Fox News: Wikileaks= Enemy combatants

[Baron Von PWN]

Article on Raw story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox- ... ombatants/

Original editorial.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/ ... -iraq-war/

So do you guys agree with Fox? Should the US be bombing wikileaks for exposing its complicity in torture?

[thegreekdog]

Where does it say "bombing?" I didn't see it in either document.

I'm fine with this information coming out so long as it does not result in the killing of Americans (which is likely will). A fine balance and a difficult issue. The information regarding torture, killing prisoners, and the like should be publicized (in my opinion). Any other information (like the classified stuff) should not be.

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course, it's a matter of national security, and heaven forbid the American people find out what our government is really doing, and god bless the Fox News for supporting censorship in order to promote our freedom and liberty.



"Classified" can be pretty vague. It's usually just another form of censorship.

[notyou2]

Of course, it's a matter of national security, and heaven forbid the American people find out what our government is really doing, and god bless the Fox News for supporting censorship in order to promote our freedom and liberty.



"Classified" can be pretty vague. It's usually just another form of censorship.

But.....wait, I umm.....I'm confused BBS. Fox supports censorship in the name of freedom and liberty?


Oh, well then, I guess Fox is OK afterall.

[Night Strike]

A) It was an opinion piece by a former State Department Official, not a viewpoint of Fox News.

B) He makes the point that wikileaks is a foreign institution and asks why a foreign group is allowed that much information about US military affairs, especially when that information will be used/twisted by terrorists to kill Americans. It has nothing to do with free speech as the group is not from the US.

[GabonX]

Article on Raw story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox- ... ombatants/

Original editorial.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/ ... -iraq-war/

So do you guys agree with Fox? Should the US be bombing wikileaks for exposing its complicity in torture?

Mr. Julian Assange is an interesting character. I don't think a screen writer could have fabricated a story as riveting as what he's living.. To top of his mystique, he looks like a character right out of the Final Fantasy series:



I don't think I like Mr Assange's politics. He's strongly anti war and he knows people, soldiers from a number of nations, may die as a result of his actions. I know that he believes he is acting for the greater good, and though I hate his misguided anti war politics, I believe he is contributing to the greater good...

The most profound and concise defining statement about "blackness" that i ever heard was from my commanding officer in a conversation we were having about patriotism. I had questioned the emphasis on secrecy about something that our enemies were already well aware of. His reply to me was that "national security requires keeping secrets from 'civilians' more so than from our enemies".

Grok on that one.


Honibaz

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=115579&p=2565992&hilit=+secret#p2565992

I remember last summer when I was being trained for the Census. We were being trained out of a Free Masons compound. Seeing the compound was an interesting experience in and of itself and I made sure to take lots of cool pictures..
Anyhow, while we were being trained they emphasized the point that we were not allowed to discuss anything census related for the duration of our employment. If it was found that we said anything to the media other than explaining we were not authorized to disclose any information, we were warned that our employment would be terminated.

I can't think of any information I was given that I feel would have been dangerous to release. The most interesting thing, I thought, was the training location. I rationalized that it was a bit unusual but that they had to have it somewhere so whatever. I had also heard other groups were being trained at more predictable locations, such as on college campuses.

The point in all of this is we have a real problem with lack of Government transparency. This problem exists in all branches of Government.. This makes it easier for people in positions of authority to get away with things as not revealing information is standard practice. If the default course of action is secrecy (it is) as opposed to transparency, acting to hide wrongdoing is much easier.


As for the legality of what Mr. Assange is doing, it is absolutely protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of the press. If people have illegally released information to him they can and should be prosecuted, but in no way is Mr. Assange guilty of any crime as any law which would criminalize his actions pales to the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

All of that said, pragmatically speaking, when a person exists at this level the normal rules which protect and govern most people don't really apply. Mr. Assange is playing the Great Game, and I believe that the anti for a seat there is your life.

This is all kind of amusing, but at the same time it's kind of serious. Do you guys mainly see the seriousness or the humor?

