3 ms·

Did you read any of the leaks? It's talking about how there's an American informant in the Chinese Politburo... you know the Chinese are going to be looking for

Did you read any of the leaks? It's talking about how there's an American informant in the Chinese Politburo... you know the Chinese are going to be looking for him now. What are they going to do to him and his family if they find him? What happens if friendly politicians in Yemen are bombed by al-Qaeda when their role in counter-terrorism comes out? What if their wives and children are beheaded on television, as has happened in the past? Leaking war documents to show what's happening - questionable. Leaking anything and everything possible, with no particular objective in mind - reckless and insane.

mcantelon 16y ago
>It's talking about how there's an American informant in the Chinese Politburo... you know the Chinese are going to be looking for him now. What are they going to do to him and his family if they find him? You don't think the Chinese knew that already? >Leaking anything and everything they can, with no particular objective in mind - insanity. They are not leaking everything they can. Wikileaks is not releasing all cables and if you actually read the cables, sensitive names are redacted. They also offered to talk to the US authorities, which could have allowed them some say in what got released, but US authorities refused.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > You don't think the Chinese knew that already? Dude, cantelon, drop the partisan stuff and think for a second. A single offhand mention like, "Donated to informant's mother's pension fund" might be enough to identify an informant, round up him and his family, and torture them to death. I get it. You're in favor of Wikileaks and don't like the U.S. government. But they're doing reckless crazy stupid shit here. Everyone regardless of politics should be able to see that, if you look at the summaries of what they released.
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    >But they're doing reckless crazy stupid shit here. Everyone regardless of politics should be able to see that, if you look at the summaries of what they released. Looking at things objectively isn't "partisan stuff". I'm hearing the same hysteria that accompanied the Afghan War Diary release, yet noone was ever able to point out one life lost because of that leak. Wikileaks is doing even more this time to mitigate any fallout and their work is going to save many lives in the long term. For example: the next time the US decides it wants to invade another country they might find it harder to justify. Anti-Wikileaks hysteria reminds me of the way child porn has been used to justify the creation of state censorship mechanisms: an attempt to use edge cases to justify protecting the interests of the status quo.
    - lionhearted 16y ago
      > Looking at things objectively isn't "partisan stuff". It's okay to dislike the U.S. government, be pro-Wikileaks, and think Wikileaks still did some stupid stuff here. > For example: the next time the US decides it wants to invade another country they might find it harder to justify. And the next time they try to negotiate nuclear disarmament with Pakistan, the Pakistani negotiator has to be worried about looking weak publicly. I can't believe I'm defending the U.S. government here, I'm quite a critic of it. But they actually do do lots of good stuff. Working to protect Google and internet infrastructure and working for nuclear disarmament are good things. Working to take out people who blow up buses of school children in Israel is a good thing. You can be a critic of the U.S. government and think Wikileaks is being reckless here. The positions aren't incompatible.
      - pavs 16y ago
        possibility of disarmament Pakistani nuclear is the funniest thing I have read in some time. In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and training them how to secure their nuclear facilities. How about the so-called terrorist who have been funded by USA government in the first place? Securing internet infrastructure has less to do with the "good stuff" and more to do with self preservation. As for Nuclear disarmament, USA don't really have a moral high ground telling other countries to not produce nuclear weapons when they are sitting on the one of the largest nuclear stockpile (and actively developing new generations of nuclear weapons) and the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons during a war. You can cherry pick "good stuff" USA government did, but the end up day if were to draw a line and sum up the "good stuff" and the bad stuff the government did, the bad stuff overwhelms what you claim to be "good stuff".
        lionhearted 16y ago
        > possibility of disarmament Pakistani nuclear is the funniest thing I have read in some time. In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and training them how to secure their nuclear facilities. So I take it you didn't actually read the articles or dispatches at all? This was the very first part of the New York Times summary: > A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”
  - baddox 16y ago
    > A single offhand mention like, "Donated to informant's mother's pension fund" might be enough to identify an informant, round up him and his family, and torture them to death. In such a case, I would blame the people who did the rounding up, torturing, and killing.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    "I get it. You're in favor of Wikileaks and don't like the U.S. government." I love the US Government and am as a result extremely supportive of projects like Wikileaks. Sidebar: funnily enough, the partisan breakdown on this issue leads to the same people who say that they don't trust "Government" to build a highway interchange or administer a school but they think it should operate without any oversight whatsoever regarding matters of life and death. I mean, Obama's president now, I can understand hating the guy so bad that you all of a sudden have a huge problem with "Government" but wouldn't that apply to the security state especially?
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    And Wikileaks is the best espionage group in existence and were the only people capable of intercepting this information... despite by all reports the Chinese could have simply brute-forced to get this information with how they've been conducting online operations recently. You're wholly naive if you don't think at least China and Russia don't already have access to this information... especially given that a Russian spyring was recently busted for acquiring nuclear secrets, foreign policy secrets, etc.
exit 16y ago
> What are they going to do to him and his family if they find him? then shame on the united states government for not protecting his identity

