Ron Paul on WikiLeaks

[The T]

Oh, so now we know Gaddafi likes big tits, Saudi interests fund AQ and Hillary wanted the UN bugged. Yeah, got out, grab the guy and pull the trigger - moron.

You attitude is more at home with Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot than that of an freedom-loving American...

Translation: "i didn't know what the hell i was talking about in the first place so I have to obfuscate..."

YOU are the one that needs to grow up there junior.

No, you're just one of those 'patriots' still living in the 1770s. Grow the **** up or **** off...your'e part of the problem, not the solution...

Uh huh. And you're telling me that YOU are afraid of standing on principle.

This is of NO surprise to me at all. As to the 1700's mockery? *I* stand in great company. Lest you forget what happened to Benedict Arnold.

 

[Dr Grump]

G-d! Shut up, moron! Did you even bother reading with comprehension?

He is living evidence on why people really need to have an IQ test before they vote. People like him are allowed to and it ***** up the kit and kaboodle for everyone else...

 

[The T]

1. wouldn't you agree that we have a national security interest in having diplomats from other countries speak candidly with us?

2. wouldn't you also agree that the release of these materials would make a reasonable person from another country skeptical about communicating openly with us?

3. we don't know what information was released that will endanger others because we haven't seen the damage assessment.

4. Do you think any good comes from Putin knowing that we said that Russia is a being run like a mafia state now? does that in any way assist our relations with Russia? Or does it endanger our relationship with them and thereby is a national security issue.

Jillian? You can go **** yourself silly as well. They were classified documents regardless. Or don't you operate on principles either?

G-d! Shut up, moron! Did you even bother reading with comprehension?

 

[The T]

G-d! Shut up, moron! Did you even bother reading with comprehension?

He is living evidence on why people really need to have an IQ test before they vote. People like him are allowed to and it ***** up the kit and kaboodle for everyone else...

keep on. You are just nothing but entertainment from now herin.

 

[jillian]

Oh, i believe that the soldier(s) who released the documents have breached their contract.

I would also suggest that for Assange to be tried for espionage, it would have to be proven that he instigated the theft of the docs. If somebody came to him and handed over the docs, then at worst it is receiving stolen goods, not espionage. However, IMO, it fits into the whistle blowing category..

As for a national security issue, I disagree. I have yet to read anything (although that could change) that has been a national security issue....

1. wouldn't you agree that we have a national security interest in having diplomats from other countries speak candidly with us?

2. wouldn't you also agree that the release of these materials would make a reasonable person from another country skeptical about communicating openly with us?

3. we don't know what information was released that will endanger others because we haven't seen the damage assessment.

4. Do you think any good comes from Putin knowing that we said that Russia is a being run like a mafia state now? does that in any way assist our relations with Russia? Or does it endanger our relationship with them and thereby is a national security issue.

1) Well speak candidly with them. Don't spy on them.
2) Probably - blame the people doing stupid stuff that makes you look stupid, then. Talk about shooting the messenger.
3) True, but so far, nada, right?
4) I've always thought that since Putin took over, and the assessment is correct. I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade...

is keeping records of candid discussions "spying"? maybe.

the documents were classified. assange knew they were classified when he published them. i know you think of this as whistle blowing, but what wrong was prevented? us having knowledge? that's not a wrong. assange has an agenda. i heard him say that he is not interested in an "open" society, which i know is *your* interest. he is intererested in a "fair" society. and in his little mind, dis-empowering the u.s. is somwhow "fair".

I hope they put him in jail for espionage.

 

[JWBooth]

I would SO like to read those diplomatic cables...

Anybody know if they're on line for casual perusal?

A listing of Wiki mirror sites:
TwitLonger: #Update (04.Dec.) Please RT > Big List of #WikiLeaks-Mirrors #cablegate #mirror - many Websites -

One of them:
WikiLeaks

The Cablegate link:
Cable Viewer

You can kinda figure it out from there.

 

[The T]

1. Wouldn't you agree that we have a national security interest in having diplomats from other countries speak candidly with us?

2. Wouldn't you also agree that the release of these materials would make a reasonable person from another country skeptical about communicating openly with us?

3. We don't know what information was released that will endanger others because we haven't seen the damage assessment.

4. Do you think any good comes from putin knowing that we said that russia is a being run like a mafia state now? Does that in any way assist our relations with russia? Or does it endanger our relationship with them and thereby is a national security issue.

1) well speak candidly with them. Don't spy on them.
2) probably - blame the people doing stupid stuff that makes you look stupid, then. Talk about shooting the messenger.
3) true, but so far, nada, right?
4) i've always thought that since putin took over, and the assessment is correct. I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade...

is keeping records of candid discussions "spying"? Maybe.

The documents were classified. Assange knew they were classified when he published them. I know you think of this as whistle blowing, but what wrong was prevented? Us having knowledge? That's not a wrong. Assange has an agenda. I heard him say that he is not interested in an "open" society, which i know is *your* interest. He is intererested in a "fair" society. And in his little mind, dis-empowering the u.s. Is somwhow "fair".

I hope they put him in jail for espionage.

agreed.

