Print 184 comment(s) - last by Lerianis.. on Dec 16 at 5:13 AM

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has published a set of top targets to undermine U.S. national security.  (Source: The Confluence)

Among the targets listed are relatively unsecure dams on the U.S.-Mexican border, such as the Rio Grande's Falcon Dam. It is unclear how the leak constitutes "whistleblowing" or whether Wikileaks has abandoned its guiding principals.  (Source: Yankee Phil)
Latest leak seems to have little to do with whistleblowing, more to do with damaging U.S.

Wikileaks is trending on tenuous ground in terms of credibility.  With over 95 percent of the site's documents directly pertaining to the U.S., the site seems to be clearly attacking the world's biggest military-economic power.  That has led to American corporations like Amazon and Paypal cutting off the site's services [1] [2].

Rather than back down, though, Wikileaks is blazing ahead.  It started this week by formally publishing another damaging diplomatic cable, stolen from the U.S. State Department by a disgruntled army specialist who currently awaits trial for espionage.

Wikileaks Shares Top List of Places to Target U.S.

Where as some of the site's past activity seemingly could be construed as "whistleblowing", which the site claims to be founded upon, this latest leak has little to do with U.S. wrongdoing, but clearly is dangerous to its national security.

The leaked cable reveals dozens of places on every continent, including mines, manufacturing complexes, ports and research establishments which the U.S. government consider locations "whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States."

The cable is classified secret and not meant to be shared with non-U.S. personnel.  Now it is in the hands of individuals worldwide, including terrorists who could use it as blueprint of where to attack.

Among the locations in the document are dams on the U.S. border and the Panama Canal.

U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley blast the release, commenting in the The Times of London, "There are strong and valid reasons information is classified, including critical infrastructure and key resources that are vital to the national and economic security of any country.  [Assange] may be directing his efforts at the United States but he is placing the interests of many countries and regions at risk."

Malcolm Rifkind, chairman of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee in Britain remarks, "[Wikileaks and Julian Assange gave] a gift to any terrorist (group) trying to work out what are the ways in which it can damage the United States."

It is unclear exactly how the recent leak fits into the site's supposed code of ethics.

But it does make a strong case that the site is targeting the U.S.  And it may be getting desperate.

Facing the loss of its primary funding Paypal account, and problems with hosting the site posted an appeal for donations and hosting in forums across the internet.  Site volunteers write:
In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove Wikileaks from the Internet, we need your help.

if you have a unix-based server which is hosting a website on the Internet and you want to give wikileaks some of your hosting resources, you can help!
No Laughing Matter

The site's attempts to grab international fame and infamy did earn it and its founder, Julian Assange a nod in the latest edition of Saturday Night Live [video].  In the skit, which earned the show season-best ratings, Bill Hader poses as Mr. Assange.  He delivers the starting monologue, stating:
Hello, America, I'm Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, and I've taken over your airwaves," announces Assange as he interrupts a speech by President Obama (Fred Armisen). "This week, my organization released thousands of classified cables, revealing embarrassing details about the international diplomatic community. The leaks did not inspire revolution as I had hoped so tonight I present a new WikiLeaks, where the leaks are even more embarrassing and the details are even more sordid. That project is "WikiLeaks: TMZ.
Mr. Assange [Hader] then launches into a segment of "top" U.S. "secrets" such as upskirt shots that show U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wearing no underwear.

But if senior U.S. and British intelligence officials are to believed, Wikileaks' publication of the list of confidential "juiciest" terrorist targets is no laughing matter and could cause big problems for the U.S. and its allies in the future, including the loss of life.

They did, however, manage to deal another blow to the site's campaign.  European news outlets are reporting that the site's Swiss bank account, one of its few remaining sources of funding was terminated, with the bank complaining that the site submitted false details when making the account.

On Monday U.S. government officials vowed action in an ongoing criminal investigation into Wikileaks behavior.  Attorney General Eric Holder comments, "National security of the United States has been put at risk.  The lives of people who work for the American people have been put at risk. The American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that I believe are arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way. We are doing everything that we can.  I authorized just last week a number of things to be done so that we can, hopefully, get to the bottom of this and hold people accountable as they should be."

While Mr. Assange is already evading detainment on Swedish rape charges in Iceland, the U.S. may be able to prosecute other people who have volunteered to help with the leaks.  It is rumored that some of these individuals reside in the U.S.

Wikileaks recent efforts haven't gone unappreciated by some, at least.  The Taliban, the Afghani insurgency known for its brutal murder of opponents, praised the site's release of U.S. war memos, which it says will help it hunt down and murder traitors.  While it's unclear whether the memos actually contain any info that provides such hints, the Taliban already murdered one tribal elder claiming that the leaks exposed him as a U.S. collaborator, according to Newsweek.

Update 1: Monday 12/6/2010 4:20 p.m.-
As of about 4 p.m. it appears that has been taken offline.  It's unlikely that this will be the last we hear from the site, though.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By BucDan on 12/6/2010 2:38:36 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Amazing.
By priusone on 12/6/2010 2:40:59 PM , Rating: 5
I'm just trying to figure out why there is a picture of a piece loving Muslim next to a title with "terrorist". What are you getting at Dailytech?

RE: Amazing.
By marsbound2024 on 12/6/2010 3:04:09 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah because all 'peace'-loving Muslims carry RPGs.

RE: Amazing.
By quiksilvr on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing.
By joshuasims1981 on 12/6/2010 4:48:02 PM , Rating: 5
Um...hi...welcome to sarcasm.

RE: Amazing.
By DougF on 12/6/2010 5:44:20 PM , Rating: 1
Sarcasm? I thought this was Argument...with Godwin's Law applications.

RE: Amazing.
By walk2k on 12/6/2010 6:18:33 PM , Rating: 5
This is Abuse. Arguments are 2 doors down.

You stupid git.

RE: Amazing.
By Alexvrb on 12/6/2010 10:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
Nice. I haven't seen that in ages.

RE: Amazing.
By Gul Westfale on 12/6/2010 10:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
mick, who still hasn't learned to spell properly in his mother tongue, is questioning mr. assange's credibility... nice.

as for the list: if a terrorist cannot figure out by himself that a dam might be a better target than the local walmart if he wants to really cause some damage, then he sucks at his job. hard.

it's a lot like the cables that 'reveal' german politicians to be a mix of idiots and spineless retards: it's nothing we (germans) didn't already know.

RE: Amazing.
By Alexvrb on 12/6/2010 11:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
From time to time I have been known to savage Mick for his articles, but regarding Señor Assange: F him and the tall horse he rode in on.

Besides, Mick can take a punch or two, which is one of his good traits. On some sites criticizing the author often has less than desirable (but more than predictable) results.

RE: Amazing.
By rmclean816 on 12/7/2010 3:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
every think he may be one of the people intimidated by the government. Either way it can be bad news to say things that people think are against America.

RE: Amazing.
By ipay on 12/7/2010 1:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
And you haven't learned how to use uppercase letters. Pot, kettle, black?

Assange's credibility is no longer in question; it's out the window. I wonder if they'll give him a quick death or a slow one.

RE: Amazing.
By Noya on 12/6/2010 8:52:35 PM , Rating: 5
No, he was right in his statement. You blow things to pieces with an RPG.

RE: Amazing.
By Mitch101 on 12/7/2010 11:14:53 AM , Rating: 5
Go ahead Mr Jones blow it up. Blow it back to God!

RE: Amazing.
By Skywalker123 on 12/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing.
By FITCamaro on 12/7/2010 7:40:34 AM , Rating: 4
When the enemy is all dead, there is peace.

RE: Amazing.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 9:36:02 AM , Rating: 5
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
- Thomas Paine

RE: Amazing.
By WinstonSmith on 12/7/2010 10:32:10 AM , Rating: 5
The current American idiocracy cannot understand such fine points made by their founders. They are now little more than a bunch of undereducated, propagandized statists.

RE: Amazing.
By Kurz on 12/7/2010 10:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well... you have to kill not just the men, but the women and children.

Though in this age of the Internet its hard to hide this,
And it'll just make more enemies against us. Except this time we wont know who are enemies are going to be, they are going to be international.

War brings more War.

RE: Amazing.
By Lerianis on 12/16/2010 5:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
BINGO! Finally someone realizes this. The fact is that most of the enemies of the United States today in the Middle East were created by our own bad actions 30 years or more ago in Iran and other places.

RE: Amazing.
By AstroGuardian on 12/7/2010 11:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
The meaning is likewise

RE: Amazing.
By snakeInTheGrass on 12/7/2010 4:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that's when we turn on each other? ;)

In any case, the leak of strategic sites is just ludicrous. If Assange has actual whistleblowing to do, great, but apparently that's not really his mission at this point. Releasing stuff like this in no way uncovers some sort of conspiracy and just increases the risks to many countries. Revealing that Yemen has claimed some missile strikes as their own to cover for the U.S. launching them is crap as well - now some countries are likely to be even less cooperative, providing safer havens for terrorists as a result, and the end result is likely to be more civilians killed. Way to "fight the man" with the truth, wikileaks. :/

RE: Amazing.
By xCross on 12/8/2010 12:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
Not when innocent civilians and women and children are dead.

RE: Amazing.
By Skywalker123 on 12/8/2010 11:09:59 AM , Rating: 2
Try as hard as you can you will never be able to kill all the enemies America has created.The Empire is about to run out of money for its expensive war machine.

RE: Amazing.
By Luticus on 12/6/2010 3:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't know you could put "peace loving" and "rocket launcher" in the same picture. Because that appears to be what the guy is wielding.

BTW: i am highly against stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists. I just thought this was funny.

