Unintended consequences with Classified Information..Example.

[Pavulon]

Myanmar is ruled by a military junta. They have been investigated for mass killings and extrajudicial murders, they kill people who do not go along.

The below cable details a person who gave Uranium to the US Embassy. Their NAME is redacted. The DATE the were there is NOT redacted.

The junta now only needs to pull tape from the date disclosed to identify this person. It is a safe assumption the junta will not appreciate this persons actions.

This is ONE CABLE where a person's life could be compromised. It has NOTHING TO DO with IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN.

Why should this be in the clear. BEST case this person and their family were able to be secured. Worst case they are dead.

This is the problem with dumping random information.

http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=08RANGOON749&hl=Burma

[Arctic Dave]

1. "Could be" is not much of an argument.

If Burma is such a bad country then why do we let our our oil companies do business with them.

[Pavulon]

3. Well bradley did not steal a cable where the person named here

can be determined dead or alive. How is that at all relevant to a person assisting the US in securing Uranium.

[Arctic Dave]

16. Why can't they have uranium?

[Pavulon]

22. They are signators of the NPR. If they are not concerned

why not just declare the program? Why interact with North Korea? Again a dodge, why should this cable be in the clear.

[Arctic Dave]

99. No dodge, why should I care if they have uranium.

Why did the person bring to the attention of the US to begin with. They must have wanted something in return badly enough to justified there actions to do this.

[Pavulon]

102. SO that is worth their life? Again, what is the benefit to dumping this content?(nt)

[Arctic Dave]

110. You only assume it is worth their life.

You have no proof for or against your assumption.

The real question is why they bothered to tell the US.

[Pavulon]

112. Once more, why put this in the clear? not iraq war, not war crimes..

what benefit is gained from publishing this and dozens that have names intact?

[Hangingon]

2. Amazing! I tried to rec this post and the count stays at 0.

This is a real world example of how a humint asset gets burned. Wonder how long the unrec line is.

[Pavulon]

6. My position on this is about as popular as a fart in church here..

many are so caught up in the moment of julian fighting the man that this is an afterthought.

[NightWatcher]

4. Pull the tape from what date. What location? What time?

How do you know they met at the Embassy and not McDonalds?

There are a lot of "could ofs" in your argument

[Pavulon]

5. US Embassy Rangoon.

.
M) (S//REL TO USA, ACGU) Interview occurred in a consular interview room (used for walk-ins) at the U.S. Embassy RANGOON.

Sure there are. Can you give me ONE REASON this should be in the clear?

edit spelling.

[NightWatcher]

7. So the government is going to identify, locate and kill every citizen that had contact?

[Ikonoklast]

8. Myanmar certainly would.

Just to get the right guy?

Sure.


Who's going to say anything?


They'll get disappeared, too.

[Pavulon]

9. Only the ones selling Uranium from undecleared nuclear programs..

to the US. Seriously you think they will do nothing?

Again why does this need to be in the clear? What is served by this?

[asdjrocky]

10. Fuck that shit.

Give us the truth we deserve.

[Pavulon]

11. Can you give me one reason this information should be in the clear?

what do you get from this information?

What do you get from knowing details of US efforts to recover hostages taken by the FARC?

Does your "right to know" trump these peoples lives?

[asdjrocky]

12. There is only one reason needed.

The truth. Go ahead and find things to get your panties in a bunch about, but the truth always wins.

[Pavulon]

15. Yeah, dead people tend to be worth worrying about. The truth

is a childish response. how many lives is you perception of truth worth?

[asdjrocky]

17. I don't play this game.

I know that must infuriate you, but I just don't. I believe in the truth far more than I do in things that "could possibly happen."

Sell it somewhere else.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[asdjrocky]

20. And yet you continue to try and play.

Child? Really? You are too kind, bless your heart.

[shraby]

21. It was real people with Valerie Plame too, but did that stop

the Scooter Libby bunch?

[Pavulon]

24. Stop deflecting. This is not about that. It is a simple question you people refuse to answer

why should this persons identity be in the clear? It has nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan, so why expose them?

