5 ms·

Iceland or any other country is not under US jurisdiction! CIA is not law enforcement agency! Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"!

• lotharbot 17y ago
  " Iceland or any other country is not under US jurisdiction! CIA is not law enforcement agency!" Right. The Central Intelligence Agency doesn't have "jurisdiction" the same way a law enforcement agency does, because they're not law enforcement. They exist to "collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence [and] engage in covert action at the president's direction in accordance with applicable law." "Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"!" Imagine what a reckless policy it would be for the CIA to decide "we do not investigate Wikileaks because they're just whistleblowers". Wouldn't that make them a possible haven for actual foreign spies? Put another way: how do you know Wikileaks is completely free of foreign spies? The CIA, as an intelligence agency, has the duty to gather intelligence on groups like Wikileaks. They have the duty to have a clear understanding of what Wikileaks is doing, and to act against them (individually or as a group) if it is deemed necessary by the president or others in the chain of command.
• GHFigs 17y ago
  Iceland or any other country is not under US jurisdiction! The article claims that US State Department was investigating a leak from the US embassy in Iceland. If the government of Iceland (an ally and NATO member) is cooperating with such an investigation, that is unsurprising. Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"! Regardless of how you describe it, Wikileaks is of interest to people whose job is counterintelligence (i.e. secret-keeping). Suppose you have information you want to keep secret. I prevent you from keeping that information secret. How shall you regard me?
  • invisible 17y ago
    I guess I should re-evaluate why the information is secret and attempt to explain why the information is secret to the concerned individual before it's released. I guess that is a slippery slope, but I do not really understand the need for classification of any past air strikes that do not involve future missions.
    • lotharbot 17y ago
      There's already a procedure for evaluating classification of information, a built-in system for declassifying things after a particular period of time, and procedures for whistle blowers to follow when something is inappropriately classified or merely inappropriate. ("Alert the media" or "leak this to wikileaks" is, generally, a very-very-very last resort.) I don't understand the classification of past missile strikes, but I'd bet someone who knows the list of classification criteria could explain it. (Or, if it's inappropriately classified, challenge it through the proper channels.)
      • invisible 17y ago
        And what happens if that system fails because those that declassify are the ones that have agendas to not release this information?
        • lotharbot 17y ago
          As posted above: ("Alert the media" or "leak this to wikileaks" is, generally, a very-very-very last resort.)
          • ytinas 17y ago
            After you've already tried all the other channels? Then you're no longer an anonymous whistle blower.
            • lotharbot 17y ago
              After somebody has tried the other channels. Doesn't have to be the same person.
    • lotharbot 17y ago
      I was just reminded of one example: if "they" knew that we knew such-and-such detail about an airstrike, they might (1) be able to identify our method for intel gathering, or (2) be able to identify our source, which would get our spy killed. It's the same principle as "loose lips sink ships". Sometimes harmless-looking individual details are actually the key to keeping our guys safe in hostile environments.