RE: Amazing.
By MozeeToby on 12/6/2010 3:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
30 years ago, that terrorist was a "Brave freedom fighter battling against Soviet aggression". Hell, that's pretty much the exact description the US gave about Osama Bin Laden 30 years go while they were giving him training and weapons.

So to put peace and rocket launcher in reference to the same picture is pretty easy. It is possible to fight for peace you know. Especially with the right propaganda.

RE: Amazing.
By zixin on 12/6/2010 3:31:44 PM , Rating: 5
fightin a war against soilders is different then killing civilians with the sole purpose of inflicting panic. You can fight for your freedom by trying the defeat the army that invaded your country. You don't do it by bombing your own citizens or the citizens of invader's country.

RE: Amazing.
By MozeeToby on 12/6/2010 3:52:35 PM , Rating: 3
The mujahideen favoured sabotage operations. The more common types of sabotage included damaging power lines, knocking out pipelines and radio stations, blowing up government office buildings, air terminals, hotels, cinemas, and so on. From 1985 through 1987, an average of over 600 "terrorist acts" a year were recorded. In the border region with Pakistan, the mujahideen would often launch 800 rockets per day. Between April 1985 and January 1987, they carried out over 23,500 shelling attacks on government targets. The mujahideen surveyed firing positions that they normally located near villages within the range of Soviet artillery posts, putting the villagers in danger of death from Soviet retaliation. The mujahideen used land mines heavily. Often, they would enlist the services of the local inhabitants, even children.

They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members, and laid siege to small rural outposts. In March 1982, a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings. In the same month, a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up. In June 1982 a column of about 1,000 young communist party members sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 30 km of Kabul, with heavy loss of life. On September 4, 1985, insurgents shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, killing all 52 people aboard.

Mujahideen groups used for assassination had three to five men in each. After they received their mission to kill certain government officials, they busied themselves with studying his pattern of life and its details and then selecting the method of fulfilling their established mission. They practiced shooting at automobiles, shooting out of automobiles, laying mines in government accommodation or houses, using poison, and rigging explosive charges in transport.

Attacking infrastructure and convoys, bombing government buildings, mining indiscriminately, assassinating local government leaders. Sounds like exactly the kind of campaign they are running against the US and our Allies at the moment, though bombing of soft targets is admittedly more common this time around it wasn't unheard of during the Soviet occupation. I'm not saying what they are doing is right, I'm saying trying to whitewash the US involvement in those activities is wrong.

RE: Amazing.
By SSDMaster on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing.
By Wiggy Mcshades on 12/6/2010 4:10:45 PM , Rating: 4
They killed civilians to save American lives? Is it really out of the realm of reality for you that a government puts its citizens lives at a higher priority than foreign citizens? Did the US not ask the Japanese to surrender before dropping those bombs? Their government apparently did not value the lives of its citizens all that much if they had no chance of winning but would rather kill as many Americans as possible before they had to give up. If Japan had been invaded wouldn't civilians of died also?

RE: Amazing.
By BruceLeet on 12/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/6/2010 8:18:48 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not accepting the premise that there even IS an argument here. What we did in WWII was right. Period. End of discussion.

It's like you Liberals were born without a "context" gene or something. But you have three extra hindsight ones to make up for it!

You imply that Japan knew beforehand the destruction of a nuclear weapon, you imply that they knew about nuclear fallout and poisoning.

War was different then. If you declared war, you were knowingly directly exposing your civilians to attack. Japan declared war. Japan was part of the Axis, the same Axis that bombed every city and town in England to piles of rubble! So don't play the victim card here on their benefit.

And what's the difference between bombing civilians and bombing military men in a sneak attack without so much as declaring war on them? Thousands and thousands of helpless men were killed in Pearl Harbor, along with 68 civilians. A gutless and unprovoked attack!

Japan knew they were losing. They KNEW the Allies were going to have to occupy them island by island. A long and bloody campaign to say the least, before eventually marching onto the mainland and securing victory. That would have directly resulted in far more civilian casualties than the nukes caused. They were given multiple chances to surrender.

In other words, they directly were responsible for those civilian deaths. Not the other way around.

RE: Amazing.
By spread on 12/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing.
By Wiggy Mcshades on 12/6/2010 9:49:38 PM , Rating: 3
The better option was to let soldiers die fighting for every last inch of what was left of the Japanese empire?

RE: Amazing.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/6/2010 10:18:18 PM , Rating: 3
It took the U.S over a month to capture an island 4 miles long by 2 miles wide.

The casualties were massive. The United States Marines lost 6,891 men and over 18,000 were wounded. There were only a total of 22,000 Japanese soldiers on the island during the battle, and only 212 were taken as prisoners.

This historical battle taught Americans the strength of Japanese defense. This short but important battle played a key role in the decision to use atomic bombs when attacking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The battle showed just how far Japanese troops would go to defend their country. The small island came at a high cost in regards to the amount of lives lost, and though America won the Battle of Iwo Jima, the Japanese proved that their defensive tactics were much stronger.

The simple fact is without the nukes this would have been repeated again and again and again. Better option indeed...

RE: Amazing.
By monkeyman1140 on 12/10/2010 1:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
It took the U.S over a month to capture an island 4 miles long by 2 miles wide. The casualties were massive. The United States Marines lost 6,891 men and over 18,000 were wounded. There were only a total of 22,000 Japanese soldiers on the island during the battle, and only 212 were taken as prisoners. This historical battle taught Americans the strength of Japanese defense. This short but important battle played a key role in the decision to use atomic bombs when attacking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The battle showed just how far Japanese troops would go to defend their country. The small island came at a high cost in regards to the amount of lives lost, and though America won the Battle of Iwo Jima, the Japanese proved that their defensive tactics were much stronger. The simple fact is without the nukes this would have been repeated again and again and again. Better option indeed...

In May 1945, the Soviets invaded Manchuria. The weakened Japanese forces were overwhelmed by the Soviets, and within only a few days the Soviets had captured huge swaths of China, and were preparing an attack on the Japanese mainland. The japanese had lost their will to fight and had no resupply.

RE: Amazing.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/6/2010 10:08:40 PM , Rating: 5
The Japanese didn't surrender after the two bombs. They surrendered days after when their casualties were too high to sustain.

Translation: It worked.

This was before cell phones and the Internet, hello? It was not uncommon for a decision that major to take "days" back then. Ever heard of something called the "fog of war"?

Need I remind you that the bombings were three days apart as well?

The two bombs simply leveled cities and killed civilians, and they still kill civilians because of the radiation.

No. You just said in the first paragraph what the bombs did. They inflicted losses beyond what the Japanese were prepared or able to endure, a key strategy in winning a war. This was how wars were fought and won back then. It was brutal, it was NOT tactical or clean. BOTH sides fought this way. Also it won the physiological battle. Something we apparently could not do with conventional tactics. They refused to be broken and give in even when it was almost certain they could not even sustain the war, much less win it.

take it into account before you say that what the United States did was "right".

Am I advocating for nuclear weapons to be used on population centers? No. I'm simply acknowledging the facts, that in THAT instance, it was the right thing to do.

You can argue with me all you want. But history has long since settled this debate I'm afraid, and your side lost it.

Enjoy playing Captain Hindsight though, all while enjoying the freedoms and liberties that the very action you denounce helped assure.

RE: Amazing.
By Skywalker123 on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing.
By Iaiken on 12/7/2010 10:39:26 AM , Rating: 1
This was how wars were fought and won back then. It was brutal, it was NOT tactical or clean. BOTH sides fought this way.

You keep saying that like some retarded parrot who doesn't really understand what he is spouting...


Up until three years ago, Congolese militiamen were killing and eating enemy civilians and combatants.

What you mean to say is that the US is trying to engage in a much more precise and discriminating war effort. I really do applaud them, but expecting the Taliban to fight a standard war is asinine at best when you look at their history. They waited out the Russians, they'll wait out the Americans and when they leave, whatever government is in power will be overthrown in another civil war and we're back to square one.

RE: Amazing.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2010 8:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Once again a Liberal demonstrates his lack of a context gene.

The discussion is about WWII. So I'm a "retarded parrot" because I didn't widen the scope of the discussion to all modern day examples since WWII?

Please for all's sake! Context context context!

RE: Amazing.
By snakeInTheGrass on 12/8/2010 1:59:56 AM , Rating: 3
"Translation: It worked." "This was how wars were fought and won back then. It was brutal, it was NOT tactical or clean. BOTH sides fought this way."

Sure, but I don't think that's what was being argued against, it's the moral case around it. Hey, gassing Jews (Nazis), raping & crucifying women (Soviets), firebombing/nuking civilians (England/US), slave labor (Nazis and Soviets)... If the U.S. hadn't won, there would have been quite a few leaders here being tried for major war crimes - and rightly so. Winning doesn't make you less of a war criminal, it just means you won't stand trial.

Had Japan / Germany won, those responsible for winning would have been heros and the Allies executed as war criminals. And some German with the tag Zurückzufordern77 would probably be justifying gassing millions and nuking New York as morally right and necessary to stop Stalin / US expansion in Asia / the British Empire's blocking of German expansion. And with schoolbooks written with the sun shining from Hitler's ass, who would argue that it wasn't needed, right? Did you want to see more German soldiers die???

At the end of the day, if you can justify firebombing or nuking civilians, you can justify flying a few airplanes into office buildings. If you decide there's no moral right or wrong for yourself, then it's tough to argue against the immoral methods of others.

RE: Amazing.
By Alexvrb on 12/6/2010 10:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of context, take it into account before you say that what the United States did was "right". The Japanese situation wasn't that simple.
Yeah, it really was. After fighting them on island after island, we came to understand them pretty well. We learned that they really WOULD fight to the last man. If we didn't drop the bombs, we would have had to invade mainland Japan. Not only would that involve the deaths of many, MANY more American and Japanese soldiers, but we would have *STILL* needed to bomb the S**T out of their cities, and cut off all supply lines.

