WikiLeaks website again offline after company cuts DNS service

[mark45y]

Reply to KhunAussie52,

For whatever reasons you approve of WikiLeaks providing terror target lists which will eventually lead to Americans being killed. I don't care about your personal history, nor did I mention it. If you approve of the release of terror target lists you approve of getting Americans killed. Why is that hard for you to admit. You don't like Americans and want to see them killed. I can understand that. Why do you have a hard time with just saying so?

[TAWP]

You are saying no-one knows of sites or people to target unless the Americans first list them?

The Times newspaper in London has published the story under the headline "Wikileaks lists 'targets for terror' against the US". If you read the list you will find that the targets list is just that. Easy targets that are critical to the US and UK but not before identified as such.

That is why. Former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind condemned the move. "This is further evidence that they have been generally irresponsible, bordering on criminal," Sir Malcolm said. "This is the kind of information terrorists are interested in knowing."

This is the kind of thing that LaoPo was looking for by supporting the mirror sites so WikiLeaks could publish information that would aid terror groups in killing Americans, Brits and others.

This has nothing to do with freedom of information this is a list of targets. Just like the Japanese living in Hawaii sent back home to assist in the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Rejoice, this is what you wanted. Solid information to aid in killing Americans. There is no other purpose in listing it. Many joint American UK defense projects dealing with submarines and aircraft. Don't worry Brits will be killed too. Like I said this is what you all wanted.

You might wanna look into who wrote the cable that makes up a list...perhaps you want that person charged?

[SweeneyAgonistes]

It's interesting how that tosser Rifkind's comment that it was 'irresponsible' and 'bordering on (yes, not actually but bordering on) criminal' mutates into 'you want to kill all us good square-jawed god-fearing freedom-loving americans'. Nothing like a bit of spittle-flecked Fox-style totally mental hyperbole to make your case.

Edited December 6, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[KhunAussie52]

Reply to KhunAussie52,

For whatever reasons you approve of WikiLeaks providing terror target lists which will eventually lead to Americans being killed. I don't care about your personal history, nor did I mention it. If you approve of the release of terror target lists you approve of getting Americans killed. Why is that hard for you to admit. You don't like Americans and want to see them killed. I can understand that. Why do you have a hard time with just saying so?

I never have a hard time.I have never felt better.

I feel no need to justify myself to you or any negative comments in this forum.

Are you American,if so,then your the first one, i dislike,intensely :jap:

Freedom of speech here.not personal attacks!!!!!

[LaoPo]

One day we picked up some Thai troops who were fighting in Laos. It was a daring rescue and a chopper went down during the operation.

The Thai troops had performed courageously and the American rescue choppers had gone way beyond the call of duty to get them out. Normal rescue operations under fire are a clusterfu** but the Thai troops had stayed calm and disciplined under fire and were evacuated with minimum loss of life.

It was a good story for both American troops and our Thai allies and I wrote about it.

My boss blew a fuse.

I learned that American troops were not in Laos. Thai troops were not in Laos and even the Bangkok newspapers confirmed that the Thai PM had said there were no Thai troops or American troops in Laos on the very day I wrote my story. (For those who missed it, it was a secret that Thai and American troops were fighting in Laos at the time).

I have to tell you the General was really upset that I wrote the story. But it was a good story and I thought it should be told.

I was under military law. The general could have had me shot. If I had sold the story I might have been shot.

But I had followed the chain of command and wrote the story and gave it to my boss and he killed the story. No harm no foul. I promised I would not do it again.

I applaud you!

VERY brave and good example (by yourself) why the PENTAGON PAPERS were so important at that time, speeding the process of ending that horrible -uncessary- Vietnam war.

I remember that time very well when it was exposed in The New York Times in 1971 how the intelligence services and government lied to the public on an immense scale.

Daniel Elssberg** deserves a Marble Statue in front of Congress as an example of a whistleblower who exposed the intense corrupt Goverment.

"A 1996 article in the New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".^[2]" *

Maybe some people here now understand why the WikiLeaks documents are so important since the past and present Governments are doing exactly the same, over and over again: lying to the American People, Congress, their fellow Allies and the rest of the world.

They've learned nothing!

Maybe most of the people are too young to have learned about the PENTAGON PAPERS...?

