What obligations are written into law that says there is requirment to protect rats?
Rex Murphy: Removing Julian Assange’s halo
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
What obligations are written into law that says there is requirment to protect rats?
Likely death to whom?
From who?
And what would be worse?
There is evidence from one of the most fervent right-wing publications which admits there is no threat to national security, but when the onus of proof is requested to show a serious threat there tends to be generalizations and metaphors with no real specifics.
Abdulla, Kenneth, Marion and Akbar, just to name a few.
From above, as in 'Death From'
Let's see, maybe exposing someone's daughter to getting an acid face wash, a wife or mother being raped and then being stoned to death for her horrible transgression.
Maybe consider researching someone or a group that has something valuable to lose, like their life for instance instead of seeking the opinion of someone with nothing on the line.
I wish I could predict the lotto numbers as easy.
I'd ask if you wanted Canadian or American case law, if I thought there was any hope of seeing a reasoned response from you.
We've been over this. Even Assange recognizes who they are.
You have to love people who use publications they dismiss out of hand in one thread, and think an Op/Ed piece from, is worth something in another.
Like I said before, pick a principle and stick to it.
Assange provided the proof. Just because your ideology prevents you from acknowledging that, doesn't mean it isn't proof.
Do you really not get this or are you just playing dense to make a point?
I don't have as big a deal with general military docs and was only refering to the names he made public. For military docs, I view it as the military's fault for making them available to Assange.
The informants listed.
Those who were informed on.
Tourture.
I don't have as big a deal with general military docs and was only refering to the names he made public. For military docs, I view it as the military's fault for making them available to Assange.
I see you missed the bulk of the context of that post.
Again, no surprise. Since you can't provide a quote that establishes some supposed pissing on of your and my rights. It's become apparent that you don't understand what's been said.
Reciprocation will only happen, when you start.
AP review finds no threatened WikiLeaks sources
By BRADLEY KLAPPER - Associated Press,CASSANDRA VINOGRAD
Associated Press | AP – Sat, Sep 10, 2011
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federica Ferrari Bravo's story of meeting American diplomats in Rome seven years ago hardly reads like a James Bond spy novel or a Cold War tale of a brave informant sharing secrets to help the United States.
So it came as a something of a surprise to her to hear that in one of the 250,000-odd State Department cables released by WikiLeaks, she was deemed a source so sensitive U.S. officials were advised not to repeat her name.
"I don't think I said anything that would put me at risk," Ferrari Bravo said.
The Italian diplomat's episode, along with similar stories from several other foreign lawmakers, diplomats and activists cited in the U.S. cables as sources to "strictly protect," raises doubts about the scope of the danger posed by WikiLeaks' disclosures and the Obama administration's angry claims going back more than a year that the anti-secrecy website's revelations are threatening lives around the world. U.S. examples have been strictly theoretical.
The question of whether the dire warnings are warranted or overblown became more acute with the recent release all of the 251,287 diplomatic memos WikiLeaks held. Tens of thousands of confidential exchanges were dumped, emptying a trove of documents that had been released piecemeal since last year and initially with the cooperation of a select group of newspapers and magazines that blacked out some names and information before publishing the documents.
The latest cables were published in full, without the redaction of any names. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland branded the action "irresponsible, reckless and frankly dangerous," and the U.S. says the release exposes the names of hundreds of sensitive sources.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has blamed Britain's Guardian newspaper for publishing a secret encryption code, allowing intelligence agencies worldwide to access the cables and forcing WikiLeaks to provide the people affected the same information.
But an Associated Press review of the sources found several of them comfortable with their names in the open and no one fearing death. Others are already dead, their names cited as sensitive in the context of long-resolved conflicts or situations. Some have publicly written or testified at hearings about the supposedly confidential information they provided the U.S. government.
The Associated Press survey is selective and incomplete, as it focused on those sources the State Department seemed to categorize as most risky. The AP did not attempt to contact every named source in the new trove. It's generally up to the embassies themselves to decide which identities require heightened vigilance, officials say.
Hadzira Hamzic, a 73-year-old Bosnian refugee, wasn't bothered about being identified as one of thousands of victims from the Balkan wars of the 1990s. "I never hid that," she told the AP. "It is always hard when I have to tell about how I had been raped, but that is part of what happened and I have to talk about it."
