| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
RiotSpectre
United States163 Posts
Top Secret: Would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if released to the public. Secret: Would cause "serious damage" to national security if released to the public. Confidential: Would "damage" national security if released to the public. I sure do not like being referred to as "the public," I must say.... | ||
|
Deleted User 108965
1096 Posts
| ||
|
Enchanted
United States1609 Posts
| ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
On December 08 2010 01:09 FrostOtter wrote: I think everyone here seems to be ignoring that there are not any democracies in the world (at least as far as major countries are concerned). Most of us have governments that are some form of republic. So the "true" democracy argument doesn't hold water-- we aren't a democracy, we are a republic, and there is indeed a difference. Your state can become more democratic. Forcing a degree of openness seem to be - at least in part - one of the aims of genuine journalists. The alternative is being lied to until keeping up appearances is no longer deemed worth the effort by the powerful few. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On December 08 2010 01:06 Whiladan wrote: You are severely overestimating what our government considers "top secret". Top secret is not some spy show bullshit, a soldier could video an Iraqi fucking a goat and it will be classified top secret (ok, MAYBE secret) because it involves the war. Nope. I'm fully aware of the precise system of classification utilized by the US government. All of the diplomatic cables as well as the war reports released so far have be merely deemed 'secret'. There is a real distinction between secret and top secret, I suggest you inform yourself of it. To put things into perspective, the Pentagon Papers were classified as top secret. | ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
On December 08 2010 01:16 RiotSpectre wrote: Just to clarify, here are the US definitions for classified document types: Top Secret: Would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if released to the public. Secret: Would cause "serious damage" to national security if released to the public. Confidential: Would "damage" national security if released to the public. I sure do not like being referred to as "the public," I must say.... Top Secret- would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to governmental figures careers who might or might not deserve their positions for top secret reasons. | ||
zere
Germany1287 Posts
The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Immanuel Kant, 09/30/1784 | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On December 08 2010 00:23 Nizaris wrote: he's a terrorist you know. according to the us govt. Don't think I could possibly care less about the US govt's arbitrary classifications of terrorism. A war crime by international standards is something entirely different. | ||
|
BobbYt3hBobbY
256 Posts
4.14pm: Charles Arthur, the Guardian's technology editor, points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan. The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are "white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God." Good thing they cut off Wikileaks T_T | ||
|
FrostOtter
United States537 Posts
On December 08 2010 01:19 wadadde wrote: Your state can become more democratic. Forcing a degree of openness seem to be - at least in part - one of the aims of genuine journalists. The alternative is being lied to until keeping up appearances is no longer deemed worth the effort by the powerful few. The only way to become more democratic is to have the people decide legislative matters. That is the definition of democracy. There is a difference between being lied to and being kept from certain things, and I think everyone except for 15-year-old anarchists recognize that distinction. I am in full support of anyone revealing government scandals, such as targeting of civilians or something along those lines. Revealing anything else serves little purpose other than to be inflammatory. Juan Cole, in the article I posted on the previous page, sums up my position pretty well. | ||
|
Whiladan
United States463 Posts
On December 08 2010 01:19 Consolidate wrote: Nope. I'm fully aware of the precise system of classification utilized by the US government. All of the diplomatic cables as well as the war reports released so far have be merely deemed 'secret'. There is a real distinction between secret and top secret, I suggest you inform yourself of it. To put things into perspective, the Pentagon Papers were classified as top secret. Ok, mister internet warrior. I grew up in Belgium where my father worked for the U.S. delegation to NATO. I grew up around "top secret" government/military bullshit and I can tell you right now that the U.S. government LOVES to call things "top secret". I've also recently enlisted in the Army, and my chosen job, cryptologic linguist, requires a top secret clearance and involves no more than listening to allah akhbar over the radio and telling the infantry guys what that means. But please do show me the wiki article where I can inform myself. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
Next thing you know, his plane to Sweden has a mysterious accident. Maybe it gets hijacked by a terrorist. Maybe while he's in custody, he trips and falls in the shower and breaks his neck. Maybe while he's on the way to the courthouse, he stops to tie his shoes, falls and hits some bullets with his face. Maybe he just has a sudden heart attack and doctors can't explain it. Maybe one of the Interpol agents escorting this guy goes crazy and kills him, and later investigations show he was always a little overzealous and that the agency thought he had some mental issues and was already considering moving him to another position and they think maybe personal life troubles attributed to his breakdown. A lot of people want this guy dead. A lot. Now I know we'd all like to believe the US government is a lot more competent than to blatantly murder the guy when the whole world's watching, but it's hard to have such faith in the government after some of these leaks. Plus, they're not the only players here with something to gain from his death. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On December 08 2010 01:34 Whiladan wrote: Ok, mister internet warrior. I grew up in Belgium where my father worked for the U.S. delegation to NATO. I grew up around "top secret" government/military bullshit and I can tell you right now that the U.S. government LOVES to call things "top secret". I've also recently enlisted in the Army, and my chosen job, cryptologic linguist, requires a top secret clearance and involves no more than listening to allah akhbar over the radio and telling the infantry guys what that means. But please do show me the wiki article where I can inform myself. You prefer wikipedia? Much obliged then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks_cables "Over 130,000 of the documents are unclassified; none are classified as "top secret" on the classification scale; some 100,000 are labeled "confidential"; and about 15,000 documents have the higher classification "secret"." Let's not degenerate into name-calling please. | ||