If we didn't use an unconventional city-leveling super-weapon on them, they wouldn't have surrendered. Conventional warfare they were familiar with, and they had methods to deal with it, even if they would eventually lose. Their warrior spirit would not break easily. They make modern-day suicide bombers look downright squimish by comparison. So instead we presented them with something they simply could *not* fight against.

Bottom line, if we used conventional warfare methods to subdue Japan, there would have been even more civilian casualties than the atom bombs caused (due to conventional weapons, bombs, and things like lack of supplies causing starvation, etc).

RE: Amazing.
By kalak on 12/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing.
By lamerz4391 on 12/7/2010 2:09:20 PM , Rating: 1
Fuck you, you dirty piece of shit. If we were imperialist, we would own Japan and most of Europe today. Fact is, we were up against an enemy that WOULD NOT STOP, until faced with a superior, overpowering weapon. Would you rather millions more died as a result of having to invade mainland Japan? Would that have been more "civilized"?

RE: Amazing.
By Enoch2001 on 12/7/2010 2:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
You, north americans, are all cold blooded creatures.

I think this is generalization, and a poor one at that. Just because you don't agree with a few people posting on a public Internet forum doesn't give you license to accuse *ALL* North Americans of being cold blooded Imperialists. That said, I'm sure whatever country you're from - I guarantee you - has its own sordid past.

By the way - Nagasaki was a military target - not civilian. Were civilians killed? Yes - but it was also a military manufacturing center.

Hiroshima, on the other hand, was unfortunate. That said, I am thankful for the bombing of both cities and the stop of the Pacific front. Had it not happened, a land invasion was inevitable and I would not be here today - as my father served in the Pacific fleet during this time and more than likely would have been killed.

So yeah - call me biased - but I guess I get to thank the death of several hundred thousand people for my existence.

Gawddam - I'm so cold blooded, it hurts to pee.

RE: Amazing.
By bfellow on 12/7/2010 4:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
So you would rather be ruled by the Empire of Japan, Nazi Germany, and/or Italy?

RE: Amazing.
By Skywalker123 on 12/8/2010 11:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong, they were prepared to surrender with the condition that the Emperor remain. The bombs were dropped to intimidate Stalin

RE: Amazing.
By frobizzle on 12/7/2010 8:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
The two bombs simply leveled cities and killed civilians, and they still kill civilians because of the radiation.

No one knew, especially Japan, that those two bombs were all that we had at the time. They believed we had a warehouse full of A bombs and the next ones might likely be dropped on Tokyo. That thought alone had to weigh heavily on their minds and be very influential on their decision to surrender.

RE: Amazing.
By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 3:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
Tokyo was already destroyed by massive firebombing or they would hit it with the A bomb

RE: Amazing.
By Iaiken on 12/7/2010 10:27:03 AM , Rating: 1
What we did in WWII was right. Period. End of discussion.

What was done in WW2 on all sides; both axis and allies, was "legitimize" terrorism and acts of terror. What you fail to understand is that you can't open the door, walk through it and not expect others to follow.

War was different then. If you declared war, you were knowingly directly exposing your civilians to attack. America declared war.

Fixed! The fact is that war BECAME different win WW2 with the advent of total war. It's largely remained the same since and western peoples simply have to accept the reality that they are all targets and to go on with their lives.

Thousands and thousands of helpless men were killed in Pearl Harbor, along with 68 civilians. A gutless and unprovoked attack!

Give me a f***ing break, those men didn't sign up for a football team, they signed up for the military where your job is to get shot at and death is always a possibility. You're holding Japan up to your own artificial standards, war is primal, when it all comes down to it, anything goes.

Who draws that line? Can't be the Americans because during the War of Independence, they broke from the existing codes of war on numerous occasion without even blinking. Telling the Afghans to come out and fight a modern war against a superior army would be no different than telling the American militiamen to fight afield of the British line of battle.

I love how now that it's suddenly a pain in YOUR ass, terror tactics and guerrilla warfare are shunned. Hypocrites.

RE: Amazing.
By monkeyman1140 on 12/10/2010 1:48:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Japan was going to surrender, but as was typical of the Japanese back then, they had a bad habit of dragging their feet while they were trying to get assurances that Hirohito would retain the throne even under occupation.

The atomic bomb attacks were just Truman's way of keeping the Soviets out of Japan, who were already planning a massive invasion of Hokkaido from the Sakhalin islands.

Class is adjourned....

RE: Amazing.
By Wiggy Mcshades on 12/6/2010 9:25:18 PM , Rating: 1
I'm glad you showed your ability to copy and paste the I'm smarter than you forum post", sadly you've overlooked something. If you want to be smarter than someone or at least appear to be you should look up the facts of what you are talking about before you give a response. The Japanese had 2 of their own research program surrounding weaponizing nuclear fission. The leading scientist of one of projects was a close friend of Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein, although I imagine you have no idea what that implies. The Japanese at least on paper knew EXACTLY what an atomic weapon would be capable of. My argument was based on facts. Your argument was sadly based in a fantasy land where you can just come up with bullshit and it becomes true.

RE: Amazing.
By Iaiken on 12/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing.
By cscpianoman on 12/6/2010 5:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa! they're doing hernia checks now!? I need to go get a plane ticket:P

RE: Amazing.
By Luticus on 12/6/2010 4:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
holy god... my post was a joke... a snarkey reply to the poster above and nothing more.... Geeze i never meant to start a revolution. Chill pill anyone?

RE: Amazing.
By Bonesdad on 12/6/2010 11:14:40 PM , Rating: 4
no one expects to start a forum revolution!!

RE: Amazing.
By twhittet on 12/6/2010 6:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
I've worked with Iraqi police who wore ski masks and carried RPG's on their shoulder. Should have been thinking and got a picture with him!

RE: Amazing.
By wookie1 on 12/6/2010 3:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think someone once said: "the best defense is a good offense", or maybe that good fences make good neighbors.

RE: Amazing.
By hughlle on 12/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing.
By dj LiTh on 12/6/2010 3:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
If he had a peace symbol on his turban, and was going for the duality of man, maybe i'd buy it...

RE: Amazing.
By ClownPuncher on 12/6/2010 5:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
Props for the good movie reference.

RE: Amazing.
By walk2k on 12/6/2010 7:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
You think you're some kinda WRITER? You think you're MICKEY SPILLANE?

RE: Amazing.
By Kanazozo on 12/6/2010 2:41:48 PM , Rating: 4
Geeze, bash America all you want, but how can this be explained? This is not whistle blowing - this is catering directly to anarchy and terroism. These documents apparently span the globe - no matter where you are posting from, theres a good chance Wikilinks just told the terrorists how to hurt you.

Btw, jail is too good for Manning. I hate to say it, but its time to pull out the old firing line on this rat.

RE: Amazing.
By Spivonious on 12/6/2010 2:43:14 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, I think Assange has lost sight of his original goal. Power corrupts.

RE: Amazing.
By stmok on 12/6/2010 2:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe searching for WikiLeaks Manifesto could give us better insight?

RE: Amazing.
By InsaneGain on 12/6/2010 4:47:11 PM , Rating: 3
I think it's much more likely that rather than just being a whistle-blower, damaging the interests and reputation of the United States in any way they can was always Wikileaks goal.

RE: Amazing.
By xrodney on 12/7/2010 4:33:40 AM , Rating: 1
Tho I don't agree with releasing information about potential targets that could hurt any country, damaging reputation is usually done by party involved which do something that they shouldn't. None government should be over its law, they should apply to all its citizens without exceptions.

If you for example decide to attack some terrorist militant group to prevent them attacking you, I am fine with that, but if you do it over dead bodies of civilians, that should be considered war crime and punished on international level. Even hiding those incidents should be crime. Being embarrassed about it when it leaks should be your last concern.

RE: Amazing.
By InsaneGain on 12/7/2010 5:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
So you think those Apache pilots that killed those reporters in Iraq should be arrested for war crimes? What about the fact that they were in a warzone where thousands of Islamic militants were running around with AK-47s and RPG's, killing U.S. and Iraqi soldiers and slaughtering their fellow citizens every single day. What about the fact that those reporters were mingling with militants carrying RPG's? Those pilots legitimately thought that those reporters were armed militants. So should they be arrested for making a mistake in a warzone??? What you are saying assumes a perfect Utopian world, but unfortunately it doesn't work in the real world. It's a unavoidable fact that civilians will be killed during armed conflicts, especially in counterinsurgencies like Afghanistan and Iraq, where very often the insurgents are just villagers, ambushing patrols and digging roadside bombs for pay. In Afghanistan, the U.S. had to decide whether to let Islamic extremists continue the expansion of a an international terrorist training ground, whose express purpose is to kill civilians in the U.S. and elsewhere, or deny them this ability but also unavoidably lead to civilian casualties. It's called the lesser of two evils. The real world is not so black and white as you assume.

RE: Amazing.
By monkeyman1140 on 12/10/2010 1:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
Its perfectly legal to carry AK-47s openly in Iraq. Security and private forces regularly have to have hardware out in the open to protect their VIP's.

Also in Iraq, a family is entitled to have one personal assault rifle per household for self-defense. That is written into law.

The USA just broke its rules of engagement, like it always does because nobody is there to punish them. The Iraqi puppet government can't do anything.

RE: Amazing.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/6/2010 6:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I think Assange has lost sight of his original goal. Power corrupts.

This was always his original goal. As I and several other more level headed people have been insisting since the fist Wikileaks story broke on Daily Tech.

