Wikileaks And Anonymous

Try? Many names and places were released when he published those documents. He put quite a few lives in danger with his "everyone has a need to know" stunts.

You make it sound as if the UN/DoD was in the wrong by not assisting him. You expect them to help violate US law?

Receipt of stolen government property is illegal. It's plain and simple. Publishing classified information is dangerous, amongst illegal. There is a reason we classify things, and it isn't to "keep it from the tax payers because we are big brother and we must control the world mwa ha ha ha ha".

There are a multitude of things countries do for us, and we do for countries, that are kept behind close doors to secure international relations. Opening that door to the world and publicizing cables, becomes detrimental to national security as well as foreign policy. Other countries trust us with information they share, and we trust them.

Do you have any idea the sacrifices that are made by locals in Afghanistan/Iraq to supply us with information we can act on? Of course you don't, or you would not be in support of what Assange has done. Their families are brutally tortured and murdered when Al-Qaeda/Taliban learn that they have been assisting us. This probably never crosses your mind, since the fear of that ever happening to you is basically nonexistent.

It's unfortunate you do not see the briefings I go to daily, nor witness the things I have seen.

Explain why you believe you are privy to sensitive information regarding national security, diplomatic relations, and names of those who assist us.

Government kills for the "greater good", but actually kills, Assange is not as direct as the goverment method.
I'd say the blame game doesn't go both ways.
Yes you can say Assange is to blame for people getting "in trouble"(vague term, i know), for the governments shady tactics.
But then again if ***'s bad off enough that someone is going to be possessed enough to do an act such as this I'd say it's not like it wasn't already coming.

Explain why you believe that the general populous isn't privy to sensitive information regarding national security, diplomatic relations, and names of those who assist us.
Or you can see it like I see it, as more of a warning if anything.
Not even a "terrorist attack", a proper warning :/
like a "get your ***together", type warning.
you can disagree and say we don't need to know, but that isn't in question, we already know what will be released. and i'm pretty sure the release of the rest of the information is pretty much imminent.
So we "don't need to know", information is already released.
maybe the government should reconsider how they keep their sensitive data "sensitive and safe"?
because it obviously didn't work.
you can lay blame on Assange, but it's not like the government isn't to blame to an extent.
Which is the point you seem to be forgetting in your emotional plea for foreign informants.

the government is for the people of the united states above all else, our right to know > other nations (when it comes to the U.S. government.

It's not that it "doesn't work" per se, it's that there isn't enough manning to make sure each individual person has integrity. All it takes is for someone to use a flash drive and copy files. Sure, I suppose we could remove all of the USB ports from every single computer, revert back to serial/ps2 keyboards/mice and take further precautions because 1 out of a million will transfer classified files; but I doubt you'd want to see the invoice for that many system replacements as well as the licensing for software that has to be put back on.

They aren't privy because sensitive information regarding national security and diplomatic relations have no bearing on the everyday person's life. They aren't privy because the populous en masse cannot be tracked. Sensitive information would be leaked to adversaries on a daily basis. Do you condone this? It would be counter productive to safeguarding a country, as well as attempting to stay 1 step ahead of our adversaries.

Of course the government takes it's share in the blame department. After all, it was our federal government's bright idea to share all this information between services and to people who do not have a need to know, to try and fill intelligence gaps.

Of course I have an "emotional plea for foreign informants". You don't see the things I do. Or, if you do, you are one heartless ***.

Tell me Vin, what are the ramifications for releasing information regarding the names and locations of foreign informants relating to the activities of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (and a slew of other orgnizations/groups)? You don't have to respond to this with a list, but make a list in your head. Then weigh that against "the public's right to know that information", and tell me you can honestly justify releasing this information.

Would you condone someone releasing information on how our weapon systems work, or the abilities/restrictions on our platforms in regards to imagery? If so, why? If not, why?

Indeed, for the people. We do declassify documents. Or can you not wait to learn this information until that happens? Is it vital to your existence to know these things right now?

privy:
what exactly do you see that I don't?
these people dying because the U.S. Gov't can't keep their sensitive information "sensitive"?
That sound about right?
it's not a matter of who has the right to what.
you have the right to anything you can do within your power.
he's not some american citizen, so the whole "legality" aspect is irrelevant.

So apparently I am speaking on behalf of "a part", and you on behalf of "interest". Shall we leave minor nitpicking aside, as to progress in meaningful discourse?

Edit: Since you edited your post to include more than a definition of a word...

what exactly do you see that I don't?
these people dying because the U.S. Gov't can't keep their sensitive information "sensitive"?
That sound about right?
it's not a matter of who has the right to what.
you have the right to anything you can do within your power.
he's not some american citizen, so the whole "legality" aspect is irrelevant.

