Is there a difference between the current Wikileaks and outing Plame?

[ProSense]

Is one transparency and the other treasonous?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. yes, and no.

[ProSense]

2. Why? n/t

[FreakinDJ]

3. NO - both undermined Nuclear Non-proliferation efforts

[EFerrari]

11. We don't know that. Maybe we should stick to what we know. n/t

[FreakinDJ]

61. Would help IF you would actually read some of the cables

A good portion deal with Nuclear Nonproliferation

But in your defense: they are from the Bush era where nonproliferation means only Haliburton can sell nuclear detonators to Pakistan

[EFerrari]

67. Oh, I'm reading.

The small point I'm making is that it's too easy to be swept up in the claims of irreparable damage before we even know the material, let alone the consequences. And given how careful Wikileaks has been to date, it's not reasonable to expect irreparable damages.

And I don't need you to defend me, thanks.

[FreakinDJ]

68. Is the "In between the lines" part confusing you

Regardless of the fact you would prefer to make argument with me if I said "The sky is Blue". These memos come from a time when Obama is in office and Hilary is Secretary of State, and FUX News and countless Freeptards will use them to discredit ANY Dem in the run up to the next election

Its like "Cheerleading your own demise"

2. (C) Summary contd.: On Syria, Nackaerts said the Secretariat had told Damascus its first explanation for the presence of anthropogenic uranium at the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor was not credible. Further, the Secretariat still could not yet present the case for how what was being built at Dair Alzour fit in as "part of a Syrian program or part of someone else's program." On DPRK, IAEA/EXPO's Tariq Rauf said the IAEA, when it could, would ultimately have to "go back to the early 1990s" to reconstruct accountancy of plutonium and could not accept a "political" compromise setting material "off to the side." To get to a finding of "no diversion" would take several years and extensive resources and forensics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/237693

[EFerrari]

69. No, my training is in reading. I read pretty well.

It may be a surprise to you that Obama/Clinton have continued US foreign policy but it isn't to a lot of people. Maybe you should read between the lines less and try to take in the big picture.

[FreakinDJ]

72. You sure fooled a lot of folks here

BTW: since you state you opposed to Obama / Clinton's foreign policy - care to speculate how McCane or Palin would handle it

[EFerrari]

73. What group are you speaking for?

And more to the point, how is Obama's foreign policy substantially different from the previous administration's? Thanks.

[superduperfarleft]

4. Yes. A HUGE difference. n/t

[ProSense]

5. What's the huge difference? n/t

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

6. Yea, there is a difference. This is outing Plame times a thousand.

[superduperfarleft]

17. How d'ya figure?

[de novo]

79. Were a thousand covert agents outed by name to make political hay?

[jpgray]

7. Which of Assange's leaks aims to discredit opposition to a war?

[Toucano]

8. The cables have been redacted of identifying information.

Plame was outed to silence her husband's important and valid criticism of the Bush invasion of Iraq. The ones with the power selectively shone a light on someone with less power for nefarious purposes.

Wikileaks documents are being released to reveal, enlighten, and inform. The ones with no power shine a light on the actions of the powerful.

[ProSense]

13. According to reports

the documents contain the names of operatives.

"Plame was outed to silence her husband's important and valid criticism of the Bush invasion of Iraq."

What difference does it make if the crime is revealing the name of an operative?

[Toucano]

19. One's a misdirection and a cover-up. The other is informative illumination.

As for the legal status of each, both are illegal.

Prosecutions have and will occur in both cases.

[ProSense]

21. Outing a government operative is not "informative illumination"

It is a crime.

This is not the Pentagon Papers.

[Toucano]

26. I didn't say it was.

Did you have a similar complaint about the Downing Street Memos? The dodgy dossier?

[ProSense]

30. Again, purpose.

A difference. No one claims that releasing information and transparency isn't a good thing. The Iraq release by Wiki earlier served a more defined purpose. What's the purpose here?

[Toucano]

34. What was the "defined purpose" you reference? n/t

[obxhead]

25. Some of the same people creating these reports

said Iraq was a threat to the US and was just moments away from ending the world with WMD too.

:eyes:

[aquart]

16. So it's helpful for the public and other countries to know

which politicians and world leaders we think are idiots, which we think can help US, which we think are dangerously insane and we have to work with anyway?

HOW?

[Toucano]

32. Of course.

Any decision based on deceit and skulduggery is a bad decision.