It's just hard to hear reason over the roar of rabid misplaced anti-American spewing Liberal schmucks who insist the U.S is responsible for all the wrongs in the world.

It's time to get real people. This isn't a grand crusade for truth and justice and exposing evils. It never was.

RE: Amazing.
By JasonMick on 12/6/2010 2:47:35 PM , Rating: 3

Geeze, bash America all you want, but how can this be explained? This is not whistle blowing - this is catering directly to anarchy and terroism. These documents apparently span the globe - no matter where you are posting from, theres a good chance Wikilinks just told the terrorists how to hurt you.

Btw, jail is too good for Manning. I hate to say it, but its time to pull out the old firing line on this rat.

I agree 100 percent. I can see in a way where people could defend the Afghani war memo release or certainly the chopper cam footage, but this is just ridiculous.

How is this whistleblowing?

What legitimate purpose does publishing a list of what the U.S. views as its most vulnerable locations serve, other than to endanger lives worldwide and inciting fanatics?

Perhaps when the Taliban started thanking Wikileaks we should have seen it as a sign of the direction in which this was heading...

I think the site just pretty much self-terminated and destroyed whatever credibility it had left in one fell swoop.

RE: Amazing.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing.
By JasonMick on 12/6/2010 3:15:38 PM , Rating: 5
Jason Mick's crusade against Wikileaks has become so ridiculous and disingenuous that I can't take this site seriously anymore.

Wikileaks official press release on this cable.

The document, while marked “SECRET//NOFORN”, was placed on SIPRNet, a network accessible by an estimated 2.5 million civilian, military and private sector employees.

Wikileaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said:

“The latest release from the Embassy Cables reveals US embassies were asked to gather information on key infrastructure and resources without the knowledge of, or consultation with, their host governments.

“This further undermines claims made by the US government that its embassy officials do not play an intelligence gathering role.

“In terms of security issues, while this cable details the strategic importance of assets across the world, it does not give any information as to their exact locations, security measures, vulnerabilities or any similar factors – though it does reveal the US asked its diplomats to report back on these matters.

“This leaked cable was, like the rest of the Embassy Cables, available to 2.5 million people, including civilian, military and private sector personnel – a very wide distribution for information claimed to be of such high sensitivity, and relating to so many foreign governments”.


I think there is nothing disingenuous with presenting facts and making an argument. That is what I have done here.

This information was classified, and not meant to be viewed by non-government employees, much less foreign nationals.

Its exposure doesn't hurt the U.S. gov't's credibility; it hurts the U.S. people and its allies by putting their lives in danger.

How can you not see the forest for the trees?? This is pretty blatant.... defending a position when the facts clearly contradict your viewpoint is not meritorious.

While I respect your opinion, and welcome debate, I can't believe that you continue to defend the site's actions when it has totally abandoned its supposed code of ethics (to only leak incriminating "whistleblowing" information).

And I'm sorry I could not meet whatever standard you have set for me, but your interpretation of these events is clearly radically different from that which I wrote here and that which is written on MOST major U.S. and British news sites following this development.

RE: Amazing.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing.
By marsbound2024 on 12/6/2010 3:28:52 PM , Rating: 3
Those people listed work for the United States government and probably have to be American citizens. They have security clearances, right? We don't give those out left and right.

By the way... I'd like to direct you to attend "The Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good." :)

RE: Amazing.
By JasonMick on 12/6/2010 3:33:21 PM , Rating: 5
SECRET//NOFORN is available to 2.5 million people, including civilian, military and private sector personnel – a very wide distribution for information claimed to be of such high sensitivity

Government contractors are the only civilians that would generally have access to this information. They are strictly monitored and bound by legal restrictions. Under those restrictions they can be prosecuted if they leak confidential information or abuse government resources.

Again, you're debating semantics here and are grasping at straws.

That's doing little to win your case.

The bottom line is that the U.S. government did share this information with its trusted partners , either contractors or in its employ. But it did NOT share this information with the world at large, including potential terrorists .

Surely you can grasp the difference?

The point is that publishing this serves no legitimate purpose and was a boneheaded and dumbfounding move. The fact that you continue to try to defend it by arguing semantics with me is impressive.

RE: Amazing.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing.
By knutjb on 12/6/2010 11:49:24 PM , Rating: 1
Just because 2.5 million had access to SIPR doesn't mean they all had access to the data in question.

I want to know who else in the Manning's supervision all the way up to General are being investigated for negligence. If Manning, who WAS having problems, should have been prohibited from entering the vault and had his personal items inspected once he was under question. Why were those files so easily and readily accessible to what appears to be anyone in the AOR willing to open any file on the server. Where were the compartments. There are a lot of people who must be outed and prosecuted for enabling the conditions that led to these leaks.

As for the Govt seeking to quash JA I don't think so. FYI the cat is out of the bag, again. If they really are they are extraordinarily incompetent, but then again...

If he keeps threatening to release more data, like the banking info, someone will clear his conscience for him to send a message to others helping him or thinking to do what he is doing. No, I don't condone that. I have more respect for people than JA who doesn't care if others are harmed in the release of this and other info. I think to JA others are just the useful idiots that can be sacrificed to satisfy his self-importance.

RE: Amazing.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing.
By dqniel on 12/6/2010 6:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
I get the feeling that these comments made by Paul were before these recent, more dangerous leaks.

RE: Amazing.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing.
By Robear on 12/6/2010 8:22:16 PM , Rating: 1
"in society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble"

Wow. It's nice to see we still have a shred of representation in office.

RE: Amazing.
By Paj on 12/7/2010 7:59:08 AM , Rating: 1
This comment is really what the whole Wikileaks debate is about.

Telling the truth = crime punishable by death.

That slope sure is slippery.

RE: Amazing.
By spread on 12/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing.
By Dark Legion on 12/7/2010 1:01:30 AM , Rating: 2
...or maybe not having this document in the first place? Accessible to a couple million people? All it takes is one.

RE: Amazing.
By Fritzr on 12/6/2010 9:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
On a separate note...
Wikileaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said:

“The latest release from the Embassy Cables reveals US embassies were asked to gather information on key infrastructure and resources without the knowledge of, or consultation with, their host governments.

This has always been true and will continue to be true for diplomatic posts worldwide of all governments. Diplomatic staff are public agents of a foreign power who report back to their government as opposed to the illegal 'secret' agents who are not registered agents of a foreign power.

It has been reported in the past and quietly forgotten after each incident that the US has CIA in diplomatic posts and the Soviets had KGB in their diplomatic posts and Russia today has intelligence agents based in their diplomatic posts. So do England, Germany, China etc. This has always been part of the diplomat's job description.

Publishing the secret cables providing information that can identify the informal contacts in target countries can get those contacts and their family killed. The Taliban have already published their gratitude for this kind of assistance.

An Iranian 'anonymous' source was identified as a fencing champion involved in Iran's nuclear program ... I am sure that disclosure didn't endanger an informant-not.

Just like the Taliban, the US has praised those who have exposed informants passing on US secrets, though they usually wait until they have taken out as many of those leaks as they could and at least tried to protect the source that identified the leaks.

This is the latest round of informants passing information to unfriendly governments. Just happens to be WikiLeaks with US and informants passing information to US the target this time round.

Assange is now in serious trouble ... every government will know they could be the next target even if they are praising him today.

RE: Amazing.
By zixin on 12/6/2010 3:23:11 PM , Rating: 3
SPIRNET - Secret Internet Protocol Router Network. The 2.5 million who have access to it all have security clearance that was granted after background investigations and who the US government trust not to leak this information. Also, I hardly call this "intelligence gathering" by the embassies. The request is to make an assessment of facilities that are important to the US, like the mentioned Panama Cannel. WikiLeak has definitely jumped the line.

RE: Amazing.
By Chaser on 12/6/2010 3:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
So you'll take Wikileaks as your trusted authority instead? Be our guests, please. Go give Assange a tongue bath while you wave your white flag of world peace and love. Please go worship your patriot.

Just in case you didn't have a clue, "SIPRNET" is a classified network that requires a minimal SECRET security clearance to gain access. So regardless of the "millions" of people that access it as part of doing their jobs -and them some apparently- releasing it to U.S. haters for publication to the world is a crime.

The truth about Wikileaks is that government agencies, diplomats, embassies all have a means of communication that, don't panic, have a level of secrecy to them in order to function properly. All states speak to one another at this level of discretion. Not only the U.S. Anyone that believes that only the U.S. is deserving of this ridiculous if not shameless behavior is truly that; a naive, U.S. bashing moron that hasn't a clue or respect for dipolomacy.

RE: Amazing.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing.
By thurston on 12/6/2010 8:29:43 PM , Rating: 3
Not many fans of Teddy Roosevelt on here.

RE: Amazing.
By The Raven on 12/7/2010 1:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
So you'll take Wikileaks as your trusted authority instead?

You obviously trust him too since you see this as factual information that he leaked.

We are free to do with the info what we see fit.

I don't plan on doing anything with it personally, but the guy who lives next to some dam might see this as a wake up call that he should move to a different area. This also might be useful in dissuading some local gov't from buliding a dam of their own in the first palce if they think it could be such a target.

I really don't see what the big deal is. Your community has either taken the appropriate precautions or they haven't. I mean should we tell the gov't to stop tipping off the terrorist to the fact that airplanes are a good terrorist target too, right? Let's just act like there is nothing wrong and let's hope they don't catch on. It would save us millions in security measures too lol!

RE: Amazing.
By The Raven on 12/6/2010 3:21:34 PM , Rating: 1
I do agree initially, but I would like to hear his reasoning straight from the horses mouth. I don't want to put words in his mouth just because I can't think of a legitimate reason for the leak.