[elias49]

116. Wikileaks is not just about Iraq and Afghanistan

You'd know that if you'd been following Wiki at all over the past few years.

And as far as 'why expose', well there may be folks - even ordinary Americans - who might be interested in why the US was playing with black market(?)uranium.
Were they trying to set up some kind of sting?
Was it ours?

[Pavulon]

122. Because when enriched it destroys cities.

we have plenty of Uranium of our own.

[Cid_B]

79. Don't waste your time...

Dead people are just imaginary wisps of ether to most people here... Once you've seen someone with their brain protruding out of their forehead for the "crime" of trying to make their area a less fucked up place it becomes a lot more real.

Busybody know it alls think their hatred of "the man" is a good enough reason for someone else to die.

Edit - Some of those folks who have died / will die because of Assange and Manning have done more to improve and save lives than all the keyboard commandos here combined.

[jaxx]

13. The leaks are irresponsible.

Who knows how many more are out there like the info you posted.

[laughingliberal]

29. Government secrets are more irresponsible. I don't like shadow governments or police states. nt

[jaxx]

30. No government can do it's business under the lights.

The world is not some Utopia.

[laughingliberal]

33. Not what the founders thought.

Open transparent government is not "Utopia" and it's just your attempt to ridicule those who believe as the founders did.

[jaxx]

39. Neither is a shadow government and a police state accurate.

[laughingliberal]

44. I disagree. We are well into police state territory with the passage of the Patriot Act.

And our intelligence community long ago became an entity unto itself waging wars of which the American people remain unaware.

Most Democrats were concerned about this when Bush was in the White House. Guess everything's coming up roses, now.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

46. Seems Thomas Jefferson saw it my way. nt

[Pavulon]

50. History is not your friend here. Your position is childish and not used by any

government. Jefferson encoded correspondence.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124648494429082661.html

[laughingliberal]

63. Daniel Ellsberg agrees with my childish world view and the Supreme Court agreed with him.

I know it pisses you off but some people don't agree with your world view. I'm one of them.

[Pavulon]

70. Well you have an Army of one. Supreme case was related to press publication

not stating that all us government business must be conducted in clear text for every citizen of the world to see..

Can you name ONE WESTERN NATION that conducts business in this manner? Hell, one nation period.

[laughingliberal]

80. I'm gonna go with Ellsberg on this. Here's a quote from him from 2008:

Many, if not most, covert operations deserve to be disclosed by a free press. They are often covert not only because they are illegal but because they are wildly ill-conceived and reckless. "Sensitive" and "covert" are often synonyms for "half-assed," "idiotic," and "dangerous to national security," as well as "criminal."

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8214

I agree a lot more with his world view than yours.

[Pavulon]

83. Thanks for the link. Again how does posting this persons name in public

benefit anything. What secret is covered up? What crime? Just think about it, its not about the war or war crimes, its a persons name.

There are LOTS of people's names in those cables.

[laughingliberal]

90. I'm standing on the quote from Ellsberg and I've said your demands to have your question...

answered will not be met by me. Your MO is to demand people defend their position and you respond by calling it silly or childish or by raging at them for not caring about hypothetical losses of life.

[Odin2005]

56. Millennia. Work on your spelling.

[Pavulon]

59. Keep working on the argument that justifies releasing this, would love to see one.

all these posts and not one person can express why this cable should be in the clear. Not one.

[GliderGuider]

14. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs

The exercise of power requires accountability.
When accountability is not forthcoming, it must be encouraged.
If voluntary necessary transparency is not offered,
involuntary transparency becomes inevitable.

I stand with Julian.

[Pavulon]

18. Is this a broken egg?

<insert mental picture of gunshot wound head, skull sheared off at jawline>? How much transparency do you want? You want launch codes? You want it all in real time?
Basically you are willing to trade peoples lives for your sense of entitlement to classified information..

Other than a fucking cute sentence WHY does this information need to be in the clear?