 

[georgephillip]

According to Paul Craig Roberts, a former editor of the Wall Street Journal and Assistant Secretary of Treasury during Reagan's reign, Wiki demonstrates "...that the US government is an extremely disreputable gang of gangsters."

"The US government was able to get British prime minister Brown to 'fix' the official Chilcot Investigation into how former prime minister Tony Blair manipulated and lied the British government into being mercenaries for the US invasion of Iraq...

"So there you have it.

"On the one hand the US government and the prostitute american media declare that there is nothing new in the hundreds of thousands of documents, yet on the other hand both pull out all stops to shut down WikiLeaks and its founder.

"Obviously, despite the US government’s denials, the documents are extremely damaging.

"The documents show that the US government is not what it pretends to be.

If you find it disturbing your government may not be what it pretends to be, imagine how you'll feel if early next year Wiki FLUSHES Bank of America into the same sewer Enron disappeared into.

 

[jillian]

1) Well speak candidly with them. Don't spy on them.
2) Probably - blame the people doing stupid stuff that makes you look stupid, then. Talk about shooting the messenger.
3) True, but so far, nada, right?
4) I've always thought that since Putin took over, and the assessment is correct. I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade...

and if putin decides not to enter into some important treaty because he wants to be spiteful?

i think if any of us were quoted talking about others, we'd look stupid. and there's no point to it other than assange's power trip.

who has assange helped?

no one...

 

[liebuster]

Before you all get your panties in a bunch you all need to realize that a PRIVATE FIRST CLASS LEAKED THE DOCUMENTS TO WIKILEAKS!!!!!

Question #1 Why did a Private First Class have access to these documents?

Question #2 Would a Private First Class have access to anything really damaging to national security?

Question #3 If a Private First Class did have access to damaging documents, Why?

I don't get you Neocons. You whine and ***** about the media not uncovering corruption in our government but when someone finally does, you want him to hang for espionage.
I'm sure you all think we need all those foreign military bases around the world for national security, right?
I'm sure you think that we need the Patriot Act for national security, right
I'm sure you all think we need our troops spread all over the world for national security, right?
Its time we all know what our government is up to and Ron Paul has it right. We should be living in a free and open society. Ron Paul is probably the only truly honest person in congress. He has been trying to expose the puppet show that we have as a government for 20 years now and any conservative that doesn't see that, needs to get a labotamy.

 

[liebuster]

If Wikileaks can cause this much mayhem, I wonder what they can do to the global bankers?

 

[Dr Grump]

is keeping records of candid discussions "spying"? maybe.

the documents were classified. assange knew they were classified when he published them. i know you think of this as whistle blowing, but what wrong was prevented? us having knowledge? that's not a wrong. assange has an agenda. i heard him say that he is not interested in an "open" society, which i know is *your* interest. he is intererested in a "fair" society. and in his little mind, dis-empowering the u.s. is somwhow "fair".

I hope they put him in jail for espionage.

1) No, but asking for email passwords etc is not a good look.
2) And I don't give a shit if they were classified. Half the problem with the world today is people running around stirring up unnecessary shit. As I have said before, I get classifying the nuclear codes, I get classifying top secret technologies - but most of this stuff is just silly stuff.
3) What do you mean by open society? Isnt' a fair society and open society?
4) I'm pretty sure you'll find that he didn't part take in any espionage...

 

[QUENTIN]

There's a huge disparity between narrow and legitimate classification for genuine national security purposes and the pervasive classification of everything the government does, often for no reason but to avoid scrutiny or embarrassment, as a vast wall of secrecy placed between the citizenry and the institutions that are intended to operate on its behalf. Perhaps the most significant revelation of the Wikileaks publications is just how extreme that wall of secrecy is and how uncalled for in so many cases.

To those beside themselves with rage over the fact that the U.S. Government has failed to keep all these things secret from them, would you really feel the same if the subject wasn't the U.S.? Is it a principled stand in favor of secrecy or a case of convenient jingoism?

The majority of Wikileaks' published documents to date relate to the actions of other governments. If they revealed Iranian plans to build nuclear weapons or Chinese oppression of its citizenry or manipulation of foreign debt, would those comparing Wikileaks with terrorist organizations and calling for its destruction be so respectful of the sanctity of those governments' "rights" to operate in the dark?

Former chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney campaign Matthew Dowd nailed it here:

NationalJournal.com - To Tell the Truth - Thursday, December 2, 2010

As I was sitting with my three grown sons over the post-Thanksgiving weekend watching football at their place, my oldest son, who served in the Army for five years and was deployed in Iraq for nearly a year and half, turned to me and asked, “When as a country did we become a place where the government gets upset when its secrets are revealed but has no problem knowing all our secrets and invading our privacy?”

Hmm, interesting question.

In Washington’s polarized political environment, Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on a few things: That the government, in the name of fighting terrorism, has the right to listen in on all of our phone conversations and read our e-mails, even if it has no compelling reason for doing so. That the government can use machines at the airport that basically conduct the equivalent of strip searches of every passenger. That the government, for as long as it wants, can withhold any information from the public that it decides is in the national interest and is classified. And that when someone reveals this information, they are reviled on all sides, with the press corps staying silent.