But off the top of my head I guess it could be a way to let people know that they are living and working in 'at risk' locations that you would otherwise not be aware of. Of course I admit that I am talking out of my @55 here off the top of my head, but just because I can't see why this info is important now, doesn't mean that there isn't any value in it.

I guess it exposes what a shoddy job the DoD/DHS is doing leaving these spots vulnerable if they know how alluring they are to terrorists without doing much about it to secure them.

So the moral for me is: check this out to see if I live near any of these sites BEFORE I buy a house ;-).

RE: Amazing.
By theapparition on 12/6/2010 3:50:29 PM , Rating: 3
I guess it exposes what a shoddy job the DoD/DHS is doing leaving these spots vulnerable if they know how alluring they are to terrorists without doing much about it to secure them.

And just how do you expect the DOD/DHS to protect the Panama Canal? <Example>

That is considered a vital strategic location. But the US has no control over that interest. It's ownership and security was transfered back to Panama long ago. But by destroying that location, shipping routes for US goods and warships may be impacted, causing delayed response and logistics/supply problems.

Most of those important sites are in foreign countries, and don't affect the US at all, other than the disruption of services and goods from those areas.

Life isn't as black and white as Assange would have you believe. His dissemination of Manning's treachery has done nothing for the world public good.

RE: Amazing.
By The Raven on 12/7/2010 1:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't looking at it from soley a US perspective. And your example isn't very good because everyone and their dog know that the Panama canal needs to be and is protected with the cooperation of the many nations that use it. Including any terrorist. And remember that Panama and their neighbors are no strangers to terrorism.

And I didn't mean to say that the DoD is doing a shoddy job necessarily, but if they are doing their job well then we shouldn't be worried about this info getting out.

But all that said, I see your point. I was not trying to be the end all of the discussion though. As I said I would like to hear from his own mouth why he thinks this is a good idea to leak.

RE: Amazing.
By Ammohunt on 12/6/2010 3:45:10 PM , Rating: 1
Its appears to be his own personal war against the US and Western Civilization isn't he reputed to be a Anarchist?

RE: Amazing.
By thurston on 12/6/2010 8:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
I heard he worships Satan too.

RE: Amazing.
By Skywalker123 on 12/7/2010 12:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
I heard he was a pedophile too.

RE: Amazing.
By lamerz4391 on 12/7/2010 2:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
I heard he allegedly raped some chick. But if you are against the US, that's OK.

RE: Amazing.
By monkeyman1140 on 12/10/2010 1:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
He takes oxycontin and doesn't seed his torrents either.

RE: Amazing.
By Paj on 12/8/2010 7:55:05 AM , Rating: 2
You do realise that a lot of these 'vulnerable' locations are in fact in other countries? One of them is a mine in Western Australia that supplies a significant percentage of the global total of a specific ore.

There are many others. That one stuck out for me as Ive spent much of my life there.

What this means is that the US maintains a list of important locations. Many of these are in other countries. The importance given to these locations gives insight into US foreign policy and the ulterior motives that may guide it. This is a legitimate purpose, it promotes transparency as the other leaks do.

Normally I look past the accusations that others cast at your lack of professionalism on this site, as I like the content of what youre discussing. However I couldnt ignore this one. Its clear you did very little research and just wanted to vent.

RE: Amazing.
By NaughtyGeek on 12/6/2010 3:06:40 PM , Rating: 4
but how can this be explained?

Easily. This whole WikiLeaks incident is a CIA/DHS/FBI operation aimed at garnering public support for internet censorship. Nothing truly revealing has been released furthering that suspicion. If you want to know why this information has been released, look no further than whatever legislation is penned in response to it.

RE: Amazing.
By Calindar on 12/6/2010 9:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
This hypothesis makes absolutely no sense. The government would only have the power to censor what the American people could access on the internet. I don't think anyone is truly concerned that American's are able to see this information, they are concerned that our enemies can. Therefore, censoring the internet would have no impact on the real issues with leaks like this, and this conspiracy theory is baseless.

RE: Amazing.
By BailoutBenny on 12/7/2010 12:20:20 PM , Rating: 2

This man has got it correct. The more I look at it, the more I see wikileaks as an enormous concerted disinformation campaign.

taken from the ZeroHedge forums:

Expanded list - Points favouring that Wikileaks is a fraud of US intelligence agencies with Mossad, as noted on the web:
- Board members of Wikileaks from CIA-entities, including ones tied to CIA-Google contracts and funding, and to CIA's front NGO 'National Endowment for Democracy'
- Thrust of Wikileaks revelations supporting US war initiatives against Iran and for military intervention against Pakistan, trying to make Lebanese distrust and fear each other, slander of independent Al Jazeera news, other US & Israeli larger objectives
- Israeli Prime Minister happy about Wikileaks in effect supporting war in Middle East, and Julian Assange praises the Israeli Prime Minister
- Wikileaks has something like € 1 million in bank, € 200,000 annual budget, supposedly from small 'donations' via PayPal etc. ... but bigger sweetheart funding likely behind it
- Wikileaks website doesn't reflect million-in-assets organisation, many have done much more with much less
- One of Julian Assange's lawyers is also lawyer for US Associated Press, giant US-gov't linked corporate media agency, owned by major US media owned by ruling US oligarch families
- With € 1 million in assets, a small army of international lawyers, and Assange and friends 'expert computer hackers' ... they sign up for US-based internet services, just like they are a bunch of newbies on Facebook
- With all his great international legal team, Assange chooses to hang out in Britain, which has a uniquely corrupt fascist extradition treaty with the US, whereby the UK will hand anyone over to the US without evidence or probable cause, just because the US requests it ... The US gov't can fabricate charges against anyone in 5 minutes ... yet nothing is filed against Assange, even though the US could have him, just by simply asking their UK best buddies
- One of Wikileaks site names registered by Jimmy Wales founder of Wikipedia, notorious CIA-agent disinfo site (proven in Wired news etc.), Wales himself part of CIA-linked CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) major US gov't policy tool for oligarchs & establishment. Jimmy Wales is also a close personal friend of President of Israel Shimon Peres, even recently attending an intimate birthday party for him.
- Wikileaks has unusual super good access to corporate media, NY Times and UK Guardian, both shills - mouthpieces for US and UK governments and establishment, media with fake 'progressive' image but refusing to carry much anti-gov't reporting, however nice open door for Wikileaks
- Julian Assange hostile to other progressive revelations, Assange hostile to questioning about US 11 Sept for example
- Julian Assange childhood troubled, under tutelage of parental figures involved with CIA-mind-control-experiment-type application of severely mind-altering drugs upon children
- Assange has previously used internet code name 'Mendax', ancient Latin word for 'liar'
- Weird situation with Assange and Swedish girls, one of them previously published web treatise on how to get revenge on ex-boyfriend re false accusations, one of them has departed for Israel ...
- Was it time to put some 'heat' on Assange because too many people were beginning to write about the CIA-Wikileaks connections?
- Was it time to make it look like Wikileaks is anti-US, to cover for the fact it is a US intel operation?
- The best lies are those that mix some truth with the lies, and the US gov't, has little problem with a further expansion of the well-known fact it is a torturing, murdering, killing-of-innocents regime. A few more Iraq and Afghanistan war atrocities exposed, are a small price to pay for:
--- A world-class media manipulation project to help sponsor more upcoming wars, and
--- Enabling the US to achieve greater dominance over internet content, and
--- Enlisting other Western governments in US-led global efforts of internet censorship, as has already occurred thanks to Wikileaks.
Just sayin' ....
Video « Is Wikileaks a CIA Operation? », speaking of some of the above on YouTube:

RE: Amazing.
By frobizzle on 12/7/2010 8:32:44 AM , Rating: 2
Btw, jail is too good for Manning. I hate to say it, but its time to pull out the old firing line on this rat.

As far as I am aware, the death sentence is still on the books for the crime of treason and if Manning's actions don't qualify as treasonous, what does?

From the Three Stooges...
(As the Stooges are being lined up for a firing squad)
Curly: Oh boy! A 21 gun salute!
Sergeant: Oh, I think three guns will be more than enough.

RE: Amazing.
By Justin Time on 12/7/2010 9:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
"theres a good chance Wikilinks just told the terrorists how to hurt you"

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

What would make you imagine, for even a second, that if this guy has been handed (obviously, by Americans) a bunch of documents to publish, that the contents hadn't already been fully assessed and analysed by those who could take advantage of the information ?

USA govt I.T. security is a pathetic joke (witness: Gary Mckinnon) and access to so-called "secret" material almost child's play to those with the resources and intent to do harm to the USA.

Assange is simply making this material accessible to the greater unwashed public, as a tabloid form of espionage and intrigue, that is embarrassing to politicians around the world, but hardly news to those in intelligence gathering.

You can bet that there is nothing there that the various intelligence services, and rouge elements around the world, were not already fully aware of.

By Zaranthos on 12/6/2010 3:11:38 PM , Rating: 4
I'd rather see my tax dollars well spent. Lifetime in jail costs too much. I'll pay for the bullets for a firing squad though...

By marsbound2024 on 12/6/2010 3:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to say something to that effect, but I thought twice about it because some people who might be like "Oh but what about the justice system" and blah blah blah. Kudos to you for not trying to be politically correct, but instead straight to the point. You must be a Texan? lol

By Zaranthos on 12/7/2010 12:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
God bless Texas!

No, I'm not a Texan. But when some puke of a human being threatens to put my friends, family, or country in danger I have little tolerance for the fool. I'm also not in favor of mindless angry mobs but we have a court system that works too hard for touchy-feely fairness and not enough for justice. Why do we have prisons growing more and more populated with fanatics (crazed gangs, fanatic muslims, etc.) who get to spend a lifetime well cared for with all the time they want to "convert" people to their crazed and dangerous point of view? Why? The ones that pose a real danger, even locked away from society, should just be done away with once and for all. We're too civilized for our own good.