[GliderGuider]

23. Nobody has revealed launch codes. You're being hysterical.

I want as much transparency as is necessary to reclaim the accountability of governments for the use of the power we grant them with our ballots.

You sure seem fond of that head-shot image. I'd have that looked at if I were you.

[laughingliberal]

25. +1000 nt

[Pavulon]

28. Feel free to explain how this being in the clear accomplishes any clear goal you have

and not some half assed "truth must be free" bullshit. Why does this cable need to be in the public venue.

I could post 10 more just like it. No political value, no "criminal" activity. How do details from efforts trying to recover hostages from the FARC help you?

[laughingliberal]

31. I'm really not obligated to respond to your incessant demands that people answer your question.

[Pavulon]

35. Not obligated but it would be interesting to see a reasonable argument as to why

information like this should be disclosed.. This is an internet FORUM, so ideas can be exchanged.

[laughingliberal]

38. Nope. Don't recall a single time in my life I ever responded to a raging authoritarian whose sole

purpose is to solicit answers he can continue to rage about.

[Pavulon]

49. You mistake rage for clear rational thinking. There are arguments to be made to support this

cable being in the clear but generally involve accepting the trade of this persons life for your right to know.

You continue to dance, but provide zero content.

[laughingliberal]

53. I don't find your raging authoritarian postings to be conducive to...

discussion. You seem to keep demanding answers and then ridicule or rage at any answers you get.

My Dad did that shit all the time. I didn't speak to him the last 15 years of his life.

We get it. You wish the pits of hell and a horrible death for Assange and Manning. I don't.

[Pavulon]

57. You dont get it. Unlike the media approach and the gaggle here, it is NOT about assange

it is about the people whose lives are impacted by the information released. This was not a focused release, it was a dump of random data by neophytes who have no idea of the consequences they will cause.

This is not about your family life.

[GliderGuider]

66. There is nothing whatsoever "random" about the release.

They have so far released only about 1,200 of the 250,000 cables they possess. Each one has been individually inspected and redacted.

[Pavulon]

72. By fucking morons who want click through money.

this cable is an example of that failure. the person CAN be identified from the date stamp and location alone. You understand that right?

[laughingliberal]

67. I get it just fine. People prone to rage are always in search of some reason to spew it.

Some are good espousing some noble motive for it but their intent is to find more reasons to rage.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

82. It's my experience that people who rage will either deny they are raging or try to justify it. nt

[Pavulon]

84. Stop the ad-hom, its silly. rational would be to put me on ignore or give a real answer..

what value is provided in that cable that offsets the direct risk to that person's life?

[laughingliberal]

88. I do notice you seem to use a lot of online screaming and demanding others answer you...

So, I'd call my posts more observations of the behavior than ad hominems. At any rate, I've already said I'm not going to be answering any of your demands for answers.

[Pavulon]

93. all this chatter and still no content. Nothing..(nt)

[elias49]

118. No criminal activity? Say WHAT?

Did someone just pick up a few grams of uranium at the local Jiffy Mart?

[Pavulon]

26. I intentionally did not post anything graphic. How the FUCK does someone in Rangoon

passing information to the US Embassy have anything to so with "accountability". You people continue to dodge that?

This is not a war crime memo, it is not a banking memo, it is intelligence gathering and it is now in the clear?

What does this accomplish?

[Evoman]

43. So you would be okay with the leaks if they were about war crimes or banking?

Is it just these "intelligence gathering" leaks you don't like, or is it all of them?

[Pavulon]

51. Banks no problem. That is not classified information..

They have no protection. Any evidence of war crimes could be provided to at least a dozen sources that could handle the information within the legal framework.

In the exception those leaks should be made pubic. Dumping 250,000 random documents does not fit that exception. It shows wanton disregard for those names included.

[GliderGuider]

69. Again, the dump is not "random". That is a RW, authoritarian meme.

Each of the 1200 or so cables they have released has been individually chosen, inspected and redacted.

[Pavulon]

77. memes come from media, read original sources. Manning explained it

the logs are available online. 250,000 cables are random.