It doesn't matter who makes that decision. The best decisions are made with full knowledge of relevant facts by both parties.

If the Yemeni president needs to LIE to his people about permitting the U.S. to conduct an air strike, then he should conduct the operation with his own resources, as he claimed to his people he had done. If it's okay for him to ask for some "quality whiskey", then his country should know what a hypocrite he actually is.

Secrets and lies fuel corruption at every level.

[aquart]

82. How very....idealish.

And how wonderful if you could get every single person on earth to behave just as he should, according to you.

When do you think that will happen?

[laughingliberal]

9. Yes. nt

[TexasObserver]

12. Yes, a huge difference.

Plame was outed as part of a personal vendetta by the top levels of government, targeting a specific CIA agent.

If you need to have it explained to you how that differs from releasing thousands of documents designed to keep everything about the wars secret, then think about why you can't see the difference.

[EFerrari]

14. Pretty much. It's the difference between conspiracy to commit a crime

and conspiracy to stop a crime. Plus, BushCo lied at every step about what they were doing v. Wikileaks announcing every time what they are doing.

[Odin2005]

15. Unrec for false equivalency.

Plamegate was the deliberate hatchet-job done to punish the Wilsons for exposing the lies the war was based on.

[ProSense]

18. Rejected for use of an inaccurate phrase

"Plamegate was the deliberate hatchet-job done to punish the Wilsons for exposing the lies the war was based on."

This is a "deliberate hatchet-job" (there isn't even a purpose identified yet other than embarrassment) aimed at the government, and the crime in both cases is the outing of government operatives.

You can't have it both ways and try to spin one as heroic.

[Lucinda]

20. So far anyway - I'm most concerned with other countries being "outed"

and what the repercussions may be for those countries that used these communications to push for assistance from the US.

As far as any really nasty things that may have been done by us and covered up...let there be light.

I'm still trying to get up to speed on all of this. :)

[bemildred]

22. I doubt that Mr Libby was intent on increasing government transparency. nt

[ProSense]

23. How does outing an operative regardless of motive increase transparency? n/t

[bemildred]

24. Your question seems ambiguous.

Whose motive are we talking about here?

However, I didn't say anything about anyone's motives except Mr Libby's, and I was pointing out that it is unlikely that HIS motive was to increase transparency, so that makes the OP something of a false comparison, since at least one of the cases clearly is not about transparency, and one presumes that Mr Libby's intention also was not treasonous, whatever we might think.

If you just want to assert that the Wikileaks release is about treason and not transparency, why not say so?

[ProSense]

27. How do you know the motive here is transparency?

What's being made transparent: conversations that will likely amount to nothing, but speculation and embarrassment? What's the goal?

Also what does transparency have to do with releasing the names of operatives?

That is the point of the OP.

[bemildred]

29. Whose motive?

We are not going to get far if I can't get clear about your meaning. People have motives, they don't float around in the air.

[Toucano]

28. You can't say "regardless of motive".

What world do you live in?

Stealing is wrong and a crime.

But stealing an old lady's social security check to buy a new television and stealing a loaf of bread to feed an orphan are totally different things.

Motive makes a difference.

[ProSense]

33. Oh brother.

What world do you live in?

Stealing is wrong and a crime.

But stealing an old lady's social security check to buy a new television and stealing a loaf of bread to feed an orphan are totally different things.

Motive makes a difference.

It's still stealing, regardless of the level of despicableness or how it tugs at someone's emotions.

And the equivalency is completely distortive.

[Toucano]

36. Do you maintain motive makes no difference or not?

The example is only illustrative, and yes, it's exaggerated.

But your response doesn't address the motive relevancy question.

[ProSense]

38. Motive makes no difference in

labeling the act a crime. It may make a difference in forgiveness, but not in labeling the act a crime.

Again, are you implying that Wikileaks by revealing the names of operatives, unlike the Bush gang, is committing a crime equivalent to feeding a starving infant?

[Toucano]

39. "Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA" had a clearly defined purpose.

"Here are some classified documents we got our hands on" does not - as you say up thread.

The motive - the clearly defined purpose - is the difference.

If, as you have read, the new round of documents contains personally identifying information, it is incidental to the release of the documents and not the purpose of their release. For the record, I have not seen any personally identifying information yet and actually saw something stating that the opposite was true. That's still in need of verification.

