New Wikileaks document: CIA Red Cell Memo on United States "exporting terrorism"

[No Limit]

No, I was conceding the opposite.

So does that mean you are coming to the picnic after all?

I think everyone jumped at you for that "government owns it so you have no right to it" comment because it was an absurd thing to state. We can argue on perticular leaks but no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on the government needs oversight. When government does wrong they will try to cover their asses as we have seen many times. And many people risk their freedom to expose those wrongs. You should not look down on those people but instead respect them. Teh guy that leaked all these documents knew what he was getting in to. He will probably spend much of the rest of his life in prison. And I'm not necessarily saying he shouldn't, but you have to respect what he did. He saw wrong, he knew he would probably spend life in prison if he exposed that wrong, and he did it anyway.

The Iraqi video that was released needed to be released because it showed our military shooting up a makeshift ambulance without any kind of provocation. Wikileaks is not a neutral news organization and they never pretended otherwise. So they can attach all the commentary they want to their releases to try and generate as much attention as possible. In the end it's what is in those releases that matters. And many of the times no matter how pro government you are when you try to argue against the content of those releases you really have no ground to stand on.

 

[Kaptain H]

So does that mean you are coming to the picnic after all?

I think everyone jumped at you for that "government owns it so you have no right to it" comment because it was an absurd thing to state. We can argue on perticular leaks but no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on the government needs oversight. When government does wrong they will try to cover their asses as we have seen many times. And many people risk their freedom to expose those wrongs. You should not look down on those people but instead respect them. Teh guy that leaked all these documents knew what he was getting in to. He will probably spend much of the rest of his life in prison. And I'm not necessarily saying he shouldn't, but you have to respect what he did. He saw wrong, he knew he would probably spend life in prison if he exposed that wrong, and he did it anyway.

I guess that's my main disagreement. I do believe that the worst secrets will expose themselves and rightly so. But when it comes to standard shit like this, I just can't value the individual citizen's decision to disclose the info over the government's reasons for keeping it classifed. We operate with secrets, both good and bad, and our system falls apart if we can't trust our own people to keep them every time an individual deems something wrong. Wikileaks clearly exploits that temptation. I say this as a former MI soldier, it's hard to respect someone who did what he did in that particular case, though I do see your point. (Though if he had half a brain to hide his identity better, he may have come off as having more merit as a human being.)

The Iraqi video that was released needed to be released because it showed our military shooting up a makeshift ambulance without any kind of provocation. Wikileaks is not a neutral news organization and they never pretended otherwise. So they can attach all the commentary they want to their releases to try and generate as much attention as possible. In the end it's what is in those releases that matters. And many of the times no matter how pro government you are when you try to argue against the content of those releases you really have no ground to stand on.

Well, of course, but the fact that it's so ham-fisted and sensationalized is why I can't take it seriously. Stirring up shit and antagonizing degrades their credibility and further polarizes this nation. I think that the video showed that the soldiers lack adequite pyschological training and discipline. It's terrible, and it's evident in every war. But I don't think that's what they aiming for.

 

[No Limit]

I guess that's my main disagreement. I do believe that the worst secrets will expose themselves and rightly so. But when it comes to standard shit like this, I just can't value the individual citizen's decision to disclose the info over the government's reasons for keeping it classifed. We operate with secrets, both good and bad, and our system falls apart if we can't trust our own people to keep them every time an individual deems something wrong. Wikileaks clearly exploits that temptation. I say this as a former MI soldier, it's hard to respect someone who did what he did in that particular case, though I do see your point. (Though if he had half a brain to hide his identity better, he may have come off as having more merit as a human being.)

You say the worst secrets will expose themselves. No they won't. It requires someone to expose them. And you keep falling back on the idea that the government has reasons for keeping things classified. Yes they do, but many times those reasons are not good. Many times they hide outright crimes. Whatever you happen to think of the guy, in the end he knew the consequences of his actions and he will end up behind bars for a very long time as a result of those actions. Yet he did what he did knowing what would happen. He could have been smarter about hiding his identity but they would have found him anyway, I doubt the US military lets someone burn secrets to a CD without some kind of paper trail.