Again what the hell does this memo have to do with Iraq, war crimes, or whatever you are motivated by?

What does disclosing this accomplish?

[laughingliberal]

86. What???!!!??? Someone on DU is pushing a RW, authoritarian meme! Say it ain't so! nt

[elias49]

120. Banks have no protection against corporate theft?

Wow! In what country?

[Pavulon]

125. Not the 10 10 form manning signed. It is not a felony to disclose a bank will not lend to blacks

or played with fast and loose with foreclosure documents. it should be out. do not confuse whistleblowing with espionage.

Information regarding active diplomatic projects has no reason to be the public domain.

[elias49]

130. Ah, so MANNING signed a '1010' form

All this time I thought you were pissed at Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
I guess I stand corrected.

[lonestarnot]

131. The diplomaticarrangement with McLumpy's old wife and her diplomatic project to use of aircraft to

smuggle presciption drugs. The pancake yellow cake that didn't exist was one of the precursors for preemptive strike v. Iraq. That was a lie that outted a CIA NOC. If we had known, nevermind.

[Pavulon]

134. I have heard that meme, but doubt anything about this myanmar cable

or anything here would have stopped the Iraq war. Funny not a single fucking cable from the process that led us there.

[lonestarnot]

136. Of course it's a meme to those allergic to the truth.

:eyes:

[Pavulon]

137. Hey, its all faith based thinking. If hero julian

was able to disclose information X would happen. Please.

[pipoman]

34. And you seem to not give a single shit about it

Let's see, which is more troubling?

[RetroLounge]

73. Nice snuff porn

Did that get you off?

:rofl:

RL

[Pavulon]

78. Read the post . Its text, no picture. You are on autopilot.

other poster wants to break some eggs, just not his own.

[Cid_B]

96. As long as those eggs aren't yours...

People here make me sick...

[GliderGuider]

138. I can make a more nuanced argument, but this thread hardly seems like the place for that.

Pavulon is getting bent out of shape over a hypothetical situation he created regarding one single cable out of 250,000. I'm perfectly OK with that degree of risk, given what may be gained from the release of the other 249,999 cables.

The number of deaths of utterly innocent civilians caused by American troops in Iraq, in the course of a war founded on lies (a war that might have been avoided had someone had the balls to do this in 2002) makes Pavulon's hysterical hypothetical pale into insignificance.

I want as much transparency as is necessary to reclaim the accountability of governments for the use of the power we grant them with our ballots.

[the redcoat]

27. So essentially

what you're saying is that if the date was redacted, then there would be absolutely nothing wrong with releasing the document. Since your argument about the safety of this random individual now hinges fully on simply knowing the date, then redacting the date would mean you have no argument for the possibility of unintended consequences.

I agree with my interpretation of what you're saying.

[Pavulon]

32. I have yet to hear one cohesive argument on why this cable should be in the clear. not one

from the gaggle. it is tremendously simple, what interest is served by disclosing this information to the world.

What goal is assange accomplishing?

[the redcoat]

113. First, let's be honest about one thing.

It doesn't matter what anyone says. You've clearly chosen your position and won't change it regardless of what anyone else says. So it doesn't really matter whether you've heard one cohesive argument or not, you most likely wouldn't accept it as sufficient to change your point of view.

That's not necessarily an attack on your personality, most people that have opinions on this issue are most likely this way.


My specific point about this thread is that if your only reason that these cables will cause harm to anyone is the dates, then you're accepting the idea that, if the date on this cable was redacted, then there would be no danger imposed on anyone, which has to do with redactions, not the information in the cable themselves.

As for what Assange is "accomplishing"...
The beauty about everyone not being lawyers and judges is that our conclusions do not stem from simply "legal" or "illegal." We are allowed to go further and form opinions based on personal moralities and justifications.