The Pentagon Papers were illegally leaked to the press. You have no problem.
The Downing Street Memo was illegally leaked to the press. You have no problem.
State Department cables are illegally leaked to the press. You're suddenly bothered.

Are you sure it's not simply a political bias that influences your opinion here?

[ProSense]

42. What's the purpose of this release?

If, as you have read, the new round of documents contains personally identifying information, it is incidental to the release of the documents and not the purpose of their release. For the record, I have not seen any personally identifying information yet and actually saw something stating that the opposite was true. That's still in need of verification.

It is irresponsible because it puts people at risk, and it's a crime

The Pentagon Papers were illegally leaked to the press. You have no problem.
The Downing Street Memo was illegally leaked to the press. You have no problem.
State Department cables are illegally leaked to the press. You're suddenly bothered.

Wikileaks released information on Iraq, and I had no problem with that.

The problem is what is the purpose of this release?

Do you think that there should be no confidential dealing within and among governments?

[Toucano]

46. They're all crimes.

Wikileaks released information on Iraq, and I had no problem with that.

That was a crime. You realize that, right?

But you did not object. The Pentagon claimed that information put troops lives in danger. You "had no problem with that".

The purpose here is the same as the other release, with which you had no problem.

That was about Bush, though.

This includes information about Obama. Is that your true issue?


In democratic societies, the citizens have a right to know what their government is doing. "Confidential dealings within and among governments" exist solely to conceal government activities from the people being governed.

Everything the government does that requires secrecy undermines the people's ability to make informed decisions and corrodes democracy.

[ProSense]

47. They're all crimes

so you decide which ones to forgive and hold up as heroic.

You obviously believe the others were heroic.

I believe they served a purpose. I do not see a valiant purpose here, and I completely object to releasing the names of people in the field.

What's the purpose: embarrassment?

Do you believe that there should be some level of confidentiality within and among governments?

[Toucano]

48. "So you decide which ones to forgive..."

Actually, that would be you in this case.

You admit to having "no problem" with the previous wikileaks, but this one concerns you because it might embarrass Obama. The motive behind your objection is purely political.


The purpose, stated by Assage. is to reveal evidence of human rights abuses and other criminal behavior:

The letter to the U.S. ambassador, Louis Sussman, also said WikiLeaks had no desire to harm either "individual persons" or "the national security of the United States." But he said the administration's refusal to cooperate showed that the risks were "fanciful."

"I understand that the United States government would prefer not to have the information that will be published in the public domain and is not in favor of openness," Assange wrote. "That said, either there is a risk or there is not."

"You have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behavior," he said.

"We will now proceed to release the material subject to our checks and the checks of our media partners unless you get back to me," Assange wrote.

Your concern for people "in the field" is noted regardless of how real or "fanciful" that danger actually is.

[ProSense]

56. "but this one concerns you because it might embarrass Obama"

Seriously, do you really believe that my opinion that governments should have some level of confidentiality is based on Presidential embarrassment? The world is not paradise, and there are people in it who would do others harm.

When people make claims like this, "but this one concerns you because it might embarrass Obama," it's clear that the argument is over because there is no point.

People can support this President without worrying about every bruise he might take.

This will impact not only the President, but also the State Department and the entire diplomatic corp.

"The purpose, stated by Assage. is to reveal evidence of human rights abuses and other criminal behavior"

Waiting, and yet you have not concern about the risk to people in the field.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

62. I support the President

Whose opinion is that?

[eridani]

80. If motive makes no difference--

--why do we bother distinguishing between 1st and 2nd degree murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter and justifiable homicide?

[librechik]

31. YWhen the powerful hold damaging secrets, it is heroic to expose them

Like the Emperor's New Clothes or the Pentagon Papers. When the powerful like Cheney use secrets they are entrusted with to destroy the powerless, i.e., political enemies like Plame, that is evil. The fact that Plame was a heroic intelligence officer, and exposing her secrets destroyed her effectiveness for the country, not to mention led to death and chaos, makes it treason.

Exposing the secret crimes of the powerful=heroism and patriotism.
Exposing your own secret operatives in order to protect a lie of the powerful=treachery

[ProSense]

37. Hmmm?

The fact that Plame was a heroic intelligence officer, and exposing her secrets destroyed her effectiveness for the country, not to mention led to death and chaos, makes it treason.