Well, of course, but the fact that it's so ham-fisted and sensationalized is why I can't take it seriously. Stirring up shit and antagonizing degrades their credibility and further polarizes this nation. I think that the video showed that the soldiers lack adequite pyschological training and discipline. It's terrible, and it's evident in every war. But I don't think that's what they aiming for.

Why can't you take it seriously? Please explain this to me. The video shows what it shows. I think the commentary wikileaks provided is dead on. Our military shot up a guy that was just trying to help some wounded people on the ground. This person posed no threat and turned out he was carrying two children in the van. If our rules of engagement allow this type of thing the american people need to see not only that this is the policy but also the consequences of that policy. You can attack wikileaks all you want, but wikileaks isn't the problem. And when you try to defend what our military did you have absolutely no ground to stand on.

 

[Kaptain H]

You say the worst secrets will expose themselves. No they won't. It requires someone to expose them. And you keep falling back on the idea that the government has reasons for keeping things classified. Yes they do, but many times those reasons are not good. Many times they hide outright crimes. Whatever you happen to think of the guy, in the end he knew the consequences of his actions and he will end up behind bars for a very long time as a result of those actions. Yet he did what he did knowing what would happen. He could have been smarter about hiding his identity but they would have found him anyway, I doubt the US military lets someone burn secrets to a CD without some kind of paper trail.

Why can't you take it seriously? Please explain this to me. The video shows what it shows. I think the commentary wikileaks provided is dead on. Our military shot up a guy that was just trying to help some wounded people on the ground. This person posed no threat and turned out he was carrying two children in the van. If our rules of engagement allow this type of thing the american people need to see not only that this is the policy but also the consequences of that policy. You can attack wikileaks all you want, but wikileaks isn't the problem. And when you try to defend what our military did you have absolutely no ground to stand on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Bradley_Manning

"Sometime in 2008, when Manning visited Cambridge, Massachusetts "to visit a man he had fallen in love with," he became "part of a social circle that included politically motivated computer hackers and his boyfriend, a self-described drag queen. So when his military career seemed headed nowhere good, Private Manning, 22, turned increasingly to those friends for moral support."[8]

Manning enlisted in the United States Army to become an intelligence analyst and was deployed with a support battalion with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq. Before being arrested, Manning had been demoted from Specialist to Private First Class for assaulting another soldier and was to be discharged early."

It seems to me that his actions were emotionally-driven and impulsive. He was already going to be chaptered out, and given his acquaintances I also suspect that much of his intent was a personally motivated attack on the army itself.

Wikileaks may not be the problem, but to me it certainly is yet another problem. I have not defended the soldiers' actions, but I am criticizing the manipulative way the incident was presented. I have no desire to nitpick the video with you; that thread is long dead. The army would benefit from being more selective in the psychological screening and mental health monitoring of its soldiers, to prevent problems like this as well as Manning.

 

[VictimOfScience]

It seems to me that if the government had not done anything wrong, they would not be so up-in-arms about any of this information sharing. Our taxes support all of the government's behavior so I think it is absurd to think that they should be anything but 100% transparent. What kind of a message are they sending to people by behaving poorly and trying to cover it up only to then prosecute the people who expose the truth? Is it not bad behavior if you are not caught? Time and time again we have seen that none of the government's agencies can police themselves. When left to their own devices they engage is a huge amount of illegal activity. Nothing is ever done about it until someone gets caught red-handed. This is why I love undercover factory farm investigators, all of the wikileaks folks, and anyone and everyone else who works to set the record straight and remove the wool from all of our eyes.