The goal that Assange is accomplishing is "tremendously simple." He is helping to create a world where the government is accountable to the people again. What's going on in D.C. right now? Polls show that the majority of Americans do not want tax cuts for the rich, and it's abundantly clear that rich people have done well this past decade and do not need them. And yet the president is conceding to these cuts. It's obvious that our government feels no obligation to its citizens because it can act behind closed doors. On its own, our government would never release these documents. Secrecy is its protection FROM its citizens, not OF its citizens.

[Pavulon]

121. Thanks,

while I do not agree with the reasoning I appreciate the fact that someone actually took the time to think about their position.

I do not agree that will be the outcome as mannings come along once a decade or so.

I would be much happier if they stuck to cables related to the war(s).

Secrecy has been part governments since the dawn of time and is required to conduct business. I do not see the class war angle in this.

The library of congress is filled with information just like this.

[the redcoat]

127. An interesting compromise

So you're of the position that war leaks have a benefit (so they should be released), while these "extra" leaks do not. I don't know if necessarily saying that because these cables have no direct benefit, they shouldn't be released. Again, my position is that it's more about the principle of the situation than the actual documents. Of course, we're both entitled to our differing opinions on this, but that's mine.

I wouldn't be willing to say that there's no purpose to these extra leaks (the majority haven't been released yet...I suppose time will tell us what good or bad they do) and it seems that, at this point, there is no legitimate proof that any specific people (civilian, informant, etc) have been harmed because of them. That's why I'm allowing my principles to take precedence over what's actually in the documents.

I would agree that, in terms of importance and relevance, these should take a backseat to the war files.

I agree that secrecy has always been around in government to some extent. But I think it could be shown that, as the world has changed, so has secrecy. It's increased under the pretense of safety (regardless of whether that's truth or propaganda...that's a discussion for another day), and the result has essentially been less trust in the populace to make informed decisions. I see it as a sort of downward spiral.

Yes, "Mannings" come and go, but I don't see that as a reason to dismiss them when they do. The fact is, no one knows which "Manning" will lead to a kind of paradigm shift.

[Pavulon]

132. I see much more use for the war leaks

or anything surrounding the process that led up to the war. That should be the focus. That process, the decisions that led us to Iraq, is historically one of the worst decisions made by a us president. It should be thoroughly understood. Some will argue there is evidence of war crimes and such but in reality, in the long term, the failure of the government to make the right decision will be the historically significant event.

But yes I think some leaks are beneficial, if the serve the interest of the people.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

36. Your panties are really in a knot over this, eh? Good!

[Pavulon]

42. Not one of you guys has made an argument on why something like this needs to be in the clear

even a sorry half assed argument has not been made.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

37. delete

[tekisui]

41. Who has been killed for a leak, yet? You have failed to give an actual

example.

[Pavulon]

45. Yeah, I dont have access to that information, manning did not steal it. I posted a clear example

of a cable that can and most likely will have consequences for the person named in it.

Why the FUCK should something like this be in the clear? It has nothing to do with the war, it is just a death sentence for the person named in it.

[tekisui]

48. The person wasn't named. It isn't a death sentence.

[Pavulon]

54. Everyone surveils embassies.

now they have a data to start looking for this person. You understand that right.

Again WHAT PURPOSE IS SERVED BY PUBLISHING this data??

[Pavulon]

55. .dupe

dupe

[sabrina 1]

128. You are speculating. Where is the link to his name?

If YOU cannot provide that, and I have asked you already, then why this hysteria?


But it's hypocrisy of the highest order for any of the warmongers running this country to pretend to care about human life, anywhere.

Would you like me to post some photos of the dead babies and other innocent civilians this government is killing every day?

No one in the world is buying that this government cares one whit about the lives of human beings unless they have billions in a bank somewhere.

What Wikileaks and other free and independent media are doing is to expose these hypocrites in every corrupt government in the world, which eventually will make it far more difficult for them to continue the killing of innocents, when they know that they can't hide their evil conspiracies from the world anymore.

It makes me sick to see anyone trying to prevent the truth from getting out. Same thing back in 2003 before hundreds of thousands were slaughtered, the defenders of censorship were saying the same things.