Exposing the secret crimes of the powerful=heroism and patriotism.
Exposing your own secret operatives in order to protect a lie of the powerful=treachery

So exposing Plame let to death and chaos, but exposing other political operatives is heroic?

Let's forget the embarrassing stuff, and address putting people at risk.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. Don't know enough about the wikileaks info to comment yet

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

45. Great argument. n/t

[Autumn]

41. Have any CIA agents been outed by the Wikileaks documents?

Just curious in case I missed it.

[Pavulon]

50. Start treaty is now dead. (ICBM revelations)

Saudi will be responding to Iranian hostility soon. (may be good for the US we sell them weapons), Program to recover HEU in Pakistan now fucked.

You be the judge. And that is from a quick skim.

[Toucano]

52. Thanks, Nostradamus.

Pass on the lottery numbers when you get a chance, won't you?

[Autumn]

59. Oh an insider, what else can you tell us? Or is that

just a reading from your crystal ball? Me? I got no problem with sunlight and truth.:shrug:

[eridani]

81. START treaty dead due to Repub obstructionism, period n/t

[stray cat]

43. DU does not call Cheney a hero for promoting transparency and a patriot who should be president

[JackRiddler]

53. I missed where Assange launched an aggressive war for profit and killed hundreds of thousands.

[kentuck]

44. Yes.

One was exposed by the White House.

And the other exposed by an Internet news source.

[bemildred]

49. Precisely. nt

[ProSense]

57. That's a characterization

not a response to the question in the OP.

[JackRiddler]

51. First of all, Wikileaks cannot be treasonous, as they are not a US organization.

Second, the Plame outing was damage control by an unelected and criminal government that had started an aggressive war, following the partial failure of an operation to advance lies on behalf of that war.

Wikileaks is a small non-governmental group who are partly if haphazardly filling a gap left by the journalistic establishment that cooperated in enabling aggressive war. Their addition to the news agenda is certainly superior to more Palin stories, or propaganda about why we should all be happy to bend over for the TSA.

[JackRiddler]

54. When do you plan on arresting Daniel Ellsberg for treason?

Don't dally, just go straight to this: "Wikileaks is Hitler and the US government is Poland because ________."

[moondust]

55. delete

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northernlights]

63. one is outing a person operating under cover

exposing her, and all her former contacts, in order to punish her husband for not supporting an illegal, unecessary and, ultimately ruinous war.

The other is exposing the US dealing "in good faith." So why is our government so afraid to have the world see what they *really* think and say about their various partners.

After all, if the US was dealing "in good faith" then what do we have to fear from a little transparency?

[ProSense]

65. "The other is exposing the US dealing 'in good faith.'"

How do you know it's being done in "good faith"?

Again, what is the purpose? I'm made the point specifically about operatives in the field. Someone said releasing their identities is incidental, but that doesn't cut it. Putting people at risk if the sole purpose is to embarrass a government is ridiculous.

Are people really shocked that there are spies? So what's the point of releasing the names of operatives?

[coalition_unwilling]

76. I think the Bush Junta outed Plame to send a message to other civil

service employees who might be tempted to do what Joe Wilson did. A pre-emptive strike, if you will, on anyone contemplating whistle-blowing a la Wilson or Ellsberg. Sure the Bush Junta wanted to punish Wilson but what they really wanted to do was to scare others who knew as much or more than Wilson about where all the bodies re Iraq and AfPak (and possibly 9/11 itself) were buried.

[eShirl]

64. wow, I've been seeing this talking point all over the place this afternoon

[leftygolfer]

66. I trust President Obama!

I voted for him because I believed he knew what was best for this country. If he says TSA needs to conduct some pat downs, who am I to argue that it doesn't? If he says Wikileaks is wrong and hurtful to the U.S., do you know more than he does about U.S. security? I doubt it. We put trust in him to be the President, he deserves our support.

[Joanne98]

70. YES

[Wind Dancer]

71. Yes...........

.... but you know that already so why ask? :eyes:

[Individualist]

74. Uh...YES

[de novo]

75. What do YOU think?

[TheKentuckian]

77. Pretty big difference in WHO is doing the leaking, to start.

Also, in their responsibilities to agents and agencies.

Never mind purpose, which I think is drastically different to the point of there being no comparison.

[joshcryer]

78. Plame's identity was classified, the cables were secret.

Only substantiative difference.