Warbird Information Exchange

while i'm all for freedom of speech etc, some zealots such as wikileaks undermines the entire security of international coalitions who have worked together to stamp out terrorism. they have put millions in jeopardy internationally thus hindering a collective effort for the good of mankind. i'm not pointing to religions, nations, factions or anything that is trying to curb suffering & tyranny. both wars are certainly cluster fks after all these years, but how an organization can only feed fire to alquaeda / taliban is tantamount to international treason of in the free world. the u.n., interpol ( international police) & the international court system should step in & stop this now & not comprimise the lives of people fighting for a civil world. please keep this thread civil but to the point. for starters i have not spoken of any nationality or religion, only a group that has to stir up ire & hate.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Tom,maybe or maybe not.What do you really know? Have these leaks really done anything to damage any legitimate cause for world peace or any worthwhile democratic process? If you think so, then how do you know that it is true? All I read is the U S govt and military, two groups that rank slightly behind Bernie Madoff for lack of truth, saying that these leaks are giving away secrets that are over the bounds.
I don't really know much about the info revealed,haven't researched it, but I have BIG doubts about trusting something the govt says versus the media.

Recall back during the Vietnam War, when the media and Daniel Ellsworth revealed classified info. The Nixon Admin tried to censor the newspapers, tried to prosecute Ellsworth, even sent the future Watergate burglars to break into his psychiatrist office. And what was the essence of the BIG SECRET INFO? It was that the U S was bombing Laos, in violation of the Geneva Convention. And who was this supposed to be a BIG SECRET FROM? Well the NVA or the Viet Cong that were being bombed certainly knew they were being bombed and they knew who was doing the bombing, so the info was not being kept secret from them. It was the American voters and the American public that didn't know about the bombing, and that the Nixon admin was trying so hard to keep in the dark.
And when the massacres at My Lai and Song My were done by U S troops, the first response of our military and our govt was to lie about it and claim that those killed were combat VC soldiers. It wasn't until the Seymour Hersch and other photos came out that showed the victims as women with infants in their arms and some old men, that the horrible truth was known. This came from the media, not our military or govt.
Of course the Nixon admin was a low point, but not the only one. It doesn't matter whether it is Bush,or Obama or whoever in power, they will freely lie to the American public and the world when they are threatened or embarrassed, and often claim some sort of military secret.

As I said, I don't know much about this latest batch of secret info. It may go too far, such as if it released the names of Iraq citizens working undercover for the U S or perhaps some prominent Muslim minister working undercover to find terrorist among U S Muslims. But overall I think it is more likely that the info revealed is an embarrassment to the govt., and that we should err, if at all, on the side of freedom of the press, and let an informed public judge. And the media is not above suspicion, but at least there is some competition there. The N Y Times can't put out a report, but claim that the Dallas Morning News doesn't have the right to give an opposing facts or view, like the govt tries to.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

I'm finding it very hard to believe that in this day and age, when just about everyone is tracked in some way or another ( do you have and use a supermarket 'club card"? you are being tracked), that this bucket of monkey vomit who's leaking this stuff can't be found! When he/she is caught after the 'guilty of treason' verdict I'd be in favor of hanging the little P.O.S. from the street lamp in front of the courthouse and leave him/her there with their tongue in a clear glass jar on their chest!.

I also find it very hard to believe that one snot nosed 22 year old could mastermind and gather and find a distribution method for this volume of information.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

A few thoughtful posts on this:

http://blogs.forbes.com/mahaatal/2010/1 ... wikileaks/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/no ... ssy-cables

Inasmuch as the documents have been released only to the most responsible news organizations in the world, it will be some time before we know what they contain, and in terms of really sensitive stuff, we'll never know it. Early reviews suggest that almost all of the content is already obvious to anyone who follows world affairs, and even the worst is likely to be more titillating than damaging. Much of it actually probably reflects well on US diplomatic efforts.

Disclosures like this are almost always a Good Thing in the end, for the reasons Bill states.

The reaction to it by officials, the media, and various big-mouthed individuals will be in many ways more enlightening than the documents themselves. This type of thing tends to expose who understands and values free speech, journalism and democracy, versus others who may wave the flag a lot, but would really prefer to live in a police state. So far Hillary Clinton, the Wall Street Journal, and the Inspector have flunked the test, although Hillary may just be saying what she has to say.

August

I flunked huh? I understand the word TREASON, I understand the phrase TREASONABLE ACTIONS, I understand that if you swear to 'protect and defend the United States of America' and while wearing the uniform of your nation you turn your back on that oath and disseminate any secret or guarded information to anyone who should not directly have that information (they can suspect whatever they want) then you have broken the law, failed your oath to the military and country, turned your back on your nation and that makes you a TRAITOR and you and all involved who are captured and found to be aiding and abetting should pay a very very serious price not a 'tut-tut' bad boy, no Facebook for you tonight'.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

god I love this place.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Hey Muddy, whereyoubinman? GetchorehaircutandbootscleanyouzeonWIXnow!

Meanwhile back on topic, I found this little item quite illuminating regarding the current Korea situation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11871641

Of course you can ignore it, and stick to the 'official' channels.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

You asked Tom.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41610.html

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custo ... ustodes%3F

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I wonder...

if your oath is to defend and protect the goverment, whatever it is, whatever it is doing, or your so called "people"..

a parallel can be drawn in the international right court... where "obeying orders" is not considered when evaluating actions (long live the Nuremberg heritage, for the good and the bad)...

on other words, those who leak should be punished (by their superiors) to keep the status quo of organizations, those who leak should be hidden and protected by those who bring the leaks to public, those who leak should be thanked by the general public by exposing what someone doesn't want exposed and by showing the incompetence of the control systems in place (further questions, why does it leak? what does leak? who cares? why do they care? why do those who leak think it important to leak? what is leaked (vs. what is not leaked)? who doesn't cares? why don't they care?).

It's a complex world in fact...

(and in a personal note, for a principle, I prefer things in the open that enclosed behind doors only accessible by criteria decided by the interests of others...)

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

rreis,

There's only one flaw with your logic, and unfortunately it's the basic premise. The LAW says that you cannot use "following orders" as a defense to doing something UNLAWFUL unless there is a threat to your or your loved one's well-being. That is what Nuremberg upheld during its trials. Those convicted after a defense of "following orders" were unable to prove that there was a material and provable threat to their well-being or the well-being of their family if they didn't follow those orders. There were implied threats of execution for not following orders, but no definite proof was ever brought to light, in fact, there were more examples of demotion, transfer, or "freezing of rank" by German superiors than anything else, same thing you'd see in the US military today for someone who chose to disobey an order unless it was found to be unlawful.

What this person(s) has done is release classified information they are specifically prohibited (ordered) not to do. It has been upheld that such orders *ARE* lawful in international court and necessary. Additionally, the International Court in the Hague itself has prosecuted spies in the past, so to say that some international body has declared that leaking secret documents is protected is just flat out wrong.

CAPFlyer, my words were meant as illustration and I recognize, freely, that I wanted them to be a more loose metaphor (or I was in the dark, trying to graps a thought)... for which I recognize I maybe streched to far. To be clear, what I wanted to say has to do with the why [they did it]. Of course they had orders not to "leak". But maybe they felt a higher imperative, not towards the goverment or the institution but towards the "People" (or maybe someone paid them, I don't know). And the reference to the UN says that if you're a soldier and commit crimes against humanity "following orders" is not an excuse per si. You have to desobey orders not to be convicted [by the International Court] (which can lead you to be trialled and convicted by those who gave you the orders). Like I said, tricky business. I recognize that, in a way, you're [the WIX posters] all "right". But I personally prefer the "right" that brings light and not the one that keeps me in the dark.

So I hope they get away with it. And I expect the people where they come from to try to "hunt" them. At least for professional pride.

Anyway, my question, I believe, still hold to those who don't just eat what lands on their feeder:

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

Personally, I don't see the big deal with respect to the information leaked, nor the WikiLeaks organization publishing it.

- First off, the diplomatic cable information itself is the exact same information that every other country has, and hides it just the same. Publishing it simply reveals the unvarnished truth of what some diplomats are thinking without a PC filter. Every country says one thing and does another when behind closed doors -- this is simply a look into that behind-closed-doors reality that doesn't get acknowledged publicly. Exposing it is embarrassing politically, but otherwise not a big deal in the grand scheme.

- Wikileaks, no matter what you think of them, is operated outside the US and by a non-American. Holding them to US standards, or using word like 'treason', simply don't apply. I don't know why it's even part of the discussion.

What is amazingly absent from this discussion is Brad Manning: the 'leaker' who knowingly violated the laws of his own country, who intentionally violated the trust that was placed in him by the Government and the American people. The discussion about lawful orders, etc, is a complete red herring in the discussion. As has been mentioned, classification of documents is clearly an allowable action that is a lawful order, so all of the release of the diplomatic cables simply CANNOT be covered under the guise of Manning being a 'whistleblower' and trying to expose some egregious violation of human rights or international law.

There's potentially an argument that Manning's intention to release the so-called "collateral murder" video WAS his attempt to expose some violation of the law, and thus theoretically considered a lawful violation of some unlawful order....BUT....that is an enormous BUT in that case.

Either way, the other 99% of what Manning intentionally stole and released to a foreign national is not covered by the idea of violating an unlawful order. It is just plain treason, regardless of the intentions. Chalk his name up with Aldrich Ames, Robert Hannsen, and others who divulged US secrets for their own personal benefit.

_________________

Treason is an easy word to sling around, but neither Inspector nor Randy has looked up what it means. Treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution. The reason it is defined in the U.S. Constitution is that the British monarchy had a history of using it very loosely to exact severe punishments for minor offenses, as Inspector would like, or imagined offenses.

In relevant part:

Leaking secret documents in violation of orders is not, in itself, treason. And while some would prefer a very broad definition of giving aid and comfort to enemies, perhaps broad enough to include giving our enemies a good chuckle over some of our private assessments of our friends, the law does not support such a view. The only treason indictment since the witch hunts of the cold war was of Adam Yahiye Gadahn for making videos as a spokesman for Al Qaeda in which he threatened attacks on the U.S. That is the type of thing that it takes.

Other crimes have been defined that are a bit more relevant to this discussion, such as "espionage". Setting crimes aside, one expects an organization to react strongly when a member violates its policies and divulges confidential information to outsiders, just as any commercial company would discipline an employee who did that. This being the military, you would expect the discipline to be especially heavy handed, and no doubt it will be. The chips will fall where they will for Mr Manning; I can't say I much care, or found his absence from the discussion amazing. He will become a soap opera; but there are bigger issues to discuss.

August

After my post, I read the article in the paper. It's a summary obviously, but there were some key points.
First, either Wik or the newspapers removed the names of anyone whose identity would have put them in danger, so that nobody like that was identified.
Next it seems that at least two of the stories are embarrassing to the U S govt, but they don't amount to a military secret.
In Afghan, it has long been rumored that the Karzai administration was corrupt, and specifically that his brother the V P especially so, and involved in drug trade. This report comfirms that with the V P taking the $53 million in cash out of the country. This is embarrassing to our govt, both under both Bush and Obama after they have spent so many American lives and money in support of Karzai.
The revelation about the Saudi king urging the bombing of Iran is probably not that big a surprise either.

I haven't seen the news yet this morning, Tue., but the tv report is that after Sec. Clinton saying how much of a disaster these leaks were, and how they would endanger us, she now has taken a less harsh view. That is from an interview with Pres Carter on other matters but that he was asked about the leaks.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

The other mildly embarrassing disclosure so far is that apparently Mrs Clinton ordered diplomats to do some petty espionage of officials at the UN, like peeking at their credit card numbers and passwords. If that's true, I'm glad we got busted for it. Hopefully public disclosure will help our govt learn to behave itself.

August