Ammo For Sale

« « Number your mags | Home | So awesome » »

On wikileaks

Well, a government that tells me I got nothing to worry about when they snoop on me as long as I ain’t up to no good should be held to the same standard. Right?

22 Responses to “On wikileaks”

  1. Jake Says:

    I get what you’re trying to say, I think, but it’s not quite the same. What Wikileaks is doing is more like a local paper publishing a list of CCW holders – complete with addresses – when it’s well known that there is a gang of thieves specifically targeting gun owners to steal their guns. Even if you’re not doing anything wrong, you do have something to worry about, because it gives the bad guys information they need to hurt you.

    Not that I think the FedGov isn’t doing anything wrong, but still…

  2. Les Jones Says:

    I don’t have a problem with leaking specific evidence to show government misconduct malfeasance.

    The mass “document dumps” are something else – Wikileaks is putting a warehouse of information out there for other people to sight through. Leaking classified info without redaction will get good people killed.

  3. SayUncle Says:

    Sure, they should use discretion.

  4. alan Says:

    I think that people need to realize that we live in a new world now. There is no such thing as privacy and there are no secrets.

    Those days are over, for better or worse.

  5. SPQR Says:

    The scumbag Assange has as his express purpose to attack US interests. He’s a self-declared enemy of our country, and I’m content to treat him as one.

  6. John Smith. Says:

    Jake are you talking about the Batf???

  7. Sebastian Says:

    I’m probably mostly in Alan’s camp. I think it’s still possible to keep closely held secrets, but if more than a few dozen people have access to your “secrets” the chances of someone in that group being a malcontent are high, and the ease of untraceably passing information off is just too easy.

    I agree that Assanage is an enemy of this country, and I would note you can’t spell Assanage without “Ass,” but there’s always going to be someone like him out there. This is an age where we’re all going to lose our privacy, and for better or worse, that’s going to go for the government too. I tend to think, despite things like this happening, most of that is going to be for the better.

  8. divemedic Says:

    I am going to be in the minority here when I point out that what Assange is doing is the job that the press SHOULD be doing. Freedom of the press is so the public can keep tabs on what the government is doing. If the Feds were not busy doing things they have no constitutional business doing, there would be fewer secrets in need of protecting.

    It isn’t as though Assange stole the secrets, as he has no access to them. Others with security clearances did that. Do you really think that our enemies don’t already have access to those same secrets? All he did was publish them. Perhaps we need to have the light of day on the things that our government does and says on our behalf.

    Unless you think that they are the “only ones” professional enough to deal with others on your behalf and without your supervision.

  9. divemedic Says:

    I would also point out that this administration has already declared that I am their enemy- when they declared that I am an enemy extremist, and when they declared that I am a domestic terrorist.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-apologizes-veterans/

  10. oldsmobile98 Says:

    If only Wikileaks could get access to the full body scans of all TSA management and screeners.

  11. ParatrooperJJ Says:

    He should be killed. He committed an act of war.

  12. K Says:

    Have you actually *read* any of the docs? Most of them are embassy staff making fun of world leaders. It’s hardly cloak-and-dagger, national security tactical secrets. It’s all very junior high drama, and most of it that I’ve seen really had no business being classified in the first place.

    My standard for this is the same as for my friends… if you’re afraid of someone finding out what you’re doing, that’s probably a sign that you shouldn’t be doing it. Sounds like a good rule for the Feds as well.

  13. comatus Says:

    An insurgent so radical that he endorsed his letters “B.Free” said that three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. I have candidates for the two: they doubtlessly regret they have but one life to give for their Warhol fifteen minutes.

    ‘Course, the same guy lost his Post Office job for allegedly reading the Governor’s mail. And leaking it. The radical was a nudist; the Governor, a cross-dresser. My god, we are so dull nowadays.

  14. Will Says:

    K, I’m sure Anne Frank’s hiders were afraid someone would find out what they were doing. Does that mean they shouldn’t have done it?

  15. OHSHAWN Says:

    I would point out that if the PFC who downloaded these didn’t have access to secret/No Forn intel, we wouldn’t have had this problem. Why does a PFC in a battle zone have access to non-redacted state dept cables? How was he able to download GB’s of data with no alarms going off? Maybe if we had our own house in order and kept track of our secrets, we wouldn’t have to worry about sites like WikiLeaks, which have been around for years and aren’t going away.

  16. bwm Says:

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/unmanned-wikileaks-drone-destroys-afghan-village-201011293295/

  17. mariner Says:

    I don’t believe for a minute that some PFC had access to all those STATE DEPARTMENT cables.

    I wonder what’s really going on here, but I feel certain it’s not what we’ve been led to believe.

  18. Mayor Joel Stoner Says:

    it wouldnt be hard at all to trace whos releasing documents if you really wanted to know. Like printers print a tiny dot that has the printers idetnifying info in it, just add a small code on the document, something like a form number or just jibberish, then when that document shows up you know who it belonged to, and who needs to be watched. although you know, the easiest way to hide the truth is to put it out there, and add a hint of lie to it to make it all seem like a lie.

  19. K Says:

    Will,

    That’s what the “probably” was for. There are always exceptions… but I don’t believe that this situation deserves one of them.

    My point remains… State Dept. staff laughing at Putin’s halitosis in