Again, short of spending billions of taxpayer dollars to do a complete overhaul of every computer because 1 person out of a million lacks integrity.. what do you propose the government should do to safeguard information that someone with a proper clearance has access to?

I have the right to do anything I can within my power? Apparently you live in a world without law and order, governed only by chaos. You do realize the United States has laws, yes?

Title 18 Chapter 37 of the US Code is the law Assange broke.
- http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37
He can be extradited here.

After undertaking a
comprehensive review of the applicable law, we conclude that the 1980 Opinion erred in ruling
that the FBI does not have legal authority to carry out extraterritorial law enforcement activities
that contravene customary international law.
First, we conclude that, with appropriate direction, the FBI may use its broad statutory authority
under 28 U.S.C. § 533(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3052 to investigate and arrest individuals for
violations of United States law even if those investigations and arrests are not consistent with
international law. - http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/olc_override.pdf

sorry, i tend to do an opening statement post and then I edit my post further :/
force of habit.

you seem to be focusing only on specific things.
i'd imagine he got his hands on some sensitive information that he didn't really want to release yet and had that as his playing card in the end.
since we seem to be going on some crazy word dance I better illustrate my stance for you a bit better.

I believe that Assange did what he had to do, do I agree with deaths?
No, who would?
Do I think that the information is going to provoke change?
Yes.
Is change good?
sometimes.
Do I believe this change will create good?
I don't know.

If you have any more questions, maybe do some concise ones?
because I'm not the greatest at locating what to start with first in lump paragraphial content without taking an extended amount of time to read the text, and typically by that time in a forum setting the conversation typically moves a lot further.
done with my extra edits on this one, you're good to reply if you'd like to still chat.

So change is good sometimes, and you aren't sure if this will create good. Yet you are for it? I don't mean to sound like an ***, but that's a pretty piss-poor business model.

"I'd like to receive a loan to open a business please"
-"what type of business"
"Im not sure, can you just loan me the money without accountability and we can see what happens from there?"

Do you, as a person, ever use a Cost-Benefit Analysis to determine what you should and shouldn't do? I'd imagine (though I may be naive on this) that most sane people do. The "cost" to US interests and national security are major in comparison with the "benefits" that can be had by the actions of Assange and whomever supplied the documents to him.

Where did I illustrate to you that I am "for" what Assange is doing?
Just because I think he is doing what he feels(not me) is for the greater good of the world?
The rest of your post is hinged upon my agreeing with Assange that you happened to infer, so I can't very well answer the rest with that in mind. :/
I'm just saying that you don't know exactly what's gonna go down until the dust clears :/

Well, do you agree with Assange?

I agree with his intentions, not so much his methods.
I'd like some wiki-leaks about political and corporate corruption though. :3

Do you believe there is another way to accomplish his intentions?

Assange isn't American though, so it goes to the grey matter land of international law in regards to the legalities, but you can see that since they've actually arrested him now for this whole "rape accusation", it's like they are like "You are going to expose our crooked dealings, so we will do more crooked dealings to catch you!"

Everyone would like the wiki-leaks about political corruption. Hell, I would love for everyone to know all the dirt on our political figures. Then, all that crap would be out in the open and a single corporation would not have as much "pull" with certain political figures, because everyone would have the same "pull". Wouldn't stop payoffs though.

But, back to the point, I think "certain" information should remain a secret, such as military strategy, weapons systems, international informants, (you get my drift here) should remain a secret. I believe the entire problem with this argument you guys are having lies in defining the word "sensitive".

Only for questioning at the moment, he is not charged yet. Had this matter not been looked into I think the Swedish government would have been pressured to do this anyway. It may very well be a formality so that other countries cannot mount pressure on Sweden for letting these allegations go unanswered.

oh!
yay!
won't stop the gov't and other powers to try to bend the law around to shut em down though.

they are trying the ***-throwing approach?
lol
i guess we'll see what they get to stick.

Lol, the KKK was a not-for-profit orginization.

who's to say what should and should not be known?
i'd bet the military info is just an insurance policy anyway :P

So is the NAACP, what's your point?

We, the people of the USofA" should be the ones to define the word "sensitive." As a whole, in an election. Not the people elected, but we as a nation of voters.

We the people of USA "should" be doing a lot of things.

I was backing your point about the government not trying to shut them down. I was actually agreeing with you :P

See there's your point :P
I wasn't trying to argue with ya on that one :P
It's just a lot easier to illustrate your point when you state it. :P
All in good conversation, all in good conversation. :D

Agreed, 100%. But, never in my lifetime will we, the people, ever agree on anything enough to do anything about anything. We are too busy being divided by party lines and being 1-issue voters to do anything.

melting post is pretty full nowadays, might overflow or tip over if we aren't careful.
or people need to start taking stuff out of the pot to make it less full.
government and media have both got too big for their breeches IMO.