RE: Can we please do something about these asshats?
By edge929 on 12/6/2010 5:16:21 PM , Rating: 3
Rocks are free...

By monkeyman1140 on 12/10/2010 2:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
Rocks? What are you muslim?

By frobizzle on 12/7/2010 8:39:34 AM , Rating: 2
A stout rope and a sturdy tree limb..and these things are also reusable!

RE: Can we please do something about these asshats?
By pxnet on 12/6/2010 3:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
My question is, where the hell are CIA, NSA or whatever, whoever we have that can make this a-hole appear to have died naturally because he took too big of a sip out of his morning coffee. We are the United States of America for crying out loud, why are these pathetic excuse for human beings still breathing. /disclaimer, "I'm a lifelong, democrat, liberal" or whatever is the newest label applied to people like me.

RE: Can we please do something about these asshats?
By edge929 on 12/6/2010 5:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
Read my mind. Assassinating him would make him a martyr so they would have to make it look like an accident and deny it.

Would it shut down Wikileaks? No. Would it slow them down? Yes. Would it send a message for future Assange's? Absolutely. Is it strong-arming? Based on the fact that this latest "leak" is nothing more than a weapon for our enemies, with damage yet-to-be-seen, I'd make an exception and say no.

By Lerianis on 12/16/2010 5:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
Only in your mind is this latest leak nothing more than a weapon for our 'enemies'. The fact is that all of the information about 'terrorist targets' that Assange released can be EASILY found through NUMEROUS other sources on the internet.

Time to wake up, smell the coffee, and stop the flag-waving for one instant.

By Micronite on 12/6/2010 5:40:48 PM , Rating: 4
1) You believe too much of what you see on the TV and in the movies.
2) Because we are the United States of America, we need to be just in our dealing with these scumbags or we're really no better than the trigger-happy terrorists we are trying to eradicate.
3) I just wish I had more faith in the justice system that I could feel confident this guy would get executed.

RE: Can we please do something about these asshats?
By snyper256 on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
By Fritzr on 12/6/2010 10:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
The Taliban have already announced that they have used WikiLeaks to choose targets...are you saying that the Taliban were lying?

An Iranian informant was identified only as a fencing champion involved in the nuclear program ... of course they probably have thousands of fencing champions working on the nukes, so that won't affect anyone either.

You might want to try thinking first in future.

Your last statement is half right. WikiLeaks is not a rogue group attacking US. They are an organized group providing tactical information to anyone who wants to attack US or in some cases the information needed to kill sources providing information to US. Enemies of the US and US allies are grateful for the assistance. US and allies of course are not happy about the deaths of those who can be identified by information published by WikiLeaks and the affect it will have on others who might consider talking to US.

Governments who have infrastructure US considers vital to it's interests will be exceedingly unhappy with the way WikiLeaks has identified a short list of targets for various terrorists to attack.

By DarkPhoenix on 12/7/2010 12:47:16 PM , Rating: 1
It's great that you're not scared. You most likely live far, far way from any of those sites and also don't have anyone close to you there. So you just don't care about anything, if it doesn't affect you directly. If you were in that situation, your priorities would change and this a-hole and everyone involved in the release of these documents, would be on your "hit" list so to speak.

This particular portion of your "post" is just incredible, for all the wrong reasons: "WL is on YOUR SIDE, as a human being."

So leaking information to everyone that wants to read it, about sites that are important to the US, but may be vulnerable to attacks, is being on our side as a "human being" ? This wasn't known, except by the proper officials and maybe other nations, through spies and such. But now the whole world + dog knows about them, including terrorists. But in your skewed POV, I'm sure terrorists are the loving bunch, that will never use this information to harm anyone...

There must be some real brain cell deficit, for ANYONE to think this is beneficial in any way, to anyone...

By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 3:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
the proper label for you is asshat.

So exactly how...
By Homerboy on 12/6/2010 2:43:26 PM , Rating: 3
... can people still defend his actions for releasing this stuff? Now he is directly endangering civilians lives by releasing this information, which basically tells terrorists (or wanna-be-terrorists) what are prime targets (some may argue they would have know about the targets already, but that point is irrelevant. If that is the case, this report would just underline their beliefs and give credibility to them. Not to mention it would give information to those wanna-bes out there.).

This crap is appalling.

RE: So exactly how...
By Director on 12/6/2010 3:45:33 PM , Rating: 5
Don't be suckered, this is all part of the problem-reaction-solution game, just like 911. Only in this case we have alleged 'cyber-terrorists' and you might even see a cyber false-flag op (just for effect), the end result will be the total control over the internet and a complete repression of any information that criticises the U.S. govt. (Or any other manifestation of big brother) You'll also see a major destruction of torrent aggregate sites and other file-sharing operations. The DHS (yes, that nasty uber-dept. that's supposed to be dealing with 'terrists') has already begun seizing torrent sites ( yes, torrent sites, not 'terror' sites.

So this whole wikileaks show is turning out to simply be a tool of the powers that be to gain control of the last bastion of free speech left, make the most of the web while you still can.

RE: So exactly how...
By DarkPhoenix on 12/7/2010 12:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
Conspiracy theory nuts unite!

RE: So exactly how...
By VahnTitrio on 12/7/2010 10:06:57 AM , Rating: 2
While I'm certainly not going to defend it, I think I can at least explain it.

Wikileaks has lost just about all corporate level support (paypal, amazon, etc) and Assange/Wikileaks feel that they caved to US pressure. This is more or less payback for the recent events that have crippled Wikileaks. Realistically there aren't many other ways they can defend themselves so to speak.

RE: So exactly how...
By Mudhen6 on 12/7/2010 10:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
While I'm certainly not going to defend it, I think I can at least explain it. Wikileaks has lost just about all corporate level support (paypal, amazon, etc) and Assange/Wikileaks feel that they caved to US pressure. This is more or less payback for the recent events that have crippled Wikileaks. Realistically there aren't many other ways they can defend themselves so to speak. are defending them. Fail.

BTW, Paypal and Amazon are American companies, whose customer base comprises of a lot of Americans. They are under no legal nor moral obligation to support Wikileaks. Their primary goal is to make money, because they are a business.

Certainly, they do NOT have to support anarchy, despite your misguided notions.

I applaud Assange
By panhead20 on 12/6/2010 4:08:41 PM , Rating: 1
I applaud Assange for exposing America’s corrupt government. Once the American people see what is being done behind closed doors, they will throw these lying bastards out and elect representatives for the people and not corporations.

RE: I applaud Assange
By Techmandoo on 12/6/2010 4:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldnt even bother. The 'patriots' are out in force tonight. (Notice how Jason Micks usualy poor ratings have sky rocketed since he reported on something 'endangering national security?)

Mob mentality is hilarious.

RE: I applaud Assange
By roykahn on 12/6/2010 6:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
The truth will set you free...unless you're in America. The mass media, politicians, military, and business elite are just continuing the brainwashing of the American public. It also happens with American allies like Canada, the UK, and Australia. Fear and hate are strong emotions, and the media are simply continuing to use these tools to control public opinion.

There's much one can write about this topic, but I'd just like to point out that the quote of
While Mr. Assange is already evading detainment on Swedish rape charges in Iceland
is false. Julian has not been charged with any crimes and is not hiding from authorities over rape allegations. The truth is that his life has been threatened and rightly fears for his safety.

RE: I applaud Assange
By Mudhen6 on 12/6/2010 10:29:29 PM , Rating: 1
Truth will set us free? Who writes gay shit like that?

And FYI, I'm from Canada. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm brainwashed. And just because you disagree with me, I don't think you're brainwashed. See the difference? I, along with most citizens of the U.S. and her allies, can accept the fact that we disagree, and be civilized about it.

Contrast this to your position, which is basically "I'm right, you guys are brainwashed rednecks." I guess that's why the United States and the countries she counts as her allies are better than whatever hippie hole you emerged from to take (utterly ineffectual) verbal pot shots at "The Man."

RE: I applaud Assange
By lamerz4391 on 12/7/2010 2:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
I laugh at those that are so absolutely certain that their OPINIONS are the absolute truth, that anyone who disagrees must be brainwashed, stupid, or otherwise incapable of rational thought.

RE: I applaud Assange
By roykahn on 12/7/2010 5:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
If your sources of information are the mass media in countries like America, UK, and Australia then I'm afraid that you ARE brainwashed. Your opinions are shaped by the rulers of society for their own benefit. Wikileaks is supposed to show you the extent of government lying and corruption and yet people are closing their ears and eyes and pretending their leaders are still virtuous.

RE: I applaud Assange
By Mudhen6 on 12/7/2010 6:12:25 PM , Rating: 1
If your sources of information are the mass media in countries like America, UK, and Australia then I'm afraid that you ARE brainwashed. Your opinions are shaped by the rulers of society for their own benefit . Wikileaks is supposed to show you the extent of government lying and corruption and yet people are closing their ears and eyes and pretending their leaders are still virtuous.

Says the person speaking in rhetoric and making gross generalizations. If anything, YOU are brainwashed. You clearly have been compromised by your emotions.

Isn't it about time you got off your high horse and stop speaking down to people who disagree with you? It's insulting, and I'm genuinely embarrassed for you right now. Julian Assange is not the second coming, you're not a disciple of Wikileaks, and we don't need to hear you preaching. We have religion for that.

RE: I applaud Assange
By DarkPhoenix on 12/7/2010 1:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
Just like thinking about yourself only and not caring about whatever potential harm this might cause to innocent people, is just the saddest thing a "human being" (not really sure you fit this category) can do.