 

[CptStern]

It's my opinion that Wikileaks has become less and less neutral over the years. The recent incident over the shooting of Iraqi citizens and the highly edited video that was released to the public was far from neutral in its presentation. That is what I mean by propaganda.

the video, as other people have pointed out, was edited for time not neccessarily content.

I'm mostly thinking of soldiers who can't resist the temptation abuse their clearances the moment they learn something they don't like, may the UCMJ prosecute them and set a firm example.

thereby quelling any future whistleblowers. in other words you think military rules trump the public's right to know. your scenario leaves no room for those with legitimate concerns. like the person who leaked the abu gharib photos

I don't mean to sound like a terrible person, but we can't all be rebels.

it's obvious you think this is borderline treasonous when it's just the opposite; who watches the watchmen? we do; that's the entire basis behind the founding of the US;

"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth"

 

[No Limit]

It seems to me that his actions w...but that title was making a very valid point.

 

[Kaptain H]

the video, as other people have pointed out, was edited for time not neccessarily content.



thereby quelling any future whistleblowers. in other words you think military rules trump the public's right to know. your scenario leaves no room for those with legitimate concerns. like the person who leaked the abu gharib photos



it's obvious you think this is borderline treasonous when it's just the opposite; who watches the watchmen? we do; that's the entire basis behind the founding of the US;

"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth"

That is what I have been saying, yes. Violating the UCMJ and the unauthorized posting of secret material to an openly sensationalist website that exists largely in part these days to undermine the US military and government, there's nothing "borderline" about it and they know full well it's treason. As far as Abu Gharib, I believe that investigations were already underway when the images were leaked to the press. It was right to be exposed, and while I didn't agree with the appropriateness of every subsequent leak, it was handled far better, overall, than what I've seen from Wikileaks.

I can't imagine that with a million plus documents collected, the only information that is now available for virtually anyone to see is righteously exposed evil conspiracies provided by national heroes who only seek to protect us from ourselves. There is a huge fundamental difference in the way we view this subject, and I acknowledge that your position is the more benevolent and humanistic one, but I remain unconvinced.

 

[CptStern]

That is what I have been saying, yes. Violating the UCMJ and the unauthorized posting of secret material to an openly sensationalist website that exists largely in part these days to undermine the US military and government, there's nothing "borderline" about it and they know full well it's treason.

so he should then bear the responsibility of his actions?

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/08/03/u-s-congressman-calls-for-execution-of-wikileaks-whistleblower/

except:

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers, or persons who work for the government who report agency misconduct.

As far as Abu Gharib, I believe that investigations were already underway when the images were leaked to the press. It was right to be exposed, and while I didn't agree with the appropriateness of every subsequent leak, it was handled far better, overall, than what I've seen from Wikileaks.

handled better? there's quite a bit of evidence that the leaks led to the death of americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Purported_retaliation

I can't imagine that with a million plus documents collected, the only information that is now available for virtually anyone to see is righteously exposed evil conspiracies provided by national heroes who only seek to protect us from ourselves. There is a huge fundamental difference in the way we view this subject, and I acknowledge that your position is the more benevolent and humanistic one, but I remain unconvinced.

it's pretty obvious you havent read the material presented because as you put it is "righteously exposed evil conspiracies provided by national heroes" when in fact there's very little in the way of 3rd party exposition on the documents. they're mostly incident reports that are direct from the source and not a third party. any conclusion derived is from the incident reports themselves

 

[<RJMC>]

It seems to me that if the government had not done anything wrong, they would not be so up-in-arms about any of this information sharing. Our taxes support all of the government's behavior so I think it is absurd to think that they should be anything but 100% transparent. What kind of a message are they sending to people by behaving poorly and trying to cover it up only to then prosecute the people who expose the truth? Is it not bad behavior if you are not caught? Time and time again we have seen that none of the government's agencies can police themselves. When left to their own devices they engage is a huge amount of illegal activity. Nothing is ever done about it until someone gets caught red-handed. This is why I love undercover factory farm investigators, all of the wikileaks folks, and anyone and everyone else who works to set the record straight and remove the wool from all of our eyes.

