Wikileaks

[Combwork]

I've just been reading old posts on this one. Isn't it interesting that Julian Assange having offended/embarrassed many in high places should be charged with the one crime most likely to cause people to hate him; sexual child abuse? You'd think that of all people he would know how unlikely it would be for anything he did in private remaining private. Heaven forfend that the powers that be have set him up

Having holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and been given political asylum, the U.K. government claims the right to send police into the Embassy to take him out by force. How f****** incompetent can the U.K. government get?

As to "The Home Of The Brave And Land Of The Free", why does the dissemination of "secret" things so offend you guys?

[beej]

I think it's important to first discuss how material is determined to require a security classification to begin with. The classification 'secret' for example is defined as that information the disclosure of which could cause grave damage to the national security of the United States. There is a formal process in arriving at such a determination and the determination is only made by those with statutory authority to do so. Contrary to some popularly held views it is not something that is arrived at arbitrarily.

Why do I know this? For much of my 25 years in the Navy I worked closely with highly sensitive material of all classification levels involving both U.S. and NATO information. For 3 of those years I was responsible for all classified material up to and including Top Secret extant the Submarine Force, U. S. Atlantic Fleet.

That Julian Assange has decided that he is the self-appointed arbiter on that which is appropriately classified and that which is not is not only arrogant, presumptuous and inappropriate his behavior is damaging to the security interests of the United States and places at risk the lives of men and women in service to their country.

Any further questions on why I find Julian Assange's activities beyond offensive?

[JJIII]

What he said. ^

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by beej

I think it's important to first discuss how material is determined to require a security classification to begin with. The classification 'secret' for example is defined as that information the disclosure of which could cause grave damage to the national security of the United States. There is a formal process in arriving at such a determination and the determination is only made by those with statutory authority to do so. Contrary to some popularly held views it is not something that is arrived at arbitrarily.

Why do I know this? For much of my 25 years in the Navy I worked closely with highly sensitive material of all classification levels involving both U.S. and NATO information. For 3 of those years I was responsible for all classified material up to and including Top Secret extant the Submarine Force, U. S. Atlantic Fleet.

That Julian Assange has decided that he is the self-appointed arbiter on that which is appropriately classified and that which is not is not only arrogant, presumptuous and inappropriate his behavior is damaging to the security interests of the United States and places at risk the lives of men and women in service to their country.

Any further questions on why I find Julian Assange's activities beyond offensive?

Fair enough. It still leaves a couple of things though. I accept that there's good reason to keep most official secrets secret, but certainly in the U.K. (and I would guess also in the U.S.A.) governments can piggy-back, add things to the list for their own convenience rather than in defense of the State. A high profile case here was Dr. David Kelly. Said to have committed suicide, if you're interested you can find details here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...vid-Kelly.html


An obvious anomaly was that although he was left-handed, it was his left wrist that was cut. Also although it's normal to hold a Coroner's Inquest after someone commits suicide (especially so if there are arguments as to whether or not he did commit suicide), no inquest was held.


Going back to Julian Assange, the question is still open as to why there was an attempt to vilify rather than discredit him; to pick holes in what he wrote.

On the general principle of "State Secrets", should Watergate have remained secret? Or Bill Clinton's private life. You could argue that Clinton's private life was private and not illegal. The problem was that the more he tried to keep it secret, the more open he was to blackmail.

[merrylander]

Assange is a pompous little twit who simply has a glorified opinion of himsllef.

[beej]

Originally Posted by Combwork

I accept that there's good reason to keep most official secrets secret, but certainly in the U.K. (and I would guess also in the U.S.A.) governments can piggy-back, add things to the list for their own convenience rather than in defense of the State.

Such an act would be illegal under U.S. law. Classification of information comes under pretty tight scrutiny in this country. There is nothing at all casual about it.

Going back to Julian Assange, the question is still open as to why there was an attempt to vilify rather than discredit him; to pick holes in what he wrote.

Can't speak to that although I have no information indicating that the government of the U.S. was involved in any such activity.

On the general principle of "State Secrets", should Watergate have remained secret? Or Bill Clinton's private life. You could argue that Clinton's private life was private and not illegal. The problem was that the more he tried to keep it secret, the more open he was to blackmail.

Neither the Watergate fiasco nor the oral skills of Clinton's intern were ever classified under any U.S. statute. Denied or covered up perhaps but none of it was ever a matter national security.

[Oerets]

Julian Assange played with fire and got burned. Releasing the information unfiltered or redacted more then likely ended up getting people killed. He might now see the error in his ways and is doing his best to avoid the wrath of the US.

As for the charges sure they could all be a ploy so the US can scoop him up. But also be true and needing to be prosecuted. If the charges are baseless does one not think it will be shown in any court case? Then who will have egg on their face?




Barney

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Oerets

As for the charges sure they could all be a ploy so the US can scoop him up. But also be true and needing to be prosecuted. If the charges are baseless does one not think it will be shown in any court case? Then who will have egg on their face?




Barney

Assange is not afraid to face the sex charge. What he wants is a guarantee from Sweden that he will not be extradited to USA.

[CarlV]

Took information from the US military traitor and published it so the taliban could use it to kill people. I would consider him a war criminal and he should be treated as such and no less. That works for me.
It is good that he is imprisoned in that embassy at least, stuck in a room with a tv, a phone, and a computer to live out his life. Just like Bin Laden.


Carl

[BlueStreak]

For crying out loud.....What government doesn't keep secrets?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that some, or maybe even most of the secrets are best kept secrets?

I'd even go so far as to say there are probably some secrets so nasty that they might cause an internal revolt, but were done for the greater good and, therefore, must be kept a secret. (Sometimes you must kill a few to save a million, anyone?)

Dave