In Asia, former Malaysian diplomat Shazryl Eskay Abdullah was shocked an "unofficial lunch meeting" he had several years ago with a U.S. official meant his name ended up on a formal report. But he said his role in southern Thailand peace talks was well known. "I don't see why anyone would come after me," Shazryl told the AP.
Ferrari Bravo's subject matter was also by no means mundane. A veteran of her nation's embassy in Tehran, Ferrari Bravo worked at the time on the Italian Foreign Ministry's Iran desk and discussed with the U.S. her government's view of the Iranian nuclear standoff. She urged continued dialogue.
"There is nothing that we said that was not known to our bosses, to our ministers, to our heads of state," she said. On having her identity protected, she said: "We didn't ask. There is nothing to protect."
U.S. officials say they have two criteria for sensitive sources. The first deals with people in totalitarian societies or failed states who could be imprisoned or killed, or perhaps denied housing, schooling, food or other services if exposed as having helped the United States. The State Department has also sought to censor names of people who might lose their jobs or suffer major embarrassment even in friendly countries, if they were seen offering the U.S. candid insights or restricted information.
One such case involved the dismissal in December of a top aide to German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle after he provided details on coalition talks and debates over issues such as U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe.
Still, the total damage appears limited and the State Department has steadfastly refused to describe any situation in which they've felt a source's life was in danger. They say a handful of people had to be relocated away from danger but won't provide any details on those few cases.
Units throughout the department have been scouring the documents since last year to find examples where sources are exposed and inform them that they may be "outed." Some, such as Hamzic, Sharzyl and Ferrari Bravo, say they were never contacted. Presumably, endangered individuals would have been prioritized.
Clearly, sensitivities depend on context. Revelations that may cause personal or political discomfort for a U.S. embassy contact in Western Europe may be life-threatening for an informant in an undemocratic nation. In the cables, they may both be "strictly protected" sources, highlighting relative danger levels in different places.
In Vietnam, the U.S. seemed to be dealing with sources whose names demanded vigilance: the wife of a dissident sentenced to five years in prison; a Buddhist leader condemning the arrest of a fellow priest; a dissident who says people "held his family hostage" until he renounced his activism; a Christian preacher complaining of police pressure on him to renounce his faith; another who speaks of a colleague forcibly sent to a mental institute.
A Syrian human rights activist warned the U.S. of a looming crackdown on anti-regime activists as far back as 2009. If the activist wasn't threatened by the disclosure last year, he may be now that the country is in the throes of a brutal five-month security crackdown.
And in Mexico, the term "strictly protect" appeared to be attached to interlocutors indiscriminately, even when officials offered only flattering assessments of their government or said little that wasn't common knowledge. It perhaps makes more sense in the context of a country where organized crime networks have essentially fought an insurgency against the government, where allowing a valued source's name to get out could affect that person's safety.
Assange, an Australian, has defended his actions by saying no one has died as a result of WikiLeaks.
Current and former American officials say that argument misses the point.
Making people think twice before providing the U.S. with information — or simply refuse ever again to help — hurts the good causes of human rights and democracy that American officials are promoting, they argue.
Take Arnold Sundquist, a Swede whose life isn't in danger. He provided the U.S. Embassy with sensitive details on an Iranian attempt to buy helicopters and said he was unhappy that his actions were now public. Last year, Swedish media with access to the WikiLeaks trove reported on the incident but didn't mention him by name.
"It is what it is," he said. "I can't do anything about it."
But will he, or others in a similar situation, be as ready to help American authorities again?
Venezuelan journalist Nelson Bocaranda thinks not. His identity was exposed in a document describing how he told the U.S. ambassador in 2009 that according to one of his sources, Colombian rebel leaders had visited Caracas for secret meetings with senior Venezuelan government officials. Bocaranda published the account in one of his newspaper columns.
"I feel betrayed by WikiLeaks," Bocaranda told the AP on Friday. But he said that as a journalist it's natural for him to talk with diplomats from various countries. "I think the ones who have been betrayed basically are the American diplomats," he said.
"It's going to be more difficult for them because I think no one is going to want to talk for fear of coming out in print with their name," he said, adding that would apply those who might otherwise supply sensitive information.