the thing is that some stuff may be usefull for other goverments or terrorist groups and are not necesary human rights violations

after all are secrets for a reason and all secrets are allways kept secret even if is a useless thing,otherwise knock on the doors of the embassy of toehr countryes and ask about theyr military secrets and see the reaction

but I wouldnt be susprised if someone release that kind of info passsing as "omg the truth they dont want to show" and them tons of goverments peek at it

but yeah since you dont seem to care about the goverment of your country sure you wouldnt get it,the soviets would have been very pleased...

 

[CptStern]

the thing is that some stuff may be usefull for other goverments or terrorist groups and are not necesary human rights violations

after all are secrets for a reason and all secrets are allways kept secret even if is a useless thing,otherwise knock on the doors of the embassy of toehr countryes and ask about theyr military secrets and see the reaction

but I wouldnt be susprised if someone release that kind of info passsing as "omg the truth they dont want to show" and them tons of goverments peek at it

but yeah since you dont seem to care about the goverment of your country sure you wouldnt get it,the soviets would have been very pleased...

you make it sound like they're releasing schematics to weather machine doomsday devices. they're mostly field incident reports from afghanistan dating back to 2007.

 

[Kaptain H]

so he should then bear the responsibility of his actions?

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/08/03/u-s-congressman-calls-for-execution-of-wikileaks-whistleblower/

If convicted of treason with all those charges against him, yes. I know and he knows it can be a capital offense.

except:

handled better? there's quite a bit of evidence that the leaks led to the death of americans

"Handled better" in terms of the military conducting internal investigations when they learned of wrongdoings. Australian news stations reporting leaked material, that serves no purpose other than to incite anger towards us. If you have a source on that, I would love to see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Purported_retaliation

it's pretty obvious you havent read the material presented because as you put it is "righteously exposed evil conspiracies provided by national heroes" when in fact there's very little in the way of 3rd party exposition on the documents. they're mostly incident reports that are direct from the source and not a third party. any conclusion derived is from the incident reports themselves

I don't know anything about Abu Ghraib on Wikileaks, period, but if that's what you're talking about here, then my name-calling was misconstrued. I'm talking about the irresponsibility of posting anything to a site that uses the material for such blatantly political means ("Collateral Murder", for example).

 

[<RJMC>]

you make it sound like they're releasing schematics to weather machine doomsday devices. they're mostly field incident reports from afghanistan dating back to 2007.

the thing is that you all go like "omg if they are hiding things is cuz those are evil things!" the military allways keep some things secret and sure it wouldnt like it even if its something useless because thats how a military works

so if you like that stuff that much,go ask other countryes to reveal such secret stuff

ask russia to release all reports from the chechen wars to see if there was human rights violations

ask india and pakistan to release the same reports of theyr operations in kashmir

ask sri lanka to release the same reports on theyr operations against the tamil tigers

and see how they treat you

but yeah since those countryes arent the usa you dont even care

 

[CptStern]

If convicted of treason with all those charges against him, yes. I know and he knows it can be a capital offense.

so you agree that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for leaking information, regardless of the nature of the information leaked?

"Handled better" in terms of the military conducting internal investigations when they learned of wrongdoings. Australian news stations reporting leaked material, that serves no purpose other than to incite anger towards us. If you have a source on that, I would love to see it.

you lost me here

I don't know anything about Abu Ghraib on Wikileaks,

wikileaks had nothing to do with the abu ghraib leaked photos. I'm talking about the incident reports leaked to wikileaks

period, but if that's what you're talking about here, then my name-calling was misconstrued. I'm talking about the irresponsibility of posting anything to a site that uses the material for such blatantly political means ("Collateral Murder", for example).

