WikiLeaks - Page 5

Strangler Lewis · 12-10-2010, 02:41 PM

Someone named Julian Assange is obviously a fictional character in a spy thriller. That we take any of this seriously is proof that we have all entered an alternate reality.

Kevy Baby · 12-10-2010, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Someone named Julian Assange is obviously a fictional character in a spy thriller. That we take any of this seriously is proof that we have all entered an alternate reality.

Alright... who took the red pill?

Alex · 12-10-2010, 02:49 PM

And out of curiosity, int he first paragraph of his speech did Ron Paul call Obama a neocon? Or is he saying that neocons form a shadow government and Obama is not really a national leader? (Which, knowing some of the wackier things Paul believes, could be what he means).

innerSpaceman · 12-10-2010, 03:12 PM

Executive Order 12958, issued by Bill Clinton in 1995, gave just 20 officials, including the President, authority to classify documents as top secret. Sounds good, huh? Yeah, but it allowed those 20 to delegate their authority to 1,336 others. As it turned out, that derivative authority was eventually handed to some 2 million government officials and a million industrial contractors (per a 1997 bipartisan congressional report).

Yeah, um, do the math. To paraphrase The Incredibles ... when everything is secret, nothing is.

Alex · 12-10-2010, 05:01 PM

To classify as secret or top secret? Unless my initial reading was wrong, nothing in these releases through Wikileaks has been rated higher than secret.

innerSpaceman · 12-10-2010, 06:23 PM

Top secret. And from what I understand, there may be top secret documents yet to be released by WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning, the army intelligence analyst who downloaded the cables, did so from both the SPIRNet system (garden variety secrets) and from JWICS, the system used to transmit top secret documents.

In any event, I think going, within 2 years, from 20 people to 3 million people authorized to classify documents as top secret means many more things have been classified as top secret than can possibly be kept under wraps.

Meanwhile, the focus seems to be on Assange, with a subsidiary focus on the leaky state of U.S. intelligence - but where's the focus on the content of the leaks? All this blaming the messenger and the source security stuff is weaksauce, imo.

It seems to be deflection, deflection and working. I'd have to agree that the previous leaks about Iraq and Afghanistan didn't cause this much of a stir because the military didn't have nearly as much ability to scream bloody murder.

Alex · 12-25-2010, 10:01 AM

Obviously, the CIA caught him up in a jewypot. They fall for it every time.

12-10-2010, 02:41 PM	#1
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	Someone named Julian Assange is obviously a fictional character in a spy thriller. That we take any of this seriously is proof that we have all entered an alternate reality. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

12-10-2010, 02:49 PM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	And out of curiosity, int he first paragraph of his speech did Ron Paul call Obama a neocon? Or is he saying that neocons form a shadow government and Obama is not really a national leader? (Which, knowing some of the wackier things Paul believes, could be what he means).
	Submit to Quotes

12-10-2010, 03:12 PM	#4
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Executive Order 12958, issued by Bill Clinton in 1995, gave just 20 officials, including the President, authority to classify documents as top secret. Sounds good, huh? Yeah, but it allowed those 20 to delegate their authority to 1,336 others. As it turned out, that derivative authority was eventually handed to some 2 million government officials and a million industrial contractors (per a 1997 bipartisan congressional report). Yeah, um, do the math. To paraphrase The Incredibles ... when everything is secret, nothing is.
	Submit to Quotes

12-10-2010, 05:01 PM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	To classify as secret or top secret? Unless my initial reading was wrong, nothing in these releases through Wikileaks has been rated higher than secret.
	Submit to Quotes

12-10-2010, 06:23 PM	#6
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Top secret. And from what I understand, there may be top secret documents yet to be released by WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning, the army intelligence analyst who downloaded the cables, did so from both the SPIRNet system (garden variety secrets) and from JWICS, the system used to transmit top secret documents. In any event, I think going, within 2 years, from 20 people to 3 million people authorized to classify documents as top secret means many more things have been classified as top secret than can possibly be kept under wraps. Meanwhile, the focus seems to be on Assange, with a subsidiary focus on the leaky state of U.S. intelligence - but where's the focus on the content of the leaks? All this blaming the messenger and the source security stuff is weaksauce, imo. It seems to be deflection, deflection and working. I'd have to agree that the previous leaks about Iraq and Afghanistan didn't cause this much of a stir because the military didn't have nearly as much ability to scream bloody murder.
	Submit to Quotes

12-25-2010, 10:01 AM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Obviously, the CIA caught him up in a jewypot. They fall for it every time.
	Submit to Quotes