He said he doesn't feel his work or personal security face additional threats as a result of his name being exposed but said he suspects President Hugo Chavez's government could try to "cast doubts on me, to say that I am a member of the CIA."
Bocaranda said that he has nothing to hide and that the information he publishes in his newspaper columns and on the Internet is public. "I don't think my sources are going to shut me out," he said.
Other governments have echoed the U.S. criticism of WikiLeaks, saying it jeopardizes invaluable diplomacy — the exchanges that aim to promote understanding, avoid war and improve global security.
The anger from Assange's home nation, Australia, was prompted not by the release of sources, but of 23 Australians who had been in contact with a Yemen-based al-Qaida offshoot and were being monitored. Still, a government statement couldn't point to a direct threat from the disclosure, only a potential danger.
"The large-scale distribution of hundreds of thousands of classified United States government documents is reckless, irresponsible and potentially dangerous," Australian Attorney-General Robert McClelland said.
AP review finds no threatened WikiLeaks sources
Last edited:
If you can't come up with laws that says we are obligated to protect rats from freedom of speech then WTF is your argument? Just opinion?
Hey hey hey. Don't cloud this up with facts.
^ Dec 28 08:08
WEBSTER TARPLEY: WIKILEAKS A “COGNITIVE INFILTRATION” OPERATION
Awareness is growing around the world that the Wikileaks-Julian Assange theater of the absurd is radically inauthentic – a psyop. Wikileaks and its impaired boss represent a classic form of limited hangout or self-exposure, a kind of lurid striptease in which the front organization releases doctored and pre-selected materials provided by the intelligence agency with the intent of harming, not the CIA, nor the UK, nor the Israelis, but rather such classic CIA enemies’ list figures as Putin, Berlusconi, Karzai, Qaddafi, Rodriguez de Kirchner, etc. In Tunisia, derogatory material about ex-President Ben Ali leaked by Wikileaks has already brought a windfall for Langley in the form of the rare ouster of an entrenched Arab governmen
WEBSTER TARPLEY: WIKILEAKS A “COGNITIVE INFILTRATION” OPERATION
Awareness is growing around the world that the Wikileaks-Julian Assange theater of the absurd is radically inauthentic – a psyop. Wikileaks and its impaired boss represent a classic form of limited hangout or self-exposure, a kind of lurid striptease in which the front organization releases doctored and pre-selected materials provided by the intelligence agency with the intent of harming, not the CIA, nor the UK, nor the Israelis, but rather such classic CIA enemies’ list figures as Putin, Berlusconi, Karzai, Qaddafi, Rodriguez de Kirchner, etc. In Tunisia, derogatory material about ex-President Ben Ali leaked by Wikileaks has already brought a windfall for Langley in the form of the rare ouster of an entrenched Arab governmen
Thanks for proving me right, yet again.
You really should fully read what you post.
Nope, I even know the US AR #.
My point, which you keep ignoring is, as soon as you start backing up your silliness, I'll back up my fact.
Now that's funny. Maybe you should read the whole thing, that includes all the words, not just the ones that support your position.
True.
I just did a google search for lives threatened by wikileaks and it was the first link that came up.
It's not a smoking gun by any means, but I can't settle for the "well duh" argument.
In any case, I'm sure Bear will have made some sort of derogatory statement by time I post this, but I do acknowledge that there is no completely objective assessment of security.
Edit: lol.. yup.. not surprised. Shoot first, think later. Bear ethics.
But rats have special rights and print media can selectively publish allegedly illegal material.
So where are the charges?
The story of your posts.
You really should read the whole thing.
I did, thanks again for proving me right.
Again, reading the whole thread, would prevent you from making such silly assertions.
I enjoyed the Vietnam references. but you still haven't provided anything that says we have obligations or that charges are to be laid.
GASP!!! So what are our obligations to the rats? Can you post those please?
You still haven't provided anything to back up your assertions.
If you don't like being left in the dark. Try reciprocation. It's illuminating.
Just a question, how do you think informants who give evidence against illegal activity committed by US Soldiers are protected?
Do think there's a law in the AR/UCMJ, that protects them? Do you think it applies to all informants? Or just the ones with a problem with US Soldiers?
I only ask to see if you have any concept of deductive reasoning at all.