Unfortunately i can only partially answer your question. There is some information that only certain people have access to(sometimes only 4 or 5 people), so if that information is given out and leaked for the world to see the pool of people that could have leaked it is much smaller. This is the common sense/short answer. I hope this is sufficient to give you an idea of how damaging leaks can be.
This is a good point. Intelligence can be traced to the point of origin, and this happened many times during the cold war. It sometimes doesn't take a national security agency to connect the dots either, and can often be a simple affair of elimination of suspects.
Actually don't believe that's the case if they do something illegal i.e. assisting someone escape justice. Had the Kazakh ambassador get arrested fro drink driving in my home town a while back IIRC.
Fair do's. I was annoyed with thehippoz because his first post back from a ban included two comments that he knew contributed to this ban. He then made two veiled ad hominem remarks. However I accept that this does not mean I should retaliate in kind. Thehippoz, I apologise. In light of the much more dangerous acts and people he exposed, yes.
oh no need for apologies.. it was odd to see you go there though xD were just passionate about what we believe.. nothing wrong with that- 3lusive has kind of a false view and is twisting things a bit imo that's why I posted really I'll stay out of the serious for awhile.. I always get worked up about certain topics and then finally give up in the end- goes down in flames or like kayin would say.. bears and monkey sex
My respect for you is restored, thank you. I would say that it is not. As already mentioned, the potential for harm includes: The possibility that intelligence gathering operations could be severely hampered. The safety of intelligence sources and intelligence officers could be compromised. Coalition troops could face increased threats. The leaks could spur on others to leak intelligence that could have much more drastic ramifications on the above. The leaks could adversely affect international relationships. Then we must ask ourselves what positive outcomes have occurred since Wikileaks? Have we seen policy changes? Are we out of Afghanistan? Are innocents no longer being killed? Are our governments more transparent and honest?
No, but at least now we know they are not, and about what. I think we can lose the forest for the trees. Wikileaks revealed some outrageously bad stuff. Acts that destabilised an already volatile Middle East, increased terrorist threat considerably and caused the suffering of millions of innocent civilians, as well as sacrificed our soldiers on the altar of business interest. And then we worry about what damage Assange might have done? It's like worrying about how lowering the lifeboats might scratch the paint job on a sinking Titanic.
Regardless of what happens I governments will never be transparent its not good for buisness who would vote for them else.
In this thread Assange has been accused of being thoughtless and cowardly. To assume he didn't consider the consequences of his actions seems naive to me, and to suggest that, in exposing secret information, he lacked courage shows a lack of empathy - I would say it took some balls to stand up to the US government in a manner that was bound to make him a target for retribution. And what Assange did is not what motivates the Taleban or the 'terrorists', the motivation is the foreign policy of the US et al. If you're a soldier who's gone to fight the Taleban then go and fight them and take responsibility for your own actions - if you get killed or maimed while out there then point the finger at yourself and your superiors for being there in the first place. It seems cowardly to try and make anyone else a scapegoat. Edit (I missed the fact we were on a third page): I'm not aware Assange was obliged to look out for the safety of intelligence staff. Again, the foreign policy of their employers has way more input to the risk they face compared to some leaked information. Leak the fact that I wear women's underwear to work and my risk of attack from middle eastern chaps barely flutters. If a man drives home from a pub 5 times over the legal limit and his mate puts a phonecall in to the police, who is to blame for the guy getting nicked and losing his licence?
As far as i know a car with diplomatic licence plates is considered as immune as the embassy, as for going to the airport... the guy can get out of the country by a variety of ways, he can do this by private jet out of an airfield or on a boat. An ambassador can get stopped if his car is not carrying diplomatic plates. If someone knows this information more correctly please correct me.
So would Assange have the car driven on to the private jet, or onto the speedboat? Or would he first get out of the car? If the police were determined to catch him, then the only way I could see him getting out of the country would be for him to make his escape by helicopter from the roof of the embassy. Hardly likely, but it would make for good viewing!
The embassy has this swimming pool on the roof that slides back to reveal a launch pad for an intercontinental semi-ballistic rocketship. No, wait, that's in Thunderbirds. No idea, but if they want to get him out, they'll find a way. Like Spec says, it's a stupid idea. He is better of going to Sweden and facing down the charges like a boss. Then again, Assange is in possession of a whole lot of secret information. Perhaps he knows something we don't...
From my understanding he and his law team have no problem with that, it's the issue of not being guaranteed that they won't just then scoot him off the the US where he can be held indefinitely. But then I've not given the situation my undivided attention, I have no firm opinion on the man.
Actually, given the nature of the thread, I think it's worth examining. From what I've seen (which admittedly is not much) the man is clearly a narcissicstfor whom Wikileaks is a good way to draw attention to himself; I'm sure he believes in the ideal but he reminds me a bit of Anonymous. Now I'm aware that there's going to be large efforts to discredit him but he just doesn't seem to me to be a responsible person which is hardly ideal for someone in charge of something like Wikileaks.
Even narcissists can be right about something (*cough* Steve Jobs *cough*), and even people who are considered to have noble intentions can screw up badly. I think his actions are better examined on the basis of their consequences.
Exactly. His legal team must have strong suspicion/belief/evidence that he will likely be deported to the States to face espionage charges, which could reap the death penalty, if extradited to Sweden. There's no way he would go to the Equador Embassy if this was not the case. Remember, the US does not mess about when it comes to 'national security' (preserving its power and influence, which Wikileaks threatens, not the safety of its citizens). Just look at Gitmo, or the treatment of Bradley Manning. I think that's much more likely the image portrayed by the media rather than what he is like in reality. Furthermore, there will be a vast number of people who work for Wikileaks but who wish to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. Thus he is basically the sole public face of the organisation and obviously when arrangements like this occur people brand you as narcissistic and egotistical.
Perhaps so, but you said information like this puts all sorts of people in danger, and I don't see it. No-one has died as a result of this being leaked, no-one even harmed (with the exception of Bradley Manning whose mind is being slowly destroyed by solitary confinement) - but the world now knows a lot more about all the things it's government's have been up to. For instance I now know that Hillary Clinton should be in jail, not in government, because she ordered the bugging of UN offices of friendly and non-friendly nations. This information release seems like it's been extremely positive to me, and I'd welcome that happening every day.
I would argue that Assange should be judged solely on the question of whether or not he committed sexual assault, the rest, including his behavior in seeking to avoid extradition, is not relevant. Having not seen the evidence against him, I can't speak to his innocence or guilt, but I do know that the charges against him certainly have the appearance of being politically motivated. As for the information he helped bring into the public eye, what most surprises me is that 95% of it you could learn by reading a decent newspaper. Most of what we've learned from the wikileaks material is at best confirmation of what we already knew and on the whole pretty horribly boring. The only real secret revealed is that the US overclassifies way way too much info.
Lets base descisions on the basis of the quality of those descisions as we see them. Judging by onsequences only works in the long run when all bets have been paid out. That said, I see your point and I can't say I disagree stongly with any of his actions. EDIT: Regardless, I still think he is not the right man to be the public face of wikileaks. You want a man the media can't even touch; the allegations against him are still far too credible.
