Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Wikileak Has Really Done It This Time

True. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought differently. All I said about Manning was that he was a human being with a conscience.

I'll say further that he did the right thing. Of course, the closer you are to a government, the more likely it is that you'll be imprisoned for doing the right thing, since every government depends for its survival on a lot of wrong things being done. Given that he had a conscience, I think he was a little silly for joining the military, and a lot silly for getting involved with intelligence.


Yes--except that I'd say "an enemy of the US government," since it's actually a good thing when the subjects of the US government know more about the crimes it's committing in their name.

Remember, folks like Muslim jihadists are told that the subjects of the US government are the ones in control of it; that's one of the reasons they attack civilians. If the government's subjects are being held accountable for the actions of the government, it stands to reason that they ought at least to know what those actions are.

Enemy of the government, friend to its subjects. Can we agree on that, at least?

Here is a little something I can teach you Barak. Good, honest, hard working, patriotic Americans citizens and possibly their loved ones who have put their lives at risk to ensure you can babble about your a + b bullshit might die because of these leaks. That my friend is a very real concept that I hope you can wrap your thirsting for knowledge mind around. Your wish for a totally open and transparent government is a fools game and if it ever happens it will be only for a very short while befoere it ends. You may not know it, realize it, or choose to believe it, but it is a very harsh world out there with a whole bunch of evil people that wish to do YOU & me (and anyone else)great harm. I hope it does not happen but if that evil gets by those that are protecting you and lands at your feet a very useful example of A and B will be very clear to you. At that point it will be too late which is often when those who lack good common sence realize it. 163bc

Is the concept of patriotism applicable to country or government?

That's what it boils down to.

A thinking man knows the difference... and also knows which choice government personnel will make.

I"ve said on here many times it's among the most amazing things I've ever encountered. People piss and moan and bitch and grip about all the BS that government does and says and talk about how they aren't to be trusted at any time for any reason but then they turn around and defend it until their dying breath.

Simply amazing.

I say screw the government. And its politicians.
They are not your friend, your provider, your security, nor anything else they claim and pretend to be. They play a game of make believe. And work very hard to make people believe. All the way to the point of forcing it if you don't believe by imprisoning or killing you.

And people, while saying out one side of their mouth, and very regularly, they don't trust the government, trust them and defend them and side with them, every time. I can't say as I've ever encountered a more glaring hypocrisy.

If people don't learn the difference between country and government of a country this country will be lost. And very soon ,too, I might add.

Hitlery and her ilk have committed way more treason than this idiot and wiki ever could begin to.

Hitlery has sided with government. No surprise there...

but it should make you take a second look at this...

and yourselves...

I can't buy that. He is/was a soldier, sworn to obey the lawful orders of his superiors. Those lawful orders included regulations that prohibited the copying and dissemination of classified information. At the very least, he disobeyed orders.

That said, I see the whole thing as an extension of the general policy of Americans to blame someone else for any and every problem. How so? The politicians, brass hats, and other originators of all the leaked documents, videos, and suchlike, transmitted their information in the clear. One of the first principles of OpSec is that there are no secure networks. Had they (the hats & suits) never heard of encryption?

The whole bamn datch of them up and down the line made this possible. IF the investigators that cleared him for his EBI done their job properly, it wouldn't have happened. IF the document writers had modified their language, it wouldn't be a big deal. IF encryption had been used, wikileaks would have had nothing to feed on.

Hang 'em all as an object lesson in the wages of stupidity.

You'll be able to judge the rightousness of our government by its eventual response. And I'll tell you what that eventual response will be. It will attempt (regardless of whether it is Republican or Democrat controlled) to assert new and somewhat Draconian controls on the Internet. You'll see things proposed like government issued Internet passwords, various other controls, and lots and lots of previously innocuous sites labled as subversive and forced to close under threat of prosecution.

That is exactly what will happen and I assume all of the government cheerleaders on here will be doing cartwheels as the 'Campfire' is forced to close.

The Government and the citizens of the U.S. live in a symbiotic relationship. Though the actions of the former often impose on the latter, attacks on the former by outside sources or traitors can still effect and harm the lives of the latter.

Knowing that the U.S. tried to get enriched uranium out of Pakistan, because it feared the direction of Pakistan's leadership, is not a truth that helped American's much.

Now if Pakistan reacts in a way that causes American blood to be shed, whether directly or indirectly, I would say it wasn't really worth the price of transparency.

Let's say there was a Wikileaks in 1945 and one of the cables leaked was that the Indianapolis was transporting atomic bombs to Tinian. The Japs intercept with every sub in the Pacific and the U.S. is forced to invade Japan or at a minimum, the delay costs the U.S. another 10,000 lives while we continue to fight.

Was the "truth" worth it?

In theory, a Wikileaks in the 1940's would have you and I speaking German or Japanese and this freedom of expression we are exchanging at this very moment is a forgotten footnote in history.

Well, okay, I guess simple regurgitation of standard government propaganda it is. One works with what one has.

First, of course, is the possibility that that argument may be nothing but complete government fabrication. (So far it has been. Check it out on your own: to this point no WikiLeaks information has led to anything more serious than government officials being really, really embarrassed.) Governments, their politicians, and their intellectuals all lie for a living; that's why swallowing government propaganda is usually a dangerous thing.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's suppose it's all true.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose a criminal has a knife to the throat of your daughter, and orders you not to move or he'll stab her, and you move, and he stabs her.

Who is responsible for your daughter getting stabbed? You? I don't think so. I think it's the criminal who put her in that position who's responsible.

So...you're concerned that there are people in the position of depending for their safety on certain information not being released. Suppose the information gets released and they're harmed.

Who's responsible for the harm that comes to them? The people who did the releasing, or the government that put them in that position without control over the information in question?

I think the answer to that question's pretty clear. What should also be pretty clear, I think, is that if the government is indeed responsible it will do anything in its power to convince people that the responsibility lies elsewhere.

If instead of just accepting the propaganda you actually examine it a little, usually it'll fall apart on its own.


From your keyboard to God's Internet browser, my friend. From your keyboard to God's Internet browser.


Once again, try to take a step beyond the propaganda rather than stopping right where the newsreader stops.

"Why" is frequently a good next question, just as a rule of thumb. Suppose it's true what they say about lots of people wanting to kill us. Why do you suppose that is?

I'll leave that one as an exercise for the reader.

I'm sorry it worked out this way; I was hoping you had something other than government propaganda to teach me. Most of the propaganda I've already considered.

Yes, he disobeyed orders. Yes, he broke his oath. Yes, he committed treason. Still, he did the right thing.

The only other conclusion available would be to support the N�rnberg Defense.

You mean parasitic, right? The government coercively draws its essence from the vitality of the populace, like a leech on a cow. The populace does all sorts of things for the government that the government couldn't possibly do for itself. Does the government do anything for the populace that the populace couldn't do for itself?


If the government knew that its darkest secrets would one day (one day soon, hopefully within the terms of office of the politicians responsible) be exposed to the light in the view of its subjects, it would be less likely to get involved in places it shouldn't be sticking its nose. I think that'd be a good thing, not a bad thing.

I don't even call myself a patriot anymore, because I'm tired of being misunderstood. I'd rather let them have the word.

Then I can use the quote from Samuel Johnson: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

Where you and I disagree is that you consider his orders against general dissemination of classified information unlawful; I don't.

Brings to memory documents sealed from public view surrounding JFK's murder.

Who is hiding what?
And why?
Too bad these documents weren't leaked long, long ago. How many on here defend the governmetn's position of keeping that all hidden from public scrutiny?

Just asking...

Y'all deal with Barak, if you choose. I'd rather just have him get his way, and the next prison riot end with him and his getting what they've earned at the hands of those that they find more worthy than actual patriots, service personnel, and Americans.

Symbiotic, parasitic, the result would be the same.

A population without government, is easy prey for a Nazi Germany, a USSR, an 1812 Britain, a 2010 China.....

Populations in the city where people don't keep and bear arms, maybe...

Wasn't it the leader of Japan who said to invade America would be a fools errand because there's a gun behind evry tree?

What we have here is a gigantic should and a gargantuan shouldn't.

� Our government should be able to keep certain things confidential.

� The ability to keep certain things confidential shouldn't be abused.

If a government can keep secrets from the people, then the people can in no way be said to have control over said government. It is really that simple. It is a simple either/or question. Either the government is accountable to the people and can keep no secrets, or it is not accountable to the people and can keep secrets.

Let's be honest about the situation. If a government that is not accountable to us is what we really want, let's at least have the courage to recognize it for what it is and stop pretending that it protects our "freedom" and other such nonsense when it reality, it does precisely the opposite.

Are we adults or are we children? Adults should be able to process information and make rational decisions based on what they perceive as their best interests. Children must be shielded and have information withheld from them because as children, they are not capable of deciding what is in their interests and therefore, there is no need to confuse or incite them with useless information.

A government that can not responsibly keep certain things confidential is at the mercy of the mob.

No, it isn't. Our government is protected from the mob in that it is a representative republic with elections set at clear and determined intervals. Thus, any elected official is completely free to vote in any manner for any program whasoever, provided it is constitutional of course, and the public has NO LEGAL RECOURSE WHATSOEVER until the next election. However, that elected official SHOULD NOT be able to mask his action in secrecy so that he is not accountable to the public at the next election.