Ron Paul: 9 Questions about Wikileaks

[rambone]

YouTube - Lying is Not Patriotic

Ron Paul's questions:

1. Do the American people deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan & Yemen?

2. How could an Army Private gain access to so much secret information?

3. Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not our government's failure to protect classified information?

4. Are we getting our money's worth from the $80 Billion per year we spend on intelligence gathering?

5. Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths? Lying us into war, or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

6. If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the 1st Amendment and the independence of the internet?

7. Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire, than it is about national security?

8. Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war - which is treason - and the releasing of information to expose our government's lies that promote secret wars, death, & corruption?

9. Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong? Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised, "Let the eyes of Vigilance never be closed."​

 

[machete]

YouTube - Lying is Not Patriotic

Ron Paul's questions:
4. Are we getting our money's worth from the $80 Billion per year we spend on intelligence gathering?

WINNER!!!

5. Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths? Lying us into war, or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

WINNER!!!

6. If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the 1st Amendment and the independence of the internet?

WINNER!!!

7. Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire, than it is about national security?

WINNER!!!

8. Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war - which is treason - and the releasing of information to expose our government's lies that promote secret wars, death, & corruption?

WINNER!!!

9. Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong? Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised, "Let the eyes of Vigilance never be closed."

WINNER!!!

 

[Denny347]

Great questions.

 

[jedi]

lol!

Serious note all good questions & too bad the sheep are not bothering to listen to him.

 

[88GT]

Ron Paul's questions:

1. Do the American people deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan & Yemen?

2. How could an Army Private gain access to so much secret information?

3. Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not our government's failure to protect classified information?

4. Are we getting our money's worth from the $80 Billion per year we spend on intelligence gathering?

5. Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths? Lying us into war, or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

6. If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the 1st Amendment and the independence of the internet?

7. Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire, than it is about national security?

8. Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war - which is treason - and the releasing of information to expose our government's lies that promote secret wars, death, & corruption?

9. Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong? Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised, "Let the eyes of Vigilance never be closed."​

Not that there isn't some real validity to asking these questions, but a few are worded to imply a dichotomy that doesn't really exist. 7 and 8 come to mind.

Some people might be upset that the man behind Wikileaks apparently has no compunction about releasing information that could potentially lead to their deaths. That it hasn't happened yet is not the standard by which to judge that detail. Given Assange's admitted dislike for the U.S. (which you can bet is only partially rooted in his dislike for the war)and his penchant for disregarding the advice of his "staff" in not releasing document with names to protect those people, I don't have a whole lot of faith that he's going to have a come-to-Jesus moment and grow a conscience all of a sudden. If it benefits him directly and/or harms the U.S. in any way, I think he's game to release it. All other factors are irrelevant in his mind.

And question 8 assumes there is no middle ground between direct criminal espionage/spying and the mere revelation of information embarrassing to the government. It also assumes that embarrassing information has no other potential for negative consequences. So Mr. Paul is trying to infer that if it doesn't meet the standard of legal treason/espionage, it must automatically be just a minor inconvenience of an embarrassing nature.

Yes, Americans deserve to know what our government is doing. But at what cost?

There are better ways to achieve transparency than internationally embarrassing a nation, putting diplomatic relations in jeopardy, and creating a hit list for our enemies.

Mr. Paul seems to be suffering from the same form of myopic superiority complex he's pointing out in others.

 

[Prometheus]

Yes, Americans deserve to know what our government is doing. But at what cost?

And what is that cost? Your responses have been pretty level headed (even though we disagree), From some other people on this board the sky is falling over the 'cost'.

I must ask... what is the cost? What is the cost of documents that have been released time and again since the mid 90's?

There are better ways to achieve transparency than internationally embarrassing a nation, putting diplomatic relations in jeopardy, and creating a hit list for our enemies.

Please tell us what those are? We asked for transparency after Clinton. It got worse. Obama was going to "put it all on cspan". It's gotten worse.

The Office of the President is just one facet of a government that wants us to know NOTHING.

Please, tell us about these "better ways".

 

[88GT]

And what is that cost? Your responses have been pretty level headed (even though we disagree), From some other people on this board the sky is falling over the 'cost'.

I must ask... what is the cost? What is the cost of documents that have been released time and again since the mid 90's?