In an Al Jazeera English interview on April 19, 2010, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange explained (while watching the leaked video) why WikiLeaks titled the video "Collateral Murder":

"And you can see that they also deliberately target Saaed, a wounded man there on the ground, despite their earlier belief that they didn’t have the rules of engagement - that the rules of engagement did not permit them to kill Saaed when he was wounded. When he is rescued, suddenly that belief changed. You can see in this particular image he is lying on the ground and the people in the van [(who came to rescue him)] have been separated, but they still deliberately target him. This is why we called it Collateral Murder. In the first example [(attack on personnel)] maybe it’s collateral incompetence when they strafe the initial gathering, [that was] recklessness bordering on murder, but you couldn’t say for sure that was murder. But this particular event - this is clearly murder."

doesnt sound like propaganda for political gains (Assage is australian. so I dont know what political gains he could possibly get from all this) it sounds more like an accurate description of what happened

 

[Kaptain H]

so you agree that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for leaking information, regardless of the nature of the information leaked?

I agree with the UCMJ. If I hypothetically didn't show up for duty, I could have been charged as a deserter after a certain number of days, due to the clearance I held. It's to be taken very seriously. Capital punishment is authorized for a sentence of treason, and while I would hope that the verdict is reserved for only extreme cases, this kid's case is starting to look pretty extreme.

"Handled better" in terms of the military conducting internal investigations when they learned of wrongdoings. Australian news stations reporting leaked material, that serves no purpose other than to incite anger towards us. If you have a source on that, I would love to see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Purported_retaliation

Thank you.

wikileaks had nothing to do with the abu ghraib leaked photos. I'm talking about the incident reports leaked to wikileaks

Okay. These quotes chains are becoming abstract and it's hard to follow your context. I think the incident in the OP is barely newsworthy, and bringing it up serves no purpose other than to stir up shit.

doesnt sound like propaganda for political gains (Assage is australian. so I dont know what political gains he could possibly get from all this) it sounds more like an accurate description of what happened

I know he's Australian. If you prefer, I will amend "political gain" to "lunatic agenda". I have nothing to add about the video right now that I haven't already stated. I don't care how accurate it is, especially not in hindsight. The intent is harmful.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Self preservation. I'm gonna be honest and say I dont care what we export elsewhere just that it doesnt hit domestically or that nothing is exported to here.

 

[No Limit]

I know he's Australian. If you prefer, I will amend "political gain" to "lunatic agenda". I have nothing to add about the video right now that I haven't already stated. I don't care how accurate it is, especially not in hindsight. The intent is harmful.

So you don't have a problem with the accuracy of the title, you agree it was accurate since you won't dispute it. Your problem is with the intent because that intent is harmful? The intent as far as I could tell was to get as much attention to the video as possible to expose the wrongs our military does in the hopes that our policy will change. Why is that harmful?

 

[StarBob]

Ya know, it's gotten to the point that I don't really care what wikileaks is telling me. Nt that I want to blindly accept government actions like your average 1940 German citizen, but I don't think there's really any overrirding agenda that the American governemnt is participating in that isn't already opposed by majority or has little to no bearing on anything earth-shattering. No one around here wants to be in wars anymore. No one wants the fear of domestic terrorism to return. No one wants to pay more taxes. Basically anyone who runs on those three criteria will be elected without even a campaign.

Maybe I'm just living my life with blinders on, but I think there are more important things going on in my life than concerning myself with something that's potentially bad, but I have absolutely no control over or any direct way of changing.

 

[No Limit]

Just because you can't directly change it doesn't mean you should be unaware of it.

 

[Mogi67]

Self preservation. I'm gonna be honest and say I dont care what we export elsewhere just that it doesnt hit domestically or that nothing is exported to here.

So as long as it doesn't affect you, it doesn't matter?

 

[Kaptain H]

So you don't have a problem with the accuracy of the title, you agree it was accurate since you won't dispute it. Your problem is with the intent because that intent is harmful? The intent as far as I could tell was to get as much attention to the video as possible to expose the wrongs our military does in the hopes that our policy will change. Why is that harmful?