Tell the orphaned children of Iraq about how we must not expose the war criminals. Ask them what they think of all these secrets being kept. The raped, the tortured, the dead, the maimed.

Too bad there was no Wikileaks back before the illegal War in Iraq.

[Pavulon]

133. You really think that someone dumping information on myanmar would have stopped Iraq?

string theory is not applicable here. What proof do you have that this would have happened?

[sabrina 1]

139. Information was available to the press here but they dared not

publish it back then. But don't take my word for it. At least two Federal Agents believe that Wikileaks could have stopped 9/11 from happening, which would made the Iraq War impossible.

See here http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sabrina%201/143

[asdjrocky]

47. Yeah, but it could happen.

It could. Just saying. Someone could die you know.

[Odin2005]

52. Oh PLEASE, I bet there are several people going in and out at any one time

No way they would be able to identify them

[Pavulon]

58. Except with a video camera pointed at the Embassy

and facial recognition software similar to the FREE software on a MAC.

You fail to address the point. Why should this document be in the clear? Is whatever value it has to you worth the risk placed on the people involved?

[Odin2005]

61. LOL, your nit-picking is ridiculous.

[Pavulon]

64. So no one films embassies or the date this person passes information is not relevant (lol?)

[Better Believe It]

60. So what were the consequences, intended or not? You don't know?

If and when you find out let everyone know.

[Pavulon]

62. Yeah, no one stole the follow up classified information yet.

so I have no idea if XXX is dead or not. But I guess the risk to xxx is worth releasing this cable so all information can be free...

Because, fuck it, you arent xxx or his family.

[Better Believe It]

65. Right. Only 2.5 million people have access to these documents.

Thieves I say, thieves causing the deaths of thousands of good people unlike the U.S. Department of War.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Hassin Bin Sober]

68. Sure. Like you give a fuck about xxx.

[Pavulon]

81. xxx has value. Knowing what others are up to has value..

dumping his name has no value.

[Better Believe It]

119. Who is xxx anyway? Don't know? That's because WikiLeaks and mass media didn't release the name!

CASE CLOSED

[Pavulon]

126. They aren't trying to find out who xxx is , others may.

why post this in the clear. What is gained other than shits and giggles.

[WinkyDink]

74. "Myanmar is ruled by a military junta." And that is why we officially still call it "Burma."

[RetroLounge]

76. Panties meet twist

:rofl:

RL

[sabrina 1]

85. The U.S. press published photos of the students at Tiananmen

Square. They did not blur their faces or make any effort to hide their identities. It was news, the world's press mostly did the same thing. They massacred over 4,000 people. We still did business with them, sending envoys there two days after the massacre.

Later, the Chinese Government used those press photos to identify and arrest those who participated in the demonstrations.

Were you screaming about that then?

That was a case where the freedom of the press to report that historic event ended up contributing to the arrests and incarceration of many of those students.

Who has been hurt by the Wikileaks documents? No one, even according to the Pentagon.

The press' job is to weigh the greater good done by their reporting against protecting a few individuals.

If Wikileaks had existed in 2003 it is very likely hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved.

And already, despite howling from corrupt Kenyan officials, Wikileaks HAS saved lives in that country and elsewhere by exposing the corruption.

You are wasting time trying to find some rationale for censoring the news. And it is abhorrent to see this country now acting like China because their 'secrets are being revealed and they do not control the International press the way they control the U.S. media.

[Pavulon]

89. All that text and no answer. What EXACTLY is worth disclosing that person's name

for? What in that memo justifies that?

Because it is someone you align with? And what in the silly fuck makes you think I would support anything we do to support china in its oppression of its citizens, now or back then.

It is NOT THE NEWS. Its espionage and it will have consequences. Unless someone else steals documents detailing the fallout you will not be included in that progress.

[sabrina 1]

108. Where is the person's name disclosed?

[Pavulon]

111. In the unredacted document which is stitting on a now unsecured network

and in the combination of their location and time. Everyone who entered the embassy that day is on video tape.