|
Nycaloth
147 Posts
On December 08 2010 00:47 emythrel wrote: I am a huge supporter of free speech, but wikileaks isn't free speech. Free speech is the right to say anything you want, to write anything you want. Not to publish documents you obtained illegally. The military have good reason to keep some things "top secret" to protect lives of soldiers, spies and civilians. I have the right to say that the government shouldn't keep those things secret, I have the right to protest to have those documents released.... I do not have the right to obtain them illegally and then publish them. We have an elected government for a reason, if you want to change how that government works then you have to become a part of it or lobby it.... not just release sensitive documents without any care for the consequences. Anyone who thinks that we as a society have the right to know every detail should remember one thing, while we have that right, we as an individual are not qualified to understand most of these documents and even if explained to us by an expert, most people still wouldn't understand them. That is why we have elections and a trained military and intelligence services.... they specifically train and prepare to udnerstand these things and protect us. The british government is not perfect, no government is, but they have the right to protect their operatives and soldiers. How would you feel if you're every move was posted online by someone else, without your permission? Would you then say "free speech" or would you want to have that person arrested for harassment and invasion of privacy? Wikileaks is a whistleblower network. They dont actively seek anything, but are a platform that will publish material passed on to them by a third party. If tomorrow morning, you find an envelope in your mailbox filled with secret documents that someone obtained (illegally if you want, but does it matter?) and passed on to you because they trusted you would do the right thing with them (whatever that may be) are you then a criminal? The very basis of democracy is the freedom of information. Only if information is truly free can the voters decide on who is best suited to lead a country. The very existence of secret services and classified information opposes democratic principles, though they may be considered a necessary evil. You are right to say that most people probably cannot read the leaks properly because they lack the background knowledge. However, if you want the general public to make a justified and educated call on who should or should not run a country, they need to have at least in principle access to every bit of information on the proceedings and views held by the people and organisations they are voting for. If this is not the case, we are only left with campaign adds and flimsy promises. do you think you can trust those? you say that some people are specifically trained to understand these connections and protect us from... well its not quite clear what from. its not important either, because the real question is: who gets to decide what we need to be protected from? Your last point is also mute. If you are talking about the average TL forumgoer...invasion of privacy. If we are talking about a political body, the general public has a legitimate interest in the activities of that body and its actions should never have been kept secret to begin with. wikileaks is a necessary addition to the democratic process. democracy cant work if information is not free. if the government does not want information to be free, the people have to see that it still stays free or wave their democratic ideal goodbye. | ||
|
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
On December 07 2010 20:13 UniversalSnip wrote: http://www.thelocal.se/28504/20100821/ http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-julian-assange-criminal-probe/19741444 ^---- what. the fuck Lol when I saw the second article (sex by surprise lols) I was reminded of this + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://imagehost.helluvafast.com/files/3/butsx.jpg) Funny world we live in... | ||
|
Whiladan
United States463 Posts
On December 08 2010 01:37 Consolidate wrote: You prefer wikipedia? Much obliged then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks_cables "Over 130,000 of the documents are unclassified; none are classified as "top secret" on the classification scale; some 100,000 are labeled "confidential"; and about 15,000 documents have the higher classification "secret"." Let's not degenerate into name-calling please. And yet they will label a power point presentation involving the dangers of data sticks top secret. A funny world we live in, isn't it? | ||
|
cromat
Afghanistan100 Posts
but he will not receive a fair trial | ||
|
dcberkeley
Canada844 Posts
On December 08 2010 01:35 Krigwin wrote: Guys, this is serious. This could be the last time we ever hear about this guy. Next thing you know, his plane to Sweden has a mysterious accident. Maybe it gets hijacked by a terrorist. Maybe while he's in custody, he trips and falls in the shower and breaks his neck. Maybe while he's on the way to the courthouse, he stops to tie his shoes, falls and hits some bullets with his face. Maybe he just has a sudden heart attack and doctors can't explain it. Maybe one of the Interpol agents escorting this guy goes crazy and kills him, and later investigations show he was always a little overzealous and that the agency thought he had some mental issues and was already considering moving him to another position and they think maybe personal life troubles attributed to his breakdown. A lot of people want this guy dead. A lot. Now I know we'd all like to believe the US government is a lot more competent than to blatantly murder the guy when the whole world's watching, but it's hard to have such faith in the government after some of these leaks. Plus, they're not the only players here with something to gain from his death. Political prisoners are almost always freed even in the worst of countries; Castro, Mandela, Suu Kyi. It is more dangerous to kill and make a martyr than just to put in jail where they are irrelevant. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On December 08 2010 01:52 dcberkeley wrote: Political prisoners are almost always freed even in the worst of countries; Castro, Mandela, Suu Kyi. It is more dangerous to kill and make a martyr than just to put in jail where they are irrelevant. but if he is convicted of being a spy it's the death penalty so either way it doesn't look good for him. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Clem vs SHIN
herO vs SHIN
Serral vs Solar
Clem vs SHIN
Reynor vs TBD
PiGStarcraft477
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
BSL Open Qualifier
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