I never said it was accurate. I said "I don't care if it's accurate", because it draws conclusions for the viewer in an overtly biased/antagonistic way. I can't take it seriously. But no, I don't think it's completely accurate (not hoping to derail the thread, but the subject keeps coming up).

 

[No Limit]

It keeps coming up because you keep saying you have a problem with the title while also saying you won't discuss why you have that problem. You can't just make a claim and then say "I don't want to discuss the basis of my claim because it will derail the discussion".

If you don't think calling what happened to that makeshift ambulance "collateral murder" then what would you call it? The only way I would have a problem with the title is if it lead people to the wrong conclusions, that is not the case here. After seeing an innocent man get shot up by our military for absolutely no reasons there really is only one conclusion to make. And that conclusion is that our rules of engagement are totally ****ed up and it amounts to a form of murder.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

So as long as it doesn't affect you, it doesn't matter?

Not necessarily that it doesn't matter- it has an effect on global politics shifting power in either direction so it affects everyone either way. So long as it doesnt affect me as in being blown up, then yeah.

I'm sorry, but I'm just being brutally honest there.

 

[No Limit]

I don't think anyone is disputing you're being honest. I think the problem is that you actually believe that.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I would bet the majority of Americans would agree with me, regardless of party.

 

[No Limit]

The sad part is you are probably right. That doesn't make it any less sick.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The sad part is you are probably right. That doesn't make it any less sick.

I dont think its sick. I'm not saying I'm GLAD about it or that I think its a good thing. It's just that my level of concern for it was low. Sick would be cheering it on saying "yeah, export as much terrorism as is possible" which large populations of other nations actually do say and hope for.

My level of concern for terrorism imported HERE is higher although even that is fairly low. I tend to think we're pretty secure and theres not really much of a way to stop lone nuts like the Time Square attempting bombing, shoe bombers, etc etc

 

[No Limit]

I just don't see how anyone can look at our military killing innocent people and go "meh, atleast its not happening over here".

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I just don't see how anyone can look at our military killing innocent people and go "meh, atleast its not happening over here".

I didn't go to the website, but I was under the impression they were referring to examples such as IRA money funneling from sources inside the USA, or other such things.

Not literally government agencies being complicit or actually planning in acts of terrorism. That's a different situation. If that's the case I'm not in support because A: It's wrong to begin with and secondarily B: I don't want my taxes paying for something so stupid

 

[Kaptain H]

It keeps coming up because you keep saying you have a problem with the title while also saying you won't discuss why you have that problem. You can't just make a claim and then say "I don't want to discuss the basis of my claim because it will derail the discussion".

If you don't think calling what happened to that makeshift ambulance "collateral murder" then what would you call it? The only way I would have a problem with the title is if it lead people to the wrong conclusions, that is not the case here. After seeing an innocent man get shot up by our military for absolutely no reasons there really is only one conclusion to make. And that conclusion is that our rules of engagement are totally ****ed up and it amounts to a form of murder.

I think that civilian casualties and poor judgment under stressful conditions are unavoidable, and this case is no exception. This happens every day, and has happened in every war. Yet we are confronted with very little graphic footage of these facts, so of course it makes us uncomfortable. It's easy to sit in your comfortable room at your computer and dissect a video like this, but those engaged didn't have the luxury of time or hindsight. (Not to mention they had reports of small arms fire, and that's not to mention the RPG one man appeard to be carrying and other weapons, which can cause panic.)

I won't lie. Such editorializing is meant to cause outrage and distrust, but for me it simply doesn't. I think it demonstrates the urgency of needing better training, discipline, and mental health services for the soldiers, to avoid incidents like this from happening in the first place.