[laughingliberal]

91. +1000 nt

[ipaint]

87. They were shopping the uranium looking for a buyer.

Thailand was their next stop then china if the US wasn't interested.

It's a dangerous business, shopping uranium to governments. Or maybe not.

As far as redactions-

"like earlier disclosures by WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of secret government military records, the group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material.
"They are releasing the documents we selected," Le Monde's managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an interview at the newspaper's Paris headquarters.
WikiLeaks turned over all of the classified U.S. State Department cables it obtained to Le Monde, El Pais in Spain, The Guardian in Britain and Der Spiegel in Germany. The Guardian shared the material with The New York Times, and the five news organizations have been working together to plan the timing of their reports.
They also have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents, Kauffmann and others involved in the arrangement said.
"The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it," WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian's website Friday. "The redactions are then reviewed by at least one other journalist or editor, and we review samples supplied by the other organisations to make sure the process is working."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0Vruimmvy8loGklsz34QyGDKMDA?docId=120c7bf5d3a34dbaadf1280dace2e456


That puts your dumping reference to bed. It seems by your posts you are on a crusade. Give it a rest.

[Pavulon]

92. Not how I read it, was speculation. If it was legal why redact that name? They left many others..

I can post dozens of these that have no informational value other than to compromise sources. Memo's on FARC, diplomatic security, nuclear materials in pakistan.

None of these cover the Iraq war or war crimes. they are simply dumps of data.

The redactors are getting click through revenue, they are NOT aware of the context of the information they DUMP.

[ipaint]

97. So far you have nothing but idle speculation based on suspicion to back those claims up.

Perhaps you should start redacting your posts until you can back up with facts what you claim so adamantly to be true.

You have an opinion, the facts to back up your opinion have yet to appear.

You sound hysterical.

[Pavulon]

101. Guess that answer is elusive.. what is the benefit to disclosing these cables

with information that can compromise the people involved.

[ipaint]

107. Who is being compromised?

Your whole argument is based on a guess, a maybe but given the actual facts of the redacting and small number of releases it's not the case.

Once again you sound hysterical.

[Pavulon]

109. xxxx is at a given place on a given date. That place is surveiled by

every government. We tape embassies, they tape our embassies. The facts are classified so there is no way other than common sense to approach it. What is gained from publishing names, and there are plenty of names in those documents.

So aside from my hysteria, why dont you explain to me how publishing this information benefits anyone, other than assange and the people making click through money from his activity.

This is not about iraq or war crimes, it is working data from the other side of the world.

[ipaint]

114. I think it is time you got a hold of the newspapers around the

world working with wikileaks and let them know they are killing people left and right.

Banging out a disjointed speculative argument on disc. board isn't going to change anything and you seem rather desperate to make this all just STOP. RIGHT. NOW.

I don't take you seriously. You are on a mission and who knows why.

Good luck.

[Pavulon]

115. You guys have a really hard time with this. What is in that cable needs to be disclosed

why is the person named in this document and several others worth the content?

[Luminous Animal]

124. The date of the meeting WAS redacted. The date of the cable was not.

[ipaint]

98. From your link-

a Burmese civilian met with members of USDAO Rangoon and offered to sell Uranium-238. The individual had initially contacted the USDAO eight days prior with the offer. The individual provided a small bottle half-filled with metallic powder and a photocopied certificate of testing from a Chinese university dated 1992 as verification of the radioactive nature of the powder. During XXXXXXXXXXXX interview, the individual claimed to be able to provide up to 2000 kg of uranium-bearing rock from a location in Kayah State XXXXXXXXXXXX , and further stated if the U.S. was not interested in purchasing the uranium, he and his associates would try to sell it to other countries, beginning with Thailand.


That's not speculation.

If you can't read the leaked info how can you expect anyone to take you seriously.

[Pavulon]

100. And this person. They deserve to die too?

http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=04RANGOON88&hl=rangoon

again, what in the fuck do you people think the benefit to publishing this is?

[ipaint]

103. Where is the documentation that he was in danger or killed? nt

[Pavulon]

105. His name is out. The documentaion was not stolen by manning..

you think this is a game. You know that can not be answered without classified information.