mcantelon 16y ago

>It's talking about how there's an American informant in the Chinese Politburo... you know the Chinese are going to be looking for him now. What are they going to do to him and his family if they find him? You don't think the Chinese knew that already? >Leaking anything and everything they can, with no particular objective in mind - insanity. They are not leaking everything they can. Wikileaks is not releasing all cables and if you actually read the cables, sensitive names are redacted. They also offered to talk to the US authorities, which could have allowed them some say in what got released, but US authorities refused.

lionhearted 16y ago
> You don't think the Chinese knew that already? Dude, cantelon, drop the partisan stuff and think for a second. A single offhand mention like, "Donated to informant's mother's pension fund" might be enough to identify an informant, round up him and his family, and torture them to death. I get it. You're in favor of Wikileaks and don't like the U.S. government. But they're doing reckless crazy stupid shit here. Everyone regardless of politics should be able to see that, if you look at the summaries of what they released.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  >But they're doing reckless crazy stupid shit here. Everyone regardless of politics should be able to see that, if you look at the summaries of what they released. Looking at things objectively isn't "partisan stuff". I'm hearing the same hysteria that accompanied the Afghan War Diary release, yet noone was ever able to point out one life lost because of that leak. Wikileaks is doing even more this time to mitigate any fallout and their work is going to save many lives in the long term. For example: the next time the US decides it wants to invade another country they might find it harder to justify. Anti-Wikileaks hysteria reminds me of the way child porn has been used to justify the creation of state censorship mechanisms: an attempt to use edge cases to justify protecting the interests of the status quo.
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    > Looking at things objectively isn't "partisan stuff". It's okay to dislike the U.S. government, be pro-Wikileaks, and think Wikileaks still did some stupid stuff here. > For example: the next time the US decides it wants to invade another country they might find it harder to justify. And the next time they try to negotiate nuclear disarmament with Pakistan, the Pakistani negotiator has to be worried about looking weak publicly. I can't believe I'm defending the U.S. government here, I'm quite a critic of it. But they actually do do lots of good stuff. Working to protect Google and internet infrastructure and working for nuclear disarmament are good things. Working to take out people who blow up buses of school children in Israel is a good thing. You can be a critic of the U.S. government and think Wikileaks is being reckless here. The positions aren't incompatible.
    - pavs 16y ago
      possibility of disarmament Pakistani nuclear is the funniest thing I have read in some time. In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and training them how to secure their nuclear facilities. How about the so-called terrorist who have been funded by USA government in the first place? Securing internet infrastructure has less to do with the "good stuff" and more to do with self preservation. As for Nuclear disarmament, USA don't really have a moral high ground telling other countries to not produce nuclear weapons when they are sitting on the one of the largest nuclear stockpile (and actively developing new generations of nuclear weapons) and the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons during a war. You can cherry pick "good stuff" USA government did, but the end up day if were to draw a line and sum up the "good stuff" and the bad stuff the government did, the bad stuff overwhelms what you claim to be "good stuff".
      - lionhearted 16y ago
        > possibility of disarmament Pakistani nuclear is the funniest thing I have read in some time. In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and training them how to secure their nuclear facilities. So I take it you didn't actually read the articles or dispatches at all? This was the very first part of the New York Times summary: > A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”
- baddox 16y ago
  > A single offhand mention like, "Donated to informant's mother's pension fund" might be enough to identify an informant, round up him and his family, and torture them to death. In such a case, I would blame the people who did the rounding up, torturing, and killing.
- jbooth 16y ago
  "I get it. You're in favor of Wikileaks and don't like the U.S. government." I love the US Government and am as a result extremely supportive of projects like Wikileaks. Sidebar: funnily enough, the partisan breakdown on this issue leads to the same people who say that they don't trust "Government" to build a highway interchange or administer a school but they think it should operate without any oversight whatsoever regarding matters of life and death. I mean, Obama's president now, I can understand hating the guy so bad that you all of a sudden have a huge problem with "Government" but wouldn't that apply to the security state especially?
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  And Wikileaks is the best espionage group in existence and were the only people capable of intercepting this information... despite by all reports the Chinese could have simply brute-forced to get this information with how they've been conducting online operations recently. You're wholly naive if you don't think at least China and Russia don't already have access to this information... especially given that a Russian spyring was recently busted for acquiring nuclear secrets, foreign policy secrets, etc.

exit 16y ago

> What are they going to do to him and his family if they find him? then shame on the united states government for not protecting his identity