I'm not from the US and I'm far from a patriot, yet I can understand that these leaks may indeed cause problems to people that have nothing to do with whatever wrong doings governments did. And in case you missed it, these are the people that terrorists usually attack.
WikiLeaks want to "leak" information that will embarrass some government. Go ahead! WikiLeaks wants to "leak" information that can potentially be used in attacks that will only kill innocent people. No! You just crossed the line and you should pay for what you've done.

By bchandler02 on 12/6/2010 3:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
I say we go get this bastard and consider him a terrorist at this point. If he is leaking "top spots for terrorists to cause easy mass damage" documents, that sounds like terrorism to me. Screw this political correctness crap, let's get some special ops to go get him and put and end to this.

And, I'm just tired of hearing about wikileaks in general.

RE: Terrorism
By Techmandoo on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Terrorism
By Wiggy Mcshades on 12/6/2010 4:14:01 PM , Rating: 3
If someone threatens your life and property you have every right to be pissed. Highlighting where terrorists should attack to do the most damage isn't worth being mad about? When is it time for action then?

RE: Terrorism
By cyberserf on 12/7/2010 3:45:16 AM , Rating: 1
If someone threatens your life and property you have every right to be pissed.

no s*it and that is why they are attacking us. We threatened them on their property. All they want us to do is get the F out.

RE: Terrorism
By bchandler02 on 12/6/2010 4:45:16 PM , Rating: 4
There's no lack of reasoning and logical thought here. I didn't give a crap what this s**thook did up to this point. I didn't care about wikileaks.. never been to the site and never plan to. But when they post something that threatens our national security, I make a decision that this is considered terrorism and react accordingly.

So you'd rather us say "Ok, the docs got leaked, but terrorists most likely won't use it, so we shouldn't do anything"?

Sorry, if you believe in that, you might as well also leave your car unlocked in a parking lot with signs on the windows that say $100k cash inside. Good luck with that.

RE: Terrorism
By Lerianis on 12/16/2010 5:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but this is only a 'threat' if you severely stretch the defintion of threat. Numerous people have been pointing out that ALL of the information, EVERY SINGLE GODDAMNED PIECE , in this latest leak is available on the internet in another manner totally unconnected to the leak in question.

When something is common knowledge and is available in numerous other manners, you cannot say that something is a 'threat to our national security' just because you exposed the paper that shows that the United States made the same list that anyone with enough time and energy could make just by surfing the internet.

So its time to protect your citizens
By Wiggy Mcshades on 12/6/2010 4:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a tax paying citizen and there's some jerk off who just possibly endangered my life and the property that my taxes pay for. It's really time to put this guy down. My taxes pay for some of the best military hardware in the world, it's time to put it to good use. Honestly, I implore anyone who feels the same to contact who ever your representative(s) in the senate or house is and tell them you feel they need to do something about wikileaks. The US should protect its citizens, they should be looking out for us even if it gets foreign leaders upset. I had no real problems with the earlier leaks, but this is just flat out dangerous. If wikileaks had no idea that the US would respond in a hostile way to any of its sensitive information being stolen and made public then that indicates to me someone over there is probably way too stupid to have a hold of all this classified information in the first place.

RE: So its time to protect your citizens
By Techmandoo on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: So its time to protect your citizens
By Wiggy Mcshades on 12/6/2010 4:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
When someone threatens citizens of any country its the government has a responsibility to protect them. Are you seriously saying that what wikileaks just put out isn't threatening in any way? When is it time for action then? You go right ahead and tell me it's wrong to want this guy stopped, but you don't ever explain why its wrong. What is the right approach then? You apparently have some insight into this that I don't if you would go as far as saying I'm mentally disabled for having such an opinion, so lets hear it.

RE: So its time to protect your citizens
By Techmandoo on 12/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: So its time to protect your citizens
By Wiggy Mcshades on 12/6/2010 5:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
The person who gave the information to wikileaks is awaiting trial, I'd call that pointing a finger in the right direction. The wikileaks founder still chose to release information that doesn't expose anything besides giving terrorists some points on a map to think about. Do you care to comment on that? Does he not have to take responsibility for his actions? So again I ask you, when in your opinion does a group's actions become dangerous enough to warrant a response? Someone leaked the information to wikileaks and they had to chose what to do with the information. Just because they got the information from within the US how does that remove any responsibilities they have regarding what they do with it?

Also, "I doubt the 'terrorists' (those wonderfull little vague things that exist like a fart in the wind much akin to sadams WMD)" Where was that going?

By glennc on 12/7/2010 1:21:12 AM , Rating: 2
you people have no idea what has gone on behind closed doors between the 2 parties involved. maybe the US acted exactly like you have above and wikileaks called their bluff and released this round of leaks specifically because they were threatened if they did. who knows, that's the whole point.

i don't support what wikileaks has done but i also don't think i know everything about the situation like other people on forums... or any other situation in the media. it is BECAUSE of the media that i don't trust it.

By gescom on 12/7/2010 6:12:51 AM , Rating: 2
Can you imagine at least 100 million people in the USA thinking like this Wiggy Mcshades? At least 100 million retarded pro-war "me and my security" brainwashed consumer idiots?

Take some f**king responsibility!
By Edmond Dantes on 12/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Take some f**king responsibility!
By mindless1 on 12/7/2010 6:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
... and in related news, elsewhere in that and many other cites, rapes and murders constantly took place too.

However, you want to only point a finger at a rare exception instead of the norm, trying to pretend that if everyone is not perfect they are all bad?

In any population you have a few bad men. That will never change but what can change is whether these bad men are united together under bad leaders.

RE: Take some f**king responsibility!
By Edmond Dantes on 12/8/2010 8:57:43 AM , Rating: 2
So just because there are rapes and murders all around the world, means I can't point out this horrific crime?

And since when did rape and murder become "the norm"? Pretty twisted thing to call "the norm"...

I guess your name says it all - "mindless".

By mindless1 on 12/9/2010 7:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it means if you dwell on this particular crime instead of the topic of rape and murder in general that you are being biased, that you don't even care about the rape and murders only the excuse to point a finger.

Since when did rape and murder become the norm? Umm, since the beginning of recorded history? Unfortunately we cannot prove it happened before then, but that seems pretty likely too. Nothing at all twisted about accepting we do not live in a nirvana, accepting that things are as they are does not mean anyone condones these things.

... but, when all else fails you can always go with personal attacks because that is SO MATURE!

Jason Please Stop Turning DT into a Joke
By Techmandoo on 12/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Jason Please Stop Turning DT into a Joke
By Techmandoo on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Jason Please Stop Turning DT into a Joke
By Robear on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
By aston12 on 12/6/2010 8:22:08 PM , Rating: 3
Agree to, this article is his masterpiece of bias.

By lamerz4391 on 12/7/2010 2:19:40 PM , Rating: 1
You are an idiot. Anyone can rate him down. Once you post on the topic though, you can't apply any more ratings.

Better double up the tin-foil on that hat. Mick's gonna get ya!

By Dark Legion on 12/7/2010 12:29:57 AM , Rating: 3
I wholeheartedly agree. Though it was getting better for a while, he then came and slapped one after another wikileaks slam piece on us. And since I couldn't think of a better subject line myself:
with the bank complaining that the site submitted false details when making the account.

Mick, you can go into detail about SNL and Hillary Clinton not wearing underwear, yet you can't say that it's because he was supposed to be residing in Switzerland to have the account and when looked into he doesn't? You make yourself and this site look utterly foolish, way too often.

say wat?
By LesGrossman on 12/6/2010 6:36:55 PM , Rating: 1
So the terrorists were waiting for wikileaks to tell them that a nuclear power plants or a dam are very nice targets? It's this what dumb US residents really think? oh yeah lets kill the wikileaks guy for leaking a document where the obvious was stated.

Thank god that that between the massive debt, the illiteracy (not even cracking the top20), redneck US are paving fast it's way to global irrelevance.

RE: say wat?
By Mudhen6 on 12/6/2010 10:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like your living in a country that defines global irrelevance. Your deliberate misrepresentation of the arguments opposing your position is also very cute.

Sure, the items on Wikileak's hit list may be obvious, but it's one thing to suspect that a particular asset is an enemy high-value asset and another thing to have it confirmed for you by the enemy. Secondly, many of the items on the hit list are on foreign soil, whose security the U.S. has no control over. Ultimately, even if nothing amounts from this leak, this undermines U.S. diplomatic efforts, like the previous Wikileaks release of U.S. diplomatic documents.

In foreign relations, there seems to be two main courses of action: diplomacy, and war. Now, I'm not saying that war would be more likely if U.S. diplomacy is undermined, but come on guys, what good can honestly come out of releasing diplomatic cables?

This isn't whistle-blowing, and Julian Assange isn't being a hero.

And yes, diplomatic exchanges have to be classified. Why the hell should Ms Russia hear about the gossip being exchanged between Ms. USA and England?

Unless self-preservation isn't an issue, completely diplomatic transparency is suicidal.

RE: say wat?
By DarkPhoenix on 12/7/2010 1:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt most of the people supporting these leaks, actually know what these sites are and where they are located.

But despite the lack of reading comprehension, what I really don't understand in these people is how can they only think about themselves and not see that this has the potential of harming innocent people. These people fail at simple reasoning, yet complain about the illiteracy of others...

This is sad :(
By Robear on 12/7/2010 1:46:09 PM , Rating: 3
Please consider the following facts.

1) The cables leaked by a young US citizen, not by Wikileaks. Julian Assange is being held accountable for distributing information over the internet, which however immoral, is NOT illegal.