* http://en.wikipedia....Pentagon_Papers PENTAGON PAPERS

** http://en.wikipedia....Daniel_Ellsberg Daniel Ellsberg

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

"A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about alleged wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people. Usually this person would be from that same organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the organization or group which they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under law."

From wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg Daniel Ellsberg:

The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers is a 2009 documentary film directed by Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith. The film follows Daniel Ellsberg and explores the events leading up to the publication of the Pentagon Papers, which exposed the top-secret military history of the United States involvement in Vietnam.^[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Dangerous_Man_in_America:_Daniel_Ellsberg_and_the_Pentagon_Papers

LaoPo

[mark45y]

You are saying no-one knows of sites or people to target unless the Americans first list them?

The Times newspaper in London has published the story under the headline "Wikileaks lists 'targets for terror' against the US". If you read the list you will find that the targets list is just that. Easy targets that are critical to the US and UK but not before identified as such.

That is why. Former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind condemned the move. "This is further evidence that they have been generally irresponsible, bordering on criminal," Sir Malcolm said. "This is the kind of information terrorists are interested in knowing."

This is the kind of thing that LaoPo was looking for by supporting the mirror sites so WikiLeaks could publish information that would aid terror groups in killing Americans, Brits and others.

This has nothing to do with freedom of information this is a list of targets. Just like the Japanese living in Hawaii sent back home to assist in the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Rejoice, this is what you wanted. Solid information to aid in killing Americans. There is no other purpose in listing it. Many joint American UK defense projects dealing with submarines and aircraft. Don't worry Brits will be killed too. Like I said this is what you all wanted.

You might wanna look into who wrote the cable that makes up a list...perhaps you want that person charged?

The cable was written as an instruction to protect things. Much like sites were protected from bombing during WW II in England. False airfields were set up to decoy the German planes. The WikiLeaks thing is like telling the terrorists where the real airfields are. I would think anyone would understand a person who gave that kind of information to the enemy wanted to kill members of the other side.

[LaoPo]

No government jobs for students who read Wiki Leaks. Which begs the question; HOW will they know who's read it?

http://www.rawstory....government-job/

Yes, I reported that earlier and the "naughty" thing about it is that it was found out (can't find the link at the moment) that teachers/professors at Columbia Uni were writing about WikiLeaks themselves.

It's beyond me how any authority could even think of forbidding/advising highly intelligent young American Students to go to Twitter or Facebook (or anywhere else) to discuss about WikiLeaks.

The authorities are underestimating the intelligence of the young and bright; the future of America!

But, they're backing off already:

Philip J. Crowley, spokesman for the State Department, denied in an email message any federal involvement:

This is not true. We have instructed State Department employees not to access the WikiLeaks site and download posted documents using an unclassified network since these documents are still classified.

We condemn what Mr. Assange is doing, but have given no advice to anyone beyond the State Department to my knowledge.

When asked why Columbia — which confirmed to the New York Times earlier today that an email had been sent from its offices — would have sent the message, Crowley said, "If an employee of the State Department sent such an email, it does not represent a formal policy position."

.

http://www.huffingto...m_n_792059.html

LaoPo

Edited December 6, 2010 by LaoPo

[metisdead]

Off topic comments and personal attacks have been removed from view.

[mark45y]

It's interesting how that tosser Rifkind's comment that it was 'irresponsible' and 'bordering on (yes, not actually but bordering on) criminal' mutates into 'you want to kill all us good square-jawed god-fearing freedom-loving americans'. Nothing like a bit of spittle-flecked Fox-style totally mental hyperbole to make your case.

A criminal gives aid and support to the enemy. The purpose of the enemy is to destroy America. Does not seem like an exaggeration to me.

What do you think a terrorist will do with the information? Rifkind and The London Times and many other people think the enemy will try and destroy targets on the list. That is why they called it a terrorist target list.

Edited December 6, 2010 by mark45y

[Piengrudee]

Can anybody who have read Wikileaks be charged as an accomplish?

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Can anybody who have read Wikileaks be charged as an accomplish?

I looked at pictures of Lieutenant <deleted> <deleted> pole-dancing. Is that bad?

Never google "Wikileaks Thailand". It could lead you to site with clips that WILL land you in jail

I think it'd be more effective to replace that with a link saying "DON'T CLICK HERE."

Edited December 6, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[mark45y]

One day we picked up some Thai troops who were fighting in Laos. It was a daring rescue and a chopper went down during the operation.

The Thai troops had performed courageously and the American rescue choppers had gone way beyond the call of duty to get them out. Normal rescue operations under fire are a clusterfu** but the Thai troops had stayed calm and disciplined under fire and were evacuated with minimum loss of life.

It was a good story for both American troops and our Thai allies and I wrote about it.

My boss blew a fuse.

I learned that American troops were not in Laos. Thai troops were not in Laos and even the Bangkok newspapers confirmed that the Thai PM had said there were no Thai troops or American troops in Laos on the very day I wrote my story. (For those who missed it, it was a secret that Thai and American troops were fighting in Laos at the time).

I have to tell you the General was really upset that I wrote the story. But it was a good story and I thought it should be told.

I was under military law. The general could have had me shot. If I had sold the story I might have been shot.

But I had followed the chain of command and wrote the story and gave it to my boss and he killed the story. No harm no foul. I promised I would not do it again.

I applaud you!

VERY brave and good example (by yourself) why the PENTAGON PAPERS were so important at that time, speeding the process of ending that horrible -uncessary- Vietnam war.

I remember that time very well when it was exposed in The New York Times in 1971 how the intelligence services and government lied to the public on an immense scale.

Daniel Elssberg** deserves a Marble Statue in front of Congress as an example of a whistleblower who exposed the intense corrupt Goverment.

"A 1996 article in the New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".^[2]" *

Maybe some people here now understand why the WikiLeaks documents are so important since the past and present Governments are doing exactly the same, over and over again: lying to the American People, Congress, their fellow Allies and the rest of the world.

They've learned nothing!

Maybe most of the people are too young to have learned about the PENTAGON PAPERS...?

* http://en.wikipedia....Pentagon_Papers PENTAGON PAPERS

** http://en.wikipedia....Daniel_Ellsberg Daniel Ellsberg

LaoPo

I agree with most of what you wrote. During Vietnam there were many examples of Americans who gave aid and comfort to the enemy. I think you bring up a good example. Vietnam was an unpopular war. Now America is involved in a number of unpopular wars. Because of my job in the Army I knew where any American troops of any strength were located. Reality was nothing like what was being told to the press.

Sure I could have blown the whistle on all troop movements in SEA. Not only did I know where they were but I knew where they were going to be. Any newspaper in the world would have paid big bucks for the story. I knew another 200 men who knew too. It takes a lot of logistic support to plan a military operation and I was at Headquarters United States Army Vietnam. The orders came from the Pentagon and we figured how to execute them. I thought the war was wrong but I didn't give classified information to newspapers because many would have died. I could have done it without getting caught.

Perhaps the deaths of many Americans is the price we must pay for stopping the war on terror. We paid a high price to stop the war in Vietnam.

But don't be fooled. Don't delude yourself. WikiLeaks will cost many lives. It is only logical to conclude if you support WikiLeaks you are supporting the outcome of WikiLeaks, many American deaths.

[LaoPo]

It is interesting to see so many fixate on the people, organizations and how information was found rather than what was in the releases. To date they have exposed a fair number of crimes including what can only be described as war crimes. Attack the messenger seems to be the order of the governments day. Guess they dont actually care about any of the allegations just in making sure they stay covered up. No beleif in freedom of information there

I fully agree.

History repeats itself and that's why Daniel Ellsberg is so well remembered by exposing the PENTAGON PAPERS.

I'm really flabbergasted why some mebmbers focus on the whistleblower whilst, at the same time, they should focus on the US Government, lying and cheating upon their own people, their own citizens for so long, doing so with the hard earned cash dollars from the American tax-payers.

Maybe these members forgot what happened on 9/11 and that it is a wonder that the documents, exposed by WikiLeaks, showed that Saudi Arabia, together with some other ME states, is the MAIN source of all the hundreds of millions of dollars, given to terrorists organisations like Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan.

And how come that the Bush family were -privately- so close with the King of SA ? I'm sure I don't have to post the photos here where father and son GB hug the King so closely...since everyone remmeber those pics.....

How on eart is it possible that one of the 2 Vice-Presidents in Afghanistan was stopped with $ 52 Million in cash and the authorities, including the Americans let him walk off?

Where did all that money go ?

Isn't it time the Government explain to the people waht happened?

Its a bloody shame.

LaoPo

[geriatrickid]

One 'funny' thing is that this issue cut straight through the normal red vs yellow-camps or 'Pro-Thaksin vs Anti-Thaksin'-camps, making former 'friends' argue with vile attacks against each-other, aligning up with previous foes...

This time the division goes in 'Authoritarian vs Anti-Authoritarian'-camps...

The observation is simplistic. I can only write for myself and I draw your attention to the following;

1. Many people in TVF have claimed Pfc. Manning is a hero, a whistleblower. When documentation is presented that shows the motive for the theft of the information is most likely attributable to a manifestation of an emotional problem (vengeance, retaliation, anger), not a word is written by these people. They claim to support the truth, but instead run away when confronted with an unpleasant aspect of the case.

2. Many people supporting the release of the information also profess reservations about big brother and the right to privacy.And yet here is a case where information is clearly stolen and obtained illegally by way of violating confidentiality and there is no outrage. No concern as to the precedent it sets.

3. Many people claim they support due process and yet not a word is written about the issue of the use of illegally obtained evidence. There is a fundamental principle in many jurisdictions that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to convict an accused. Well, if one wishes to embrace that principle, there can be no grey areas. It is a black and white issue. Give an inch or a cm on that and you are on a downward slippery slope.

4. The argument is offered up that if the USA doesn't like the one sidedness of the events, it should provide its side of the case. These people know that it cannot be done because it would be a betrayal of confidence. If Government X or Confidential source Y gave info that appeared in the documents, the USA would need to obtain the permission for those parties in order to discuss the case. These people spoke with the US government on the basis that they thought it would be confidential. Now that there is no guarantee, people in future will no longer talk to the US. It is why the courts allow journalists and the police to protect the identity of their confidential sources. Do you ever notice that when a horrible welfare case makes the news, the social affairs government agency cannot respond. it is because the subject implicated has basic rights to privacy and confidentiality.

The claim is made that the US should just be open. That's naive and unrealistic as the rest of the world doesn't work that way. Without any guarantee of confidentiality the wheels of diplomacy will grind to a halt and instead of diplomacy the alternative will be disputes and rhetoric.

5. Claims are offered up that Pfc. Manning is being held incommunicado, no visits, no lawyer. When that claim is exposed as a lie, does the person making the claim retract the statement? No.

6. The argument is offered up that Wikileaks serves merely as a channel of information. Ok. And what of the times when information is provided that never makes wikileaks pipeline? Who is vetting the information? Well, it's the cabal at wikileaks that decides what gets released. they decide what makes the cut. There is no oversight, no accountability. Someone is deciding for you and feeding you the information.

7. Mr. Assange is being lauded as a hero. None that sing his praises want to look at the motives. He demonstrates a narcissitic personality and his actions are not really motivated by any deep concern for the world. He is hitting back at his demons. Whether it arises from the lack of an absent father, or anger at being bullied or having been the typical social misfit so typical of those in IT, the motives are not because of a desire to make the world a better place. He's in good company because many successful entrepreneurs have demonstrated similar behaviour patterns. However, it always leads to their downfall. That is why is is lamentable that the allegations of sexual misconduct are so readily excused or dismissed as a CIA plot. The sex crime allegations fit in with Mr. Assange's personality.

There are some of us that are willing to look beyond the headlines and to engage in some critical thought. That doesn't mean we embrace authority per se, rather we embrace fairness, integrity and due process. The wikileaks feeding frenzy is like a Justin Bieber concert where are the little girls swarm Justin singing his praises. Pop idols come and go and Mr. Assange will soon be forgotten once this blows over. You'll forget about him just as soon as the new Boy George shows up to warble Karma Chameleon.

[mark45y]

A criminal gives aid and support to the enemy. The purpose of the enemy is to destroy America. Does not seem like an expurgation to me.

I've no idea what that means. If it's meant to be some kind of fascist haiku, your syllable count is all over the place.

Try responding to the entire post and the meaning will become clear.

[LaoPo]

This is the blood stuff. This the stuff that will get Americans and Brits killed. This is the kind of stuff you wanted.

Watch what you say mark45y; I wanted nothing.

Don't attack me personally, OK?

LaoPo

[SweeneyAgonistes]

WikiLeaks will cost many lives.

Well by the admission of the American government, it has cost no lives to date so save the ludicrous speculation.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Try responding to the entire post and the meaning will become clear.

I guess you mean read, not respond, but I don't share your bizarre interpretation of current events or world history - what can you say but <deleted> are you on to something like 'Perhaps the deaths of many Americans is the price we must pay for stopping the war on terror. We paid a high price to stop the war in Vietnam'- so you're going to have to help me out a bit.

Edited December 6, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[LaoPo]

One day we picked up some Thai troops who were fighting in Laos. It was a daring rescue and a chopper went down during the operation.

The Thai troops had performed courageously and the American rescue choppers had gone way beyond the call of duty to get them out. Normal rescue operations under fire are a clusterfu** but the Thai troops had stayed calm and disciplined under fire and were evacuated with minimum loss of life.

It was a good story for both American troops and our Thai allies and I wrote about it.

My boss blew a fuse.

I learned that American troops were not in Laos. Thai troops were not in Laos and even the Bangkok newspapers confirmed that the Thai PM had said there were no Thai troops or American troops in Laos on the very day I wrote my story. (For those who missed it, it was a secret that Thai and American troops were fighting in Laos at the time).

I have to tell you the General was really upset that I wrote the story. But it was a good story and I thought it should be told.

I was under military law. The general could have had me shot. If I had sold the story I might have been shot.

But I had followed the chain of command and wrote the story and gave it to my boss and he killed the story. No harm no foul. I promised I would not do it again.

I applaud you!

VERY brave and good example (by yourself) why the PENTAGON PAPERS were so important at that time, speeding the process of ending that horrible -uncessary- Vietnam war.

I remember that time very well when it was exposed in The New York Times in 1971 how the intelligence services and government lied to the public on an immense scale.

Daniel Elssberg** deserves a Marble Statue in front of Congress as an example of a whistleblower who exposed the intense corrupt Goverment.

"A 1996 article in the New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".^[2]" *

Maybe some people here now understand why the WikiLeaks documents are so important since the past and present Governments are doing exactly the same, over and over again: lying to the American People, Congress, their fellow Allies and the rest of the world.

They've learned nothing!

Maybe most of the people are too young to have learned about the PENTAGON PAPERS...?

* http://en.wikipedia....Pentagon_Papers PENTAGON PAPERS

** http://en.wikipedia....Daniel_Ellsberg Daniel Ellsberg

LaoPo

I agree with most of what you wrote. During Vietnam there were many examples of Americans who gave aid and comfort to the enemy. I think you bring up a good example. Vietnam was an unpopular war. Now America is involved in a number of unpopular wars. Because of my job in the Army I knew where any American troops of any strength were located. Reality was nothing like what was being told to the press.

Sure I could have blown the whistle on all troop movements in SEA. Not only did I know where they were but I knew where they were going to be. Any newspaper in the world would have paid big bucks for the story. I knew another 200 men who knew too. It takes a lot of logistic support to plan a military operation and I was at Headquarters United States Army Vietnam. The orders came from the Pentagon and we figured how to execute them. I thought the war was wrong but I didn't give classified information to newspapers because many would have died. I could have done it without getting caught.

Perhaps the deaths of many Americans is the price we must pay for stopping the war on terror. We paid a high price to stop the war in Vietnam.

But don't be fooled. Don't delude yourself. WikiLeaks will cost many lives. It is only logical to conclude if you support WikiLeaks you are supporting the outcome of WikiLeaks, many American deaths.

That's a highly ehtical dilemma for all of us.

ÝOU only speak of (sad enough) all the American deaths, past and future.

What about the hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of dead soldiers and especially INNOCENT civilians from so many countries who were killed because of unnecessary wars, caused and deliberately started by corrupt governments ?

How many fine young American and Ally-soldiers were killed in Iraq Mark45y..? because the GBW administration lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction ?

How many civilians, Papas, Mamas, sons, daughters, babies and Grand Parents were killed because of those lies, Mark45y..do you remember or shall we ask Google ?

How do the parents in America, UK, Australia, Holland, France , Italy, Spain (I could go on) feel now, knowing their soldier child was killed in an UNNECESSARY war ?

The DILEMMA is: do we stop the corrupt and lying government (via WikiLeaks) causing more and more victims or do we keep silent and allow those governments, past, present and future to go on with their lies and cheating upon their own citizens; lies, paid with their own tax dollars ?

You tell me, but THAT IS WHY I support WikiLeaks, exposing corrupt Governments and before anybody says anyhting, I wish there would be Russian, Chinese, African, South American etc etc...whistleblowers as well.

I wish!.

LaoPo

[chuckd]

You tell me, but THAT IS WHY I support WikiLeaks, exposing corrupt Governments and before anybody says anyhting, I wish there would be Russian, Chinese, African, South American etc etc...whistleblowers as well.

I wish!.

LaoPo

Mr. LaoPo:

Wish all you want but it is highly unlikely there will ever be any leaks from Russia or China. Africa and South America possibly but not the other two.

The primary reason being that Assange doesn't wish to cross swords with the secret police of those two nations. If he were to get any leaks, he would be afraid to use them. Even hiding under a bed in Iceland won't get him away from those two once they smell blood.

[LaoPo]

You tell me, but THAT IS WHY I support WikiLeaks, exposing corrupt Governments and before anybody says anyhting, I wish there would be Russian, Chinese, African, South American etc etc...whistleblowers as well.

I wish!.

LaoPo

Mr. LaoPo:

Wish all you want but it is highly unlikely there will ever be any leaks from Russia or China. Africa and South America possibly but not the other two.

Never say never. The time that some from those first 2 countries will blow the whistle at a certain date is probably nearer than you think...

LaoPo

[AsiaCheese]

I personally think that releasing a list of areas/places sensitive to potential attacks was unnecessary and not a very good idea. However, don't think for a minute that "the terrorists", whoever they may be on any given day, haven't figured those (and others not on the list) out a long time ago. That would be to seriously underestimate (or is it misunderestimate now, post-Bush?) the badies, who have more than enough information from disgruntled people with names like Mohamed (etc.) trying to live a normal live in the US, but constantly being in the crossfire of politicos (well amplified by Fox News & Co) whose prime method to get anything through is the constant (ab)use of the word "terrorism"...

[TAWP]

I knew the argument would be in some thread, suppose I posted in the wrong one...

From the other thread:

Well, "List of facilities 'vital to US security' leaked" is interesting...since is is a list of places (often not very specific) that embassies around the globe find vital to the US.

For example:

* Cobalt mine in Congo

* Anti-snake venom factory in Australia

* Insulin plant in Denmark

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

Over-scoping 'national security' a smidgen...

[mark45y]

One day we picked up some Thai troops who were fighting in Laos. It was a daring rescue and a chopper went down during the operation.

The Thai troops had performed courageously and the American rescue choppers had gone way beyond the call of duty to get them out. Normal rescue operations under fire are a clusterfu** but the Thai troops had stayed calm and disciplined under fire and were evacuated with minimum loss of life.

It was a good story for both American troops and our Thai allies and I wrote about it.

My boss blew a fuse.

I learned that American troops were not in Laos. Thai troops were not in Laos and even the Bangkok newspapers confirmed that the Thai PM had said there were no Thai troops or American troops in Laos on the very day I wrote my story. (For those who missed it, it was a secret that Thai and American troops were fighting in Laos at the time).

I have to tell you the General was really upset that I wrote the story. But it was a good story and I thought it should be told.

I was under military law. The general could have had me shot. If I had sold the story I might have been shot.

But I had followed the chain of command and wrote the story and gave it to my boss and he killed the story. No harm no foul. I promised I would not do it again.

I applaud you!

VERY brave and good example (by yourself) why the PENTAGON PAPERS were so important at that time, speeding the process of ending that horrible -uncessary- Vietnam war.

I remember that time very well when it was exposed in The New York Times in 1971 how the intelligence services and government lied to the public on an immense scale.

Daniel Elssberg** deserves a Marble Statue in front of Congress as an example of a whistleblower who exposed the intense corrupt Goverment.

"A 1996 article in the New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".^[2]" *

Maybe some people here now understand why the WikiLeaks documents are so important since the past and present Governments are doing exactly the same, over and over again: lying to the American People, Congress, their fellow Allies and the rest of the world.

They've learned nothing!

Maybe most of the people are too young to have learned about the PENTAGON PAPERS...?

* http://en.wikipedia....Pentagon_Papers PENTAGON PAPERS

** http://en.wikipedia....Daniel_Ellsberg Daniel Ellsberg

LaoPo

I agree with most of what you wrote. During Vietnam there were many examples of Americans who gave aid and comfort to the enemy. I think you bring up a good example. Vietnam was an unpopular war. Now America is involved in a number of unpopular wars. Because of my job in the Army I knew where any American troops of any strength were located. Reality was nothing like what was being told to the press.

Sure I could have blown the whistle on all troop movements in SEA. Not only did I know where they were but I knew where they were going to be. Any newspaper in the world would have paid big bucks for the story. I knew another 200 men who knew too. It takes a lot of logistic support to plan a military operation and I was at Headquarters United States Army Vietnam. The orders came from the Pentagon and we figured how to execute them. I thought the war was wrong but I didn't give classified information to newspapers because many would have died. I could have done it without getting caught.

Perhaps the deaths of many Americans is the price we must pay for stopping the war on terror. We paid a high price to stop the war in Vietnam.

But don't be fooled. Don't delude yourself. WikiLeaks will cost many lives. It is only logical to conclude if you support WikiLeaks you are supporting the outcome of WikiLeaks, many American deaths.

That's a highly ehtical dilemma for all of us.

ÝOU only speak of (sad enough) all the American deaths, past and future.

What about the hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of dead soldiers and especially INNOCENT civilians from so many countries who were killed because of unnecessary wars, caused and deliberately started by corrupt governments ?

How many fine young American and Ally-soldiers were killed in Iraq Mark45y..? because the GBW administration lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction ?

How many civilians, Papas, Mamas, sons, daughters, babies and Grand Parents were killed because of those lies, Mark45y..do you remember or shall we ask Google ?

How do the parents in America, UK, Australia, Holland, France , Italy, Spain (I could go on) feel now, knowing their soldier child was killed in an UNNECESSARY war ?

The DILEMMA is: do we stop the corrupt and lying government (via WikiLeaks) causing more and more victims or do we keep silent and allow those governments, past, present and future to go on with their lies and cheating upon their own citizens; lies, paid with their own tax dollars ?

You tell me, but THAT IS WHY I support WikiLeaks, exposing corrupt Governments and before anybody says anyhting, I wish there would be Russian, Chinese, African, South American etc etc...whistleblowers as well.

I wish!.

LaoPo

I know very well about lost lives during war. When I read the Robert McNamara's book I thought he should have been locked up for life.

The dilemma of which you speak is truly a dilemma.

But I don't kid myself or pile on American abuse after American abuse to try and justify WikiLeaks.

You and many others feel that the death of Americans is a consequence of the failed policies of the US government. You weigh somehow deaths of non US people with US people and decide who should die.

You think American deaths are a reasonable trade off for the cessation of bad American policy.

I understand all of that. My only point is now and has been, realize what you are in favor of. Stand up and be counted. Tell the other people on this forum that American deaths are an acceptable result of American policy that you don't agree with.

I don't think you can make the case that you approve only the WikiLeaks that may not cause deaths or chaos.

It is an all or nothing.

You wanted it and you got it.

If you participated in the distribution, when the people die you will have blood on your hands. If you wanted it and you did nothing to help it along, you lack the courage of your convictions.

Why am I posting about it? Because people should realize it is not some cute little semantic game.

Classified information was stolen and released and that information may kill many people and cause irreparable harm.

This same debate is going on in America right now. It is not just you LaoPo. I would say the same thing to Americans who support WikiLeaks and there are many of them.

My mother was in Church praying for me after I got drafted and went to Vietnam. She heard another parishioner talking to a friend. “I don't feel sorry for them.” The lady said. “Who.” “The soldiers in Vietnam.” “They deserve whatever they get.”

I guess you are right, things haven't changed much.

[mark45y]

I knew the argument would be in some thread, suppose I posted in the wrong one...

From the other thread:

Well, "List of facilities 'vital to US security' leaked" is interesting...since is is a list of places (often not very specific) that embassies around the globe find vital to the US.

For example:

* Cobalt mine in Congo

* Anti-snake venom factory in Australia

* Insulin plant in Denmark

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

Over-scoping 'national security' a smidgen...

It is not a game Tawp and very few serious people agree with you. Below is a German perspective. The Local German news in English.

The controversial whistleblower site published the cable late on Sunday, listing potential targets that experts told British daily The Times were a “gift for terrorist organisations.”

The list of “critical infrastructure and key resources located abroad” detailed hundreds of pipelines, important data cables, and businesses belonging to international industrial and pharmaceutical giants. If destroyed, these sites could damage US interests, the diplomatic communique said.

In Germany such sites included the BASF headquarters in Ludwigshafen, which was described as the “world's largest integrated chemical complex,” and Hamburg's port.

Other crucial sites include the northwestern coastal city of Norden and the North Sea island of Sylt, where two important underwater data and communication cables connecting North America and Europe reach land.

The list was the result of a February 2009 order from Washington for officials to compile a list of international assets critical for the United States.

The plants of industrial giant Siemens were also listed for “essentially irreplaceable production of key chemicals” and the production of hydroelectric dam turbines and generators.

Other companies included Dräger Safety in the northern German city of Lübeck, “critical to gas detection capability,” and Junghans Fienwerktechnik in the southern city of Schramberg, “critical to the production of mortars.”

A number of German pharmaceutical companies that produce critical vaccines, medications and medical tests, including insulin and a small pox vaccine, were also included on the list.

[TAWP]

It is not a game Tawp and very few serious people agree with you.

Really?

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says this is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation.

The definition of US national security revealed by the cable is broad and all embracing, he says.

The critical question is whether this really is a listing of potential targets that might be of use to a terrorist, our correspondent says.

The cable contains a simple listing. In many cases towns are noted as the location but not actual street addresses, although this is unlikely to stop anyone with access to the internet from locating them.

People acts as if terrorist are character out of a bad Hollywood movie with no ability to find or evaluate targets but need a list compiled by civil servants...

[A_Traveller]

To be serious for a moment, since the criticality of the locations is, at best an opinion of embassy staffers, let's not get too carried away here. For example note the prevalence of Tamiflu producers which might, just might, link back to the topic de jour in Feb 2009 re 'rampaging flu' [that wasn't] rather than a strategic national security issue.

Is this list really such a 'gift'? Only to the indolent and foolish, and whilst one may suggest that 'terrorists' are the latter they are, unfortunately, not the former. After all many of these commercial sites throw up a real serious but publicly debated issue, in that the US corporate sector has moved so far away from manufacturing that key critical elements [not on this list] are now to all intents and purposes only available from abroad.

The exposure to foreign political or supply risk is in a large degree due to the fixation with the 90 day reporting cycle superseding any national interest, even within defence contractors. For example, I was stunned a short while ago whilst discussing with a well known company about sourcing, a technical component, not bleeding edge but one that would be used in a wide variety of technical equipment [with more than a small number having potential military usage] to be told that not one contractor in the US was capable of producing it! No prizes for guessing where the production had ended up. Later in the discussion I wondered out loud if the US could run or supply [not talking about economics here] an Apollo style programme, the answer was in the negative.

If this list made people think about that issue maybe it would have served a very useful purpose.

Finally, a headline is just that, an attention grabber, often with little value in and of itself, so, no I don't agree with The Times sub-editor on this, but I can see why he/she chose it.

Regards

Edited December 6, 2010 by A_Traveller

[bonobo]

The topic of WikiLeaks and the documents released so far concern US government policy, so it is difficult to post on the topic without getting into that policy. However, many posters are going beyond the scope of the topic to post broad-based US-bashing. large number of posts have been deleted as personal attacks on other posters or said US-bashing.

Once again, given the topic, it is permissible to discuss US policy as revealed in the leaks, the morality, or lack thereof, of releasing the documents, or the effects of the releases. But please refrain from stepping over the line and moving into general bashing. Egregious cases of bashing, and of course of personal flaming, may result in warnings and suspensions.

[MartinBKK]

Openness in Government? If information fall in the hand of the uneducated, it could cause problem. That is why I think government should be selected, not elected. So only most abled and respected govern, not those who have the money to buy the most vote.

Selected by whom? Your opinion is exactly the reason i support the red shirts.