I don't know. That's exactly the little detail I've been harping on since this issue came up for discussion around here. That's why I posed the question. You're railing against those who say any cost is too much. How about the other side of that coin where for some there is no cost too great? (Nobody's answered me about whether the lives of the Afghan informers is worth the results of the leaks. At best, all I've gotten in response is a pathetic, "Nothing's happened yet." )

I'm certainly not in a position to know what the fall out has been. I don't think any one person can know it either. I think direct and large-scale consequences would be obvious. But the chain of events emanating from a single piece of information falling into the hands of someone who shouldn't have it can hardly be known precisely. Let alone all of them. It's a foolish thing to say that no such fall out has occurred either. Knowledge is power. Just because you don't see it being wielded in the public eye doesn't meant it's not.

Please tell us what those are? We asked for transparency after Clinton. It got worse. Obama was going to "put it all on cspan". It's gotten worse.

The Office of the President is just one facet of a government that wants us to know NOTHING.

Please, tell us about these "better ways".

Either you didn't grasp the fact that I wasn't being strictly literal. Or it serves your purpose to pretend that I was.

Wish I could answer your question with specifics though. Unfortunately, I can't. But I can say with some confidence that rushing headlong into an action the consequences of which are not fully thought-out can never be the optimal action. There is little regard for the potential for extremely bad juju to come from this (based on the pathetic platitude that "Nothing's happened yet" ) That's my whole point. Yet. In this particular case, past consequences are not at all a valid indicator of future consequences.

Particular when you factor into the equation that Assange doesn't give a rat's ass about government transparency. He's interested in one thing and one thing only: making a name for himself while simultaneously embarrassing a nation he despises. (Honestly, what does he give a **** about the U.S. for?) I hate to sound like a broken record, but what happens when Assange decides the consequences of the information leaked so far have fallen short of his desired effect? What then? What if he is willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people to make his point? I feel I've said it a thousand times lately, you cannot judge the actions of a man solely by the consequences. If you fail to take into account why he did it, you put yourself at risk of becoming the "victim" of his actions in the future.

There is very little effort to look beyond the immediate effect around here by those who refuse to hold him in contempt. I just think in this particular instance, it's the wrong way by the wrong man to get the right results. With that said, I don't have a moral issue with releasing confidential information to bring government deception to light, provided there has been some serious attempt to limit the consequences to that and only that. I guess I just don't see Assange giving a damn about mitigating the damages, and that's what bothers me.

 

[Garb]

There are better ways to achieve transparency than internationally embarrassing a nation, putting diplomatic relations in jeopardy, and creating a hit list for our enemies.

Aside from Transparency, have we not already been doing this?

Wish I could answer your question with specifics though. Unfortunately, I can't. But I can say with some confidence that rushing headlong into an action the consequences of which are not fully thought-out can never be the optimal action. There is little regard for the potential for extremely bad juju to come from this (based on the pathetic platitude that "Nothing's happened yet" ) That's my whole point. Yet. In this particular case, past consequences are not at all a valid indicator of future consequences.

Particular when you factor into the equation that Assange doesn't give a rat's ass about government transparency. He's interested in one thing and one thing only: making a name for himself while simultaneously embarrassing a nation he despises. (Honestly, what does he give a **** about the U.S. for?) I hate to sound like a broken record, but what happens when Assange decides the consequences of the information leaked so far have fallen short of his desired effect? What then? What if he is willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people to make his point? I feel I've said it a thousand times lately, you cannot judge the actions of a man solely by the consequences. If you fail to take into account why he did it, you put yourself at risk of becoming the "victim" of his actions in the future.

There is very little effort to look beyond the immediate effect around here by those who refuse to hold him in contempt. I just think in this particular instance, it's the wrong way by the wrong man to get the right results. With that said, I don't have a moral issue with releasing confidential information to bring government deception to light, provided there has been some serious attempt to limit the consequences to that and only that. I guess I just don't see Assange giving a damn about mitigating the damages, and that's what bothers me.

I'm not going to argue with you on that. Assange is an a$$hole and his intentions are bad, no doubt about it, and the techniques he are using will probably result in someone's death. And that sucks, and I certainly would not wish harm on any of our allies or individuals who may be giving us intel. HOWEVER, look at question six. In my mind, this is the most important of all the questions that are asked. It's kind of a double edged sword, and I don't think that it would matter how you slice it, innocent people will still die and/or get f***ed at this point. Why? Because as big of a jerk as Assange might be, he is standing up to a group of bigger jerks, the U.S. Federal Government. I would argue that they have brought this on themselves AND the people who are in jeopardy due to the leaks. His motive might be for chaos, but the motives of our government are just as bad, if not worse.