2) The cables could have been released as a whole, but Wikileaks HAS been reviewing and censoring the information - as a news organization would.

3) A LOT of cables have been released. Which ones have you heard about? The ones damaging the US or the ones damaging Assange?

4) We believe in Freedom of Speech in the US. Does this not apply to people who are not US citizens? Is this not a universal right we should protect? Or does this only apply to when it doesn't hurt us?

5) The "rape" charges are because Assange's condom broke during sex and he allegedly didn't stop. One of the women has PUBLIC ties to US intelligence.

6) Assange went in for an INTERVIEW with BRITISH authorities. He did not negotiate a SURRENDER. When he went in for his INTERVIEW, he was handed to the Swedes against his will.

7) Wikileaks has a good history of revealing illegal actions perpetuated by our government, namely ACTA. Please research this. It imposes laws that violate freedoms in the interest of profiteering.

I read an article that stated it the best:

......'The Wikileaks Cables are plump with evidence of US
.......doublespeak, proof that "conspiracy-minded" Middle
.......Easterners are, well, correct on most counts.'

But we don't hear about this. The US has successfully orchestrated a media diversion. You can listen to the media and become an emotional puppet like our very own Jason Mick, or you can look at the facts and draw your own conclusions about whether the actions of OUR GOVERNMENTS are LEGAL. Not JUSTIFIED, but LEGAL. Few of us are qualified to determine if these are JUSTIFIED. This is why we have a LEGAL SYSTEM with COURTS.

A lot of actions taken by our governments against Assange are not only immoral, but ILLEGAL. Nothing Assange has done is ILLEGAL. Why is he the bad guy here?

The FACTS are out there. All you need to do is google a bit outside of the mainstream US media. Dig through the opinions and find the facts. They're THERE.

I hope that key gets distributed now.

RE: This is sad :(
By Paj on 12/8/2010 8:03:18 AM , Rating: 2
Best post in this article so far. Thank you.

We are upon the decade of too much information
By PAPutzback on 12/6/2010 2:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
I am surprised this guy is still in existence. I figured the Russians would have swept him up by now and we would never hear from him again.

What would happen if someone hacked wikileaks and fabricated a few stories, so far everything must be true because no one is denying anything. So if a fabricated story were to be on there someone like Kim Jong Il would take it at face value on go off.

I say we go back to local and national news and let the world take care of itself.

By Homerboy on 12/6/2010 2:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
thats a good point about the hacking of the site that I hadn't thought of. I wonder what Wiki's response to such a hack would be. How adamently they'd be about correcting any fabricated stories.

Update 2: The Brit's Got 'em!
By CBeck113 on 12/7/2010 6:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
Just read in a German website ( that Assange was arrested in London. Let's hope he gets extrodited to a prison somewhere in the midwest, then we won't have to worry about a trial.
Servus, Charlie

RE: Update 2: The Brit's Got 'em!
By CBeck113 on 12/7/2010 7:23:39 AM , Rating: 2
Just read on CNN that it's on the Swedish warrant...oh well. And yes, I saw my misspelling of "extradited" - sorry.
Servus, Charlie

It wasn't rape
By Dribble on 12/7/2010 4:22:24 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know about the leaks but calling his sex charge "rape" is wrong. The official term is something like "sex by surprise". This meaningless term means he had consensual sex with a woman but wasn't wearing a condom which is a crime in Sweden.

"No Laughing Matter"
By FoundationII on 12/6/2010 5:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently this is exactly what our current national security is though. Are we to expect that the information wikileaks somehow manages to obtain is secure from well funded terrorist groups?

I don't think it's worrisome that wikileaks published the information. They publish just about everything they receive anyway. The real problem seems to be the fact that it receives more leaks from the US than from anywhere else.

By Robear on 12/6/2010 7:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
--------------------------------------------------< br />Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, said that while it might interest potential attackers to know what facilities the United States deems sensitive and critical, a motivated attacker is capable of selecting his own targets without government aid.

“My own opinion is that there’s no shortage of potential targets that hostile actors might find interesting, and they don’t need a State Department list to assist them,” he told Threat Level, noting that the list, produced in a run-on format, makes it difficult to decipher.

“The good news is it’s hard to read,” he said. “Talk about security through obscurity … this is one boring memo. You have to be really committed to get through this.”
------------------------------------------------- -


News that is bias with an agenda is not news: it's propaganda.

This situation is entirely out of control and DT is a part of the problem.

DT has lost all credibility with me. Keep up the good work Mick. At this rate you'll have the world's most popular blog, erm, I mean news site.

Only site I've seen
By AliShawkat on 12/6/2010 8:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
that's full of numskulls. I couldn't care less about what the government wants to hide and good job for Julian Assange for bringing Transparency. Release everything!!!!!!!!!!! Jason is a hater. Haters gonna hate.

Targeting the US
By masamasa on 12/6/2010 8:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a US citizen, but I can without a doubt say there are far worse governments out there and I think we all know that. If he's truly an advocate of free speech he should prove it by exposing the governments of the world and not just the US. This is nothing more than a smear campaign from the looks of things.

Taken down?
By danrien on 12/6/2010 10:17:42 PM , Rating: 2 - Indeed...

Sensationalist writing
By 5150Joker on 12/6/2010 10:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
This article reads like the garbage written by Fox News or a cheap sensationalist rag. DailyTech needs to get some real writers or fire the clowns that write articles like this.

not yet
By glennc on 12/6/2010 11:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
at least let the guy release some UFO info and then you can go to war against him.

By Lerianis on 12/7/2010 12:10:14 AM , Rating: 2
To anyone with a brain and access to the internet. It's time to realize that he is just putting out things that the government has put out and pointing out how the GOVERNMENT having lists like this, if they leak to the wrong person, are damaging.

Basically, they shouldn't be compiled in the first place or if they are compiled, they should be destroyed immediately after they serve their use.

Horribly one sided
By CommanderJ1 on 12/7/2010 4:16:09 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell?

This horribly misleading, one sided piece of trash article is enough to make me want to stop visiting DailyTech. It shines through in every single sentence just what the writer thinks about wikileaks. It's the same with the previous 'news' article here about wikileaks.

Honestly, if you can't manage even a hint of objectivity, go find something other than journalism to do.

By BruceLeet on 12/7/2010 11:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
If wikileaks published a PREDETERMINED list of targets terrorists are looking to terrorize then what's the big deal.

Amazing Diversity,regrettable logic
By a1trips on 12/8/2010 11:15:12 AM , Rating: 2
Opinions range from pro- Pax americana to pro islamic jehad,but here's the thing.Jason is a creature of his circumstances and so are most of us.

Kudos Jason for taking a stand, any stand is okay but a patriotic one adds ooomph. i enjoy your writing , although i have never commented before, the topics didn't deserve it.

i am tempted to quote" those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it." Hm, i quoted it, forget who said it.. some one help

Wikileaks is a symptom, not a Disease. The Disease is the big fat elephant in the room called China that is frankly BANKROLLING America, and i bet the entire US govt will go to war except admit they been pwned.But the debate will never be defined in these terms because these terms do not exit\s.ah well, so long as no one notices the dragon lady thinks china is Americas banker, all is well.

Afghanistan has been a graveyard of empires for millenia, Expecting them to stop now was never worth an eyeblink, but wikileaks, ah. The rats in americas royal banquet are spilling wine and hopping chairs today. what price freedom?
cryptic i know

How Silly
By monkeyman1140 on 12/10/2010 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
Terrorists do their homework anyway. Its not like any of this information is useful to them.

Terrorists don't aim to cripple the USA infrastructure anyway, their aim is to attack targets to get the maximum political and social repercussions, even if the target is really minor. The symbolic acts of terrorism are far more important than any physical damage.

Osama may have knocked down a few buildings, but his real goals were achieved when that idiot Bush turned the USA into a police state and blew hundreds of billions of dollars on wars and no-bid contracts to money-wasting companies.

Happy Days?
By The Insolent One on 12/6/2010 4:55:35 PM , Rating: 1
The Fonz would like to send a warm welcome to Wikileaks and Julian Assange as the newest member(s) to officially "Jump The Shark."

Julian Assange's lavish lifestyle
By Robear on 12/6/2010 8:06:04 PM , Rating: 1
The Swiss bank account that was frozen reportedly contains ~US$30k. How many times has it been reported that Julian Assange is living a "Lavish Lifestyle" based on "criminal activities."

I don't know a single person living a lavish lifestyle with $30k in the bank.

Watch these two videos in order:

Julian Assange has been very successful at demonstrating exactly how little "truth" is in our news, and how much information is withheld from the American people "in our best interest."

This is complete BS.

Different daily tech author please
By aston12 on 12/6/2010 8:20:16 PM , Rating: 1
Really i planned to not post anymore but this is getting ridiculous, how much biased and propaganda talk can this article be.

I wonder how it would look like if some other author on this site would wrote a wiki leaks article.... .

Commenting on the topic i would say: it was the government who leaked it on a non secure or a network which was accessible by to many people. Wiki leaks just made it even more public. To me it does not feel as an attack to the us at all, enough other countries are included...ok more targets in the usa but where does the info come from... .

I also doubts terrorists need this list in any way. I would assume an effective terrorist organization already knows about those locations.

By bernardl on 12/6/2010 9:23:36 PM , Rating: 1
Is there really any doubt that this supposed "wikileak" information was not released by them?

The type of information is totally different from previous releases. It appears to be hurting the US but it is obviously not as any 10 years old could have figured out this list of supposed "terrorist" targets. The only people being hurt by this release is Wilileaks themselves and there is not way they could be THAT stupid.

Guys for G... sake, THINK!


By Edmond Dantes on 12/6/10, Rating: 0
"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki