reality of the situation.
-XT
I didn’t mean to imply we were being driven out of Afghanistan, Captain Literal.
But we are not succeeding in a strategic sense. If the Allies had been pushed out of Normandy, they would not have been succeeding in a strategic sense.
Well, Major, that’s what you DID imply. What I’m saying, however, is that what we are being told isn’t some fantasy…we ARE being told the over all strategic outlook. No attempt is being made to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and tell them that we are winning while we are really losing (which is exactly what your analogy DID say).
Again, some details have been changed or left out…which is pretty much what one would expect, if those details would give away information that could be used by the enemy to kill more of our troops than are already being killed in that cluster fuck over yonder.
-XT
We are?
Seemingly so, since I haven’t seen any indication otherwise, despite ‘92000’ sensitive documents being released to the public. Or are you seeing something different?
-XT
And you know this how? Can you provide cites to back up this assertion?
Which details have been changed or left out? How did you find out about them? Why were they changed or left out?
So the fact that it was exposed is justification for exposing it? It seems that’s what you’re saying.
You completely lost me there. What does that have to do with anything at all?
I think this is what it comes down to - you guys approve of these leaks because you don’t like the war.
It’s interesting to contrast the difference in reaction between this and the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, isn’t it? 92,000 pages of specific military information that could harm the war effort and get soldiers killed? Nothing to see here. But leaking the name of a CIA agent who was barely under cover and not even operating in a foreign country? TREASON!
I think for some of you, any leak with furthers your goals is righteous and good. Any leak that benefits the other side of the partisan divide? Treasonous.
You seriously want me to prove a negative? You have 92000 documents…why don’t you show me a few that show that the wool has been pulled over our collective eyes??
Um…the one’s already mentioned in this thread?
-XT
Oh, you read some articles about this. And you didn’t see anything that you thought was too important. Well I guess that means that there couldn’t have been anything important at all in all those documents, right?
I presume you’re done scanning all 92,000 documents and can offer a broader view?
:eek: How dare you! How dare you, I say! I will not stand by and watch you besmirch the good name of the liberal douches on this here smorgasbord!!
So it’s a good thing I’m sitting . . .
Rand Rover, you’re in Great Debates. Personal insults belong in The BBQ Pit.
I can presume you think you have a point? You are the one that said nothing damaging was leaked. You therefore have the responsibility to back up that assertion (or admit that you were talking out your ass, your choice).
The fact is that it’s impossible for you or me to tell what is important to people who want to do us harm or which bits of data they need to connect the dots.
You gave a big thumbs up to the leak based on your belief that nothing harmful came out. If you want to back away from that and admit that you don’t know what was leaked or whether it was harmful, then that’s fine, no hard feelings, and good for you for admitting your mistake. If not, then you have the burden to prove your assertion.
My bad. I apologize.