wikileaks dumps 'iraq war diary' biggest leak in military history

[blu]

Wikileaks Iraq War Diaries

 

[R.C. Christian]

Well, I think it's generally, and I state this carefully, a good idea to have access to this type of nformation. Trouble is, I'm still trying to figure out if wikileaks is a legitimate whistle blower or some kind of disinformation campaign.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Well, I think it's generally, and I state this carefully, a good idea to have access to this type of nformation. Trouble is, I'm still trying to figure out if wikileaks is a legitimate whistle blower or some kind of disinformation campaign.

It says a lot to me that they told the news organizations to wait until 10 days before the election to release it to the public. So I see them not as a whistle blower but someone trying to politicize the war and not care who they get killed.

 

[Sallow]

Well, I think it's generally, and I state this carefully, a good idea to have access to this type of nformation. Trouble is, I'm still trying to figure out if wikileaks is a legitimate whistle blower or some kind of disinformation campaign.

Would be a good idea if the names were left out. That was a real asshole thing to do. Those are actual people who's actual lives are in danger.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Well, I think it's generally, and I state this carefully, a good idea to have access to this type of nformation. Trouble is, I'm still trying to figure out if wikileaks is a legitimate whistle blower or some kind of disinformation campaign.

Would be a good idea if the names were left out. That was a real asshole thing to do. Those are actual people who's actual lives are in danger.

I agree.

 

[editec]

Well, I think it's generally, and I state this carefully, a good idea to have access to this type of nformation. Trouble is, I'm still trying to figure out if wikileaks is a legitimate whistle blower or some kind of disinformation campaign.

Or possibly both?

Truly effective disinformation has to include true information to give it credibility and cover.

 

[georgephillip]

If a "Death Tax" of 100% was applied to all unearned war profits with the funds deposited in a Trust Fund for US vets killed and disabled by the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think support for war among our RICHEST citizens might collapse?

 

[loosecannon]

Well, I think it's generally, and I state this carefully, a good idea to have access to this type of nformation. Trouble is, I'm still trying to figure out if wikileaks is a legitimate whistle blower or some kind of disinformation campaign.

Would be a good idea if the names were left out. That was a real asshole thing to do. Those are actual people who's actual lives are in danger.

I read yesterday that they redacted all the names from the 400,000 pages. I dunno if that is true but they have been making efforts to minimize the impacts of their leaks on the ongoing war effort.

As for politicizing the leaks; I think it is clear that wikileaks thinks of the wars as a crime spree. War is always a crime spree.

 

[Navy1960]

I could care less about what efforts wiki-leaks is making, they are an organization set up for the sole purpose of obtaining classified US Govt. documents to publish by whatever means they see fit. In doing so they place US Military personnel in harms way and cost lives of US assets across the globe. This is no less than espionage .

*To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years.

The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law passed on June 15, 1917, shortly after the U.S. entry into World War I, during the First Red Scare.[1]

It prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, support America's enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or interfere with military recruitment. In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the free speech rights of those convicted under its provisions.

Espionage Act of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Now I'm sure all of you will come out in defense of this nonsense by wikileaks with the Daniel Ellsberg defense . So lets address that shall we.

Due to the gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973 after the government claimed it had "lost" records of wiretapping against Ellsberg. Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."[20]
Daniel Ellsberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision Gravel v. United States.

Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So dont be under the mistaken impression that wikileaks is somehow this wonderful organization that is exercising their right 1st amendment rights to publsh this information " illegally obatined" and in violation of the 1917 Act.

 

[Truthmatters]

Oh the Horror of the people knowing what is being done in their names.

 

[Godboy]

Someone should just put a bullet in this guys head, then burn down their office and seize all their computers.