Any common moron knows that having your name disclosed is not a healthy thing.

[Luminous Animal]

123. That comes from 2004 and rumors have been reported in the mains stream news since then.

[laughingliberal]

94. "Crusade" is a perfect description. nt

[Pavulon]

95. how so?(nt)

[walldude]

104. Wow that's a pretty solid example man...

if it weren't for the words "maybe", "if" and "assumption" it might even be credible. :rofl:

[Pavulon]

106. So why dont you explain to me the value of publishing a document like this one?

is it worth the lives of the people involved so you can feel good?

similar doc, why should this be in the clear?

http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=04RANGOON88&hl=rangoon

[Luminous Animal]

117. It shows that the U.S. broke the law by shipping uranium on a commercial airline.

By the way, the date was redacted. The date of the cable wasn't but the date of the meeting was.

"Post is alerting the Department and Washington agencies that on XXXXXXXXXXXX after USDAO Rangoon received guidance from DIA,"

[bhikkhu]

129. ...far outweighed by the consequences of secrecy

there are more than enough mass graves around the world to make the case. Next after that I would put the medical experimentation performed on the poor and minorities, not just in the US. Then eugenics and forced sterilization programs - common, but still very little known in spite of what has been made public.

The general rule is if you allow secrecy, you don't know much of what goes on. Government is that sector of "we the people" in the service of the remainder - public servants, our employees essentially. I have a need to know what my "employees" are doing on my behalf with my taxes. I have no need to be kept in the dark for anyone's safety, but history tells us that we are less safe if we legislate our own ignorance and deception.

[Pavulon]

135. Then you need to get your ass elected..

you do not have the right to know every decision made in the REPRESENTATIVE Democracy we live in. This is not California, we do not operate the federal government by the decree of the rabble. Prop 8 should underscore the stupidity involved in that process.

[Democracyinkind]

141. At least you're showing your true colors and purpose now.

"This is not California, we do not operate the federal government by the decree of the rabble. Prop 8 should underscore the stupidity involved in that process."

IMHO, says it all.

I'm interested in any and all information about the American Government and their stance and dealings with issues of proliferation. It's not as if we as a nation have a good track record as far as dealing with proliferation is concerned. I'm certainly shocked that you can walk up to an embassy and have them ship nuclear material hidden in diplomatic puches through commercial airways.

As far as your example goes. You didn't read right: The date of the meeting is redacted. So far, for all we know, no one (and especially not the Burmese "Gov") has access to the unredacted files. So there's a total fail in your premise: The guy is not in danger. OTHO, making door-to-door rounds with nuclear materials is a dangerous business in itself; if the Burmese junta was worried about this kind of dealings then the guy brought himself in danger knowingly - Wikileaks or not.

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that Wikileaks is endangering anyone with the files leaked so far.

As to those ominous "already killed by Wikileaks"... Well.. Let's discuss them when that has become more than just a figment of your imagination.

I haven't posted in years. You made me.

[knotwurstforware]

140. unrecd

[GliderGuider]

142. Even the DoD says you're being hysterical

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/1210/Pentagon-scrambles-to-prep-for-thermonuclear-Wikileaks-release

With the threat of Wikileaks releases looming earlier this year, the Defense Department made the decision to create a team of some 120 intelligence analysts to cull through files that they deemed Wikileaks most likely to have in its possession.

Pentagon officials explained that the team’s first order of business as it reconstructed and culled through the documents that were most likely to have been leaked was to locate informants who worked with the US military. The team, Pentagon officials said, was prepared to warn these sources if their lives were at risk as a result of being named in the Wikileaks files.

This was ultimately unnecessary, according to the Pentagon, since Wikileaks redacted the names of the informants cited in the Iraq trove of hundreds of thousands of documents released in October – something it had not done, military officials pointed out, with the release of some 91,000 Afghanistan war documents last July.

You can stop hyperventilating now. Your masters have sounded the All Clear.