When did we decide that revealing the truth about the government is wrong?

...

Everyone in Washington claims to support transparency and government openness during campaign season and when it’s popular to do so. They castigate the other side when it does things in secret and suggest that its intentions must be nefarious if it is unwilling to make its deliberations public. But when an organization discloses how our foreign policy is conducted, some of these same people claim that the release will endanger lives or threaten national security, or that the founder of WikiLeaks is a criminal.

When did we decide that we trust the government more than its citizens? And that revealing the truth about the government is wrong? And why is the media complicit in this? Did we not learn anything from the run-up to the Iraq war when no one asked hard questions about the justifications for the war and when we accepted statements from government officials without proper pushback?

My own sense is that we should err on the side of telling the truth, even when it’s inconvenient or when it makes our lives—or the business of government—more complicated. And that people who tell the truth should at the very least not be denigrated. That’s something I learned when I was young, and that I tried to impart to my three boys when they were growing up. As Albert Einstein is reported to have said long ago, “The search for truth implies a duty. One must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”

...

When we’re mired in a political environment where much of the public distrusts the federal government and despises both parties, maybe we should all reflect on what a former soldier, who put himself in harm’s way defending freedom, our way of life, and the Constitution—including the First Amendment—asked me in a living room in Austin during a football game.

If we want to restore trust in our government, maybe we can start by telling the truth, keeping fewer secrets, and respecting the privacy of average citizens a little more. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please; you can never have both.”

As for the claims by the hysterics about the damage the leaks have caused and why they necessitate stopping Wikileaks by any means necessary (even imprisonment or assassination), the government itself disagrees.

Even the Pentagon admits that there is no evidence whatsoever to support these claims. From The Washington Post, August 11:

"'We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents,' [Pentagon spokesman Geoff] Morrell said."

Meanwhile, the Secretary of Defense has explicitly condemned the hysterical reaction to the most recent leak as "significantly overwrought" and suggested the impact will be "fairly modest."

Gates on Leaks, Wiki and Otherwise - NYTimes.com

“Let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: ‘How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel.’

“Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

“So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.

“Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.’’

Ultimately, if our government is to be a representative one held accountable to its citizenry, it cannot hide so much of what it does from public scrutiny or knowledge. And if the government is committing or complicit in crimes that impact the citizenry as every leak has revealed, we have a right to know and that's where public ire should be directed, not at the messenger who brought them to light.

Reactions here are illustrative and illuminating of a very problematic and growing authoritarian mindset. How many here would be calling for the head of Daniel Ellsberg for revealing government lies in the Pentagon Papers? Many it seems and that mindset is a bigger concern and threat to our democracy than any individual piece of information so far released.

 

[Dr Grump]

[\
This is of NO surprise to me at all. As to the 1700's mockery? *I* stand in great company. Lest you forget what happened to Benedict Arnold.

You don't even deserve to stand in the shadow of most of those men. You think you are like them? They were the liberals of their age. You are the antithesis of them and you prove it in every post...

 

[editec]

It's pretty clear that much of what is being classified as SECRET is only stuff that is being kept SECRET from the American citizens.

For example, these leaks inform us about the REAL NUMBER of Iraqi that were killed during our invasion and occupation.

Now I'm pretty sure that the peoeple who are being killed have had a fairly good idea that they are being killed, but the American people (who after all, are having this done in THEIR NAME) were not aware of that.

Let's at leeast admit that much of what has been leaked, the AMERICAN PEOPLE had the RIGHT to know.

The problem is that much of what has been released is embarrassing to our Government, and then too there's the problem that some of it really ought to have been kep secret.

 

[QUENTIN]

It's pretty clear that much of what is being classified as SECRET is only stuff that is being kept SECRET from the American citizens.

For example, these leaks inform us about the REAL NUMBER of Iraqi that were killed during our invasion and occupation.

Now I'm pretty sure that the peoeple who are being killed have had a fairly good idea that they are being killed, but the American people (who after all, are having this done in THEIR NAME) were not aware of that.

Let's at leeast admit that much of what has been leaked, the AMERICAN PEOPLE had the RIGHT to know.

The problem is that much of what has been released is embarrassing to our Government, and then too there's the problem that some of it really ought to have been kep secret.

Names of Afghan informants I agree with, that's a case where unfortunately the resources at Wikileaks disposal were not sufficient to do what they have an obligation to do and redact the names of civilians who could face reprisals (though again and notably, no one has faced any such reprisals as a result of the leaks). What else do you think should have been kept a secret? I've not seen much I thought citizens in a supposed democracy shouldn't have the right to know.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It really is all about the 'Shoot the Messenger' propaganda now. The Government and the corrupt MSM just want you to stay focused on shooting the Messenger so you don't notice how corrupt and criminal your own Government can be. It's a nice misdirection magic trick coming from them. Unfortunately most Americans really are mere cattle at this point. They're being led off the cliff on this one for sure. Try something new for a change. Try to stop focusing on shooting the Messenger for a bit and instead start focusing on what your Government is doing. Don't fall for their misdirection magic trick.