 

[mrjarrell]

There are better ways to achieve transparency than internationally embarrassing a nation, putting diplomatic relations in jeopardy, and creating a hit list for our enemies.

Actually, Wikileaks way works just fine. The level of embarrassment for the US in these releases has been phenomenally low. The level for other countries has, so far been quite high. You really haven't been reading any of the released cables or the stories about them, have you? You're working from a point of ignorance. I'd suggest you actually go somewhere like The Guardian and read the released cables, before making up your mind any more than you already have. To date...no lives have been put at risk, especially soldiers lives, with the release of these diplomatic cables. What have we learned? Lots of things we otherwise wouldn't have know. Like Shell oil essentially running Nigeria, the Catholic church refusing to cooperate with Irish authorities on child rape, Phizer experimenting on people in Africa and Saudi Arabia wanting us to start a war with Iran and much more. Read them, (there are still daily releases...thus putting the lie that Assange is necessary to their operation) and then talk about them from the stand point of someone who is speaking about information they're actually familiar with. The Wikileaks releases aren't about the US, it's about the world. And, contrary to the song, we aren't the world.

 

[Prometheus]

I don't know. That's exactly the little detail I've been harping on since this issue came up for discussion around here. That's why I posed the question. You're railing against those who say any cost is too much. How about the other side of that coin where for some there is no cost too great? (Nobody's answered me about whether the lives of the Afghan informers is worth the results of the leaks. At best, all I've gotten in response is a pathetic, "Nothing's happened yet." )

15 days would be pathetic. What we have is 15 years of chicken littles (which by this post will now include you) claiming everyone is going to die and no one has yet.

As I said in a previous post, if Obama could show a single person who has died because of these leaks, he'd be dragging their corpse thru times square screaming "I told you so".

15 years and counting.

I'm certainly not in a position to know what the fall out has been. I don't think any one person can know it either. I think direct and large-scale consequences would be obvious. But the chain of events emanating from a single piece of information falling into the hands of someone who shouldn't have it can hardly be known precisely. Let alone all of them. It's a foolish thing to say that no such fall out has occurred either. Knowledge is power. Just because you don't see it being wielded in the public eye doesn't meant it's not.

You mean like how the US allowed (among other things) the names of every Iraqi pilot who flew bombing missions over Iran being executed and their immediate families because of a total lack of regard and failure of "intelligence"... it's pretty easy to connect the dots... when you can actually see the dots and that takes the light of truth.

Either you didn't grasp the fact that I wasn't being strictly literal. Or it serves your purpose to pretend that I was.

You and I are normally on the same side, so don't be so shocked when (like normal) I call out silly and outlandish sound bytes.

Wish I could answer your question with specifics though. Unfortunately, I can't. But I can say with some confidence that rushing headlong into an action the consequences of which are not fully thought-out can never be the optimal action.

Headlong... Hmmmm begging for transparency for DECADES isn't rushing into much... which brings us to a great point... or distraction...

For brevity sake I'll snip all the assange hating becaus eone single jackhole doesn't make wikileaks nor did assange steal any of that information.

Assange is a distraction. Just like the idiotic thought a private alone had access to 250,000 diplomatic cables from all over the globe... completely discounting the fact that sectors are completely segmented.

What we have is chicken littles runnign around half cocked because a few "buzz words" got them all fired up.

It's made these chicken littles ignore all reason and logic and failure to use the least bit of deduction to figure out what is actually going on...

I guess I just don't see Assange giving a damn about mitigating the damages, and that's what bothers me.

Get over assange. It's one guy. Move on and scales will fall from your eyes.

 

[Duncan]

My Hero RP

 

[Eddie]

2. How could an Army Private gain access to so much secret information?

3. Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not our government's failure to protect classified information?
​

These are the two that bother me the most. I don't like Assange, but I see him as more of a symptom than the real problem. Why aren't we howling for the blood of whatever idiots gave a demoted PFC with mental issues access to our secret documents? IMO the real criminals have yet to be named.