[Phatscotty]

Article on Raw story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox- ... ombatants/

Original editorial.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/ ... -iraq-war/

So do you guys agree with Fox? Should the US be bombing wikileaks for exposing its complicity in torture?

Shouldn't Obama at least pretend that this information is bad for our missions?

[Baron Von PWN]

Where does it say "bombing?" I didn't see it in either document.

I'm fine with this information coming out so long as it does not result in the killing of Americans (which is likely will). A fine balance and a difficult issue. The information regarding torture, killing prisoners, and the like should be publicized (in my opinion). Any other information (like the classified stuff) should not be.

He calls for them to be classified as enemy combatants. What do you do with an enemy combatant? What exactly do you think the term "non-judicial measures" means? He is imploring the government to take out a whistle blower.

Article on Raw story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox- ... ombatants/

Original editorial.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/ ... -iraq-war/

So do you guys agree with Fox? Should the US be bombing wikileaks for exposing its complicity in torture?

Shouldn't Obama at least pretend that this information is bad for our missions?

Obama should pretend his administration cares when US allies torture detainees.

A) It was an opinion piece by a former State Department Official, not a viewpoint of Fox News.

B) He makes the point that wikileaks is a foreign institution and asks why a foreign group is allowed that much information about US military affairs, especially when that information will be used/twisted by terrorists to kill Americans. It has nothing to do with free speech as the group is not from the US.

A) Just like O'reily, and Beck don't represent fox right?
B) They aren't allowed the information it was leaked to them. So its OK to kill foreigners who say things you don't like because they are foreign? Also his being foreign somehow excuses government complicity in torture?

[Phatscotty]

Where does it say "bombing?" I didn't see it in either document.

I'm fine with this information coming out so long as it does not result in the killing of Americans (which is likely will). A fine balance and a difficult issue. The information regarding torture, killing prisoners, and the like should be publicized (in my opinion). Any other information (like the classified stuff) should not be.

He calls for them to be classified as enemy combatants. What do you do with an enemy combatant? What exactly do you think the term "non-judicial measures" means? He is imploring the government to take out a whistle blower.

Article on Raw story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox- ... ombatants/

Original editorial.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/ ... -iraq-war/

So do you guys agree with Fox? Should the US be bombing wikileaks for exposing its complicity in torture?

Shouldn't Obama at least pretend that this information is bad for our missions?

Obama should pretend his administration cares when US allies torture detainees.

Oh, they do. goes more to my point.....you wouldn't know it though because Obama has been relatively silent

[Baron Von PWN]

Where does it say "bombing?" I didn't see it in either document.

I'm fine with this information coming out so long as it does not result in the killing of Americans (which is likely will). A fine balance and a difficult issue. The information regarding torture, killing prisoners, and the like should be publicized (in my opinion). Any other information (like the classified stuff) should not be.

He calls for them to be classified as enemy combatants. What do you do with an enemy combatant? What exactly do you think the term "non-judicial measures" means? He is imploring the government to take out a whistle blower.

Article on Raw story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/fox- ... ombatants/

Original editorial.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/ ... -iraq-war/

So do you guys agree with Fox? Should the US be bombing wikileaks for exposing its complicity in torture?

Shouldn't Obama at least pretend that this information is bad for our missions?

Obama should pretend his administration cares when US allies torture detainees.

Oh, they do. goes more to my point.....you wouldn't know it though because Obama has been relatively silent

This information is damaging to the Iraq mission, not because it reveals important secret plans, but because it reveals an abandonment of what should be a key US value. It shows a rather shocking level of moral bankruptcy that many reports on the mistreatment and torture of detainees were filled and then... nothing was done.

[ViperOverLord]

Gabon X - I deny the idea that Mr Assange is acting for the 'greater good' even in his own mind. Or at least I would say he believes he is acting in the greater good like an enemy combatant thinks he's fighting for the greater good. I believe he is a hateful and spiteful person that knows people could die as a result of his actions and he not only is fine with that but he wants that. He has made no secret of his anti-US views and it is his hope that we get our ass kicked. He is not a journalist. He is a man running a war propaganda operation.

[Baron Von PWN]

Gabon X - I deny the idea that Mr Assange is acting for the 'greater good' even in his own mind. Or at least I would say he believes he is acting in the greater good like an enemy combatant thinks he's fighting for the greater good. I believe he is a hateful and spiteful person that knows people could die as a result of his actions and he not only is fine with that but he wants that. He has made no secret of his anti-US views and it is his hope that we get our ass kicked. He is not a journalist. He is a man running a war propaganda operation.

Propaganda in the form of US military reports?

[ViperOverLord]

Gabon X - I deny the idea that Mr Assange is acting for the 'greater good' even in his own mind. Or at least I would say he believes he is acting in the greater good like an enemy combatant thinks he's fighting for the greater good. I believe he is a hateful and spiteful person that knows people could die as a result of his actions and he not only is fine with that but he wants that. He has made no secret of his anti-US views and it is his hope that we get our ass kicked. He is not a journalist. He is a man running a war propaganda operation.

Propaganda in the form of US military reports?

I'm not denying the validity of the information collected, but there is more to it. They editorialize lies designed to defame and criminalize the military.

[BigBallinStalin]

A) It was an opinion piece by a former State Department Official, not a viewpoint of Fox News.

B) He makes the point that wikileaks is a foreign institution and asks why a foreign group is allowed that much information about US military affairs, especially when that information will be used/twisted by terrorists to kill Americans. It has nothing to do with free speech as the group is not from the US.

They're not "allowed" that information, they get it leaked. It's an anonymous place to whistle-blow, which is an excellent idea to escape unfair punishment.

It seems like they're taking this one small instance to garner support to close down something that has been exposing many bad secrets about the US government.

[BigBallinStalin]

Gabon X - I deny the idea that Mr Assange is acting for the 'greater good' even in his own mind. Or at least I would say he believes he is acting in the greater good like an enemy combatant thinks he's fighting for the greater good. I believe he is a hateful and spiteful person that knows people could die as a result of his actions and he not only is fine with that but he wants that. He has made no secret of his anti-US views and it is his hope that we get our ass kicked. He is not a journalist. He is a man running a war propaganda operation.

Propaganda in the form of US military reports?

I'm not denying the validity of the information collected, but there is more to it. They editorialize lies designed to defame and criminalize the military.

It can be taken however you want about the entire military, although the blame really lies in the guys who are actually responsible for implementing such policies. Then again, one must keep in mind how responsible are these guys.

Overall, wikileaks is fine, and the US military really needs to respect some of things they've signed and tell others to adhere to.

[Army of GOD]

I'm sorry, but Assange did definitely contribute to the greater good. I know, it sucks that soldiers and possibly civilians are going to be killed from this (and I know it's easy for me to say this considering I'm sitting behind my laptop in safe upstate New York) but we need transparency in our government. None of this classified shit.

[ViperOverLord]

I'm sorry, but Assange did definitely contribute to the greater good. I know, it sucks that soldiers and possibly civilians are going to be killed from this (and I know it's easy for me to say this considering I'm sitting behind my laptop in safe upstate New York) but we need transparency in our government. None of this classified shit.

Someday when you're a little older, you'll understand the need for classified information and won't buy the lofty yet unrealistic idea that things should always be done in the open. Libs have talked about that for years but when Obama/Clinton got into office they have hidden behind classified info. Sometimes they hide behind it so I recognize the abuses. But other times it is absolutely necessary.

BTW - Do you think that the terrorist or even unfriendly govts are going to not keep classified info even if we try to take the higher road? You need to take a fresh breath of reality.

[thegreekdog]

He calls for them to be classified as enemy combatants. What do you do with an enemy combatant? What exactly do you think the term "non-judicial measures" means? He is imploring the government to take out a whistle blower.

Well, from 2001 to 2010 an enemy combatant is typically sent to Guantanamo Bay or some other military detainee facility. Perhaps that is what he meant (and not bombed, which he didn't actually write). Yes, I'm trying to split hairs.

[Pedronicus]

Someday when you're a little older, you'll understand .....

mod edit

[Army of GOD]

I'm sorry, but Assange did definitely contribute to the greater good. I know, it sucks that soldiers and possibly civilians are going to be killed from this (and I know it's easy for me to say this considering I'm sitting behind my laptop in safe upstate New York) but we need transparency in our government. None of this classified shit.

Someday when you're a little older, you'll understand the need for classified information and won't buy the lofty yet unrealistic idea that things should always be done in the open.

Like what then?

[Baron Von PWN]

He calls for them to be classified as enemy combatants. What do you do with an enemy combatant? What exactly do you think the term "non-judicial measures" means? He is imploring the government to take out a whistle blower.

Well, from 2001 to 2010 an enemy combatant is typically sent to Guantanamo Bay or some other military detainee facility. Perhaps that is what he meant (and not bombed, which he didn't actually write). Yes, I'm trying to split hairs.

When they were captured. Usually a good attempt is made at killing them before hand, if you capture them great, but if you kill great as well. Either way by labeling them an enemy combatant they are taking the view it would be acceptable to kill them.

I'm sorry, but Assange did definitely contribute to the greater good. I know, it sucks that soldiers and possibly civilians are going to be killed from this (and I know it's easy for me to say this considering I'm sitting behind my laptop in safe upstate New York) but we need transparency in our government. None of this classified shit.

Someday when you're a little older, you'll understand the need for classified information and won't buy the lofty yet unrealistic idea that things should always be done in the open. Libs have talked about that for years but when Obama/Clinton got into office they have hidden behind classified info. Sometimes they hide behind it so I recognize the abuses. But other times it is absolutely necessary.

BTW - Do you think that the terrorist or even unfriendly govts are going to not keep classified info even if we try to take the higher road? You need to take a fresh breath of reality.

Yes, there are many occasions when there is a both a need and a legitimate reason to classify documents. However "it would be bad for us politically if they found out we are complicit in torture" is not one of them.

[thegreekdog]

When they were captured. Usually a good attempt is made at killing them before hand, if you capture them great, but if you kill great as well. Either way by labeling them an enemy combatant they are taking the view it would be acceptable to kill them.

So let's say the US government finds out that the Wikileaks' offices are in Topeka, Kansas. Is the author suggesting that the US military kill these individuals out of hand? Or perhaps the author is suggesting that these people are arrested and thrown in jail? Not an ideal result. I think it's vastly more reasonable to assume the latter rather than the former. The former is complete sensationalism.

[Baron Von PWN]

When they were captured. Usually a good attempt is made at killing them before hand, if you capture them great, but if you kill great as well. Either way by labeling them an enemy combatant they are taking the view it would be acceptable to kill them.

So let's say the US government finds out that the Wikileaks' offices are in Topeka, Kansas. Is the author suggesting that the US military kill these individuals out of hand? Or perhaps the author is suggesting that these people are arrested and thrown in jail? Not an ideal result. I think it's vastly more reasonable to assume the latter rather than the former. The former is complete sensationalism.

You're probably right if they were in the USA he would likely favor some gestapo style raid and arrest. However he is saying the government should label wikileaks as enemy combatants that is legitimate military targets.

[ballong]

The servers are in a nuclear bunker in Stockholm, Sweden. Bring it!

[thegreekdog]

When they were captured. Usually a good attempt is made at killing them before hand, if you capture them great, but if you kill great as well. Either way by labeling them an enemy combatant they are taking the view it would be acceptable to kill them.

So let's say the US government finds out that the Wikileaks' offices are in Topeka, Kansas. Is the author suggesting that the US military kill these individuals out of hand? Or perhaps the author is suggesting that these people are arrested and thrown in jail? Not an ideal result. I think it's vastly more reasonable to assume the latter rather than the former. The former is complete sensationalism.

You're probably right if they were in the USA he would likely favor some gestapo style raid and arrest. However he is saying the government should label wikileaks as enemy combatants that is legitimate military targets.

I'm not questioning the idiocy of the column. I'm questioning your use of the term "bombing." There's no question that wikileaks is providing a service to the public and it should not be shut down. Instead, perhaps the United States should spend its time investigating its own military forces.