 

[No Limit]

Why would siting miles away from the victims in a helicopter cause you so much stress that you would shoot up an unarmed civilian that came minutes after the initial shots to help the wounded? It's not like anyone was in any immediate danger. When ground troops finally arrived they did so almost 10 minutes later, so clearly they were never that close.

Dismissing it as "oh well they were stressed out and shit happens" is disingenuous and ignores the facts that you see in the video. Hard to see how someone is stressed as they laugh while unloading heavy fire on people over a mile away. These same guys are just sitting in that chopper begging for the opportunity to shoot something. And shooting at unarmed civillians trying to help the wounded should never be dismissed by blaming it on stress. I get stressed from time to time too, I don't go shooting people as a result.

 

[Kaptain H]

I am no expert in the complexities of human psychology, but judging by your last sentence, neither are you.

Dismissing it as "oh well they were stressed out and shit happens" is disingenuous and ignores the facts that you see in the video.

I'm not ignoring or dismissing any wrongdoing, but I also don't find it shocking, unfathomable, and will stop short of calling it murder. Those "facts" have been deliberately distorted and emotions manipulated for political means in a one-sided presentation. Some kid wants to decide for us what's ethically right by leaking this video much other content, thereby likely jeopardizing the lives of soldiers and our missions, this is not worth it.

I don't enjoy repeating myself.

 

[No Limit]

I don't like repeating my self either.

You keep repeating that facts have been distorted. No, they haven't. The video shows what it shows, our military opening fire on a good samaritan for absolutely no reason and the asshole that pulled the trigger laughing his ass off as he did it.

You might not like what wikileaks called that but there is nothing distorted about the video. Now, what would you call what happened? A mistake? That's one hell of a mistake. And I have a hard time believing it was a mistake since the entire video the gunner in that apache is begging for an opportunity to shoot, any excuse he could get he will use.

That shows that our military is incompetent at protecting innocent life. Do you not think that video should have been released? What if they released it without that title, would that have been ok with you?

 

[Kaptain H]

I think the distortion lies in the presentation itself, and how everything was labled and presented from their viewpoint. We saw what happened, but in a very controlled and editorialized context. This is just one bad thing in a never-ending series of bad things, but what does it show? I feel that the army must be more selective in its recruiting process, to create a more disciplined and stable force.

That shows that our military is incompetent at protecting innocent life. Do you not think that video should have been released? What if they released it without that title, would that have been ok with you?

I don't think it should have been released, as I'm opposed on principle to the leaking of classified military documents to the public in any case. It wouldn't be okay with me, because it was released for only one reason, to harm the military's image. This one video is a small matter to me, compared to the millions of other documents they have collected and irresponsibly published, which our enemies now have access to. Wikileaks doesn't care if it our security is compromised, as long as they can find things to harm us. Now any disloyal PFC who doesn't like his job can decide for himself what is an issue of national importance/an ethical emergency and easily share it with the world without fear of consequence.

 

[No Limit]

But we have just went full circle. When this started you said these things should never be released. I pointed to the pentagon papers and watergate. You then said those were ok. Now you are back to saying it's not ok. Which is it?

Aside from the title that you don't like what else was misleading about the presentation of that video?

 

[Eejit]

It wouldn't be okay with me, because it was released for only one reason, to harm the military's image.

This is an assumption. One I don't necessarily agree with, there are other explanations which are at least as likely.

 

[Kaptain H]

This is an assumption. One I don't necessarily agree with, there are other explanations which are at least as likely.

It's not an unreasonable assumption, given Assange's personality and "I enjoy crushing bastards" motivations.

 

[Eejit]

Again you're making assumptions about motivations and (since you don't actually know the guy) personalities. I think you're seeing what you (on some level) want to see in these actions.

 

[Kaptain H]

Again you're making assumptions about motivations and (since you don't actually know the guy) personalities. I think you're seeing what you (on some level) want to see in these actions.

Fair enough, this is acceptable. Though I feel it's not much different from those who share his views and ardently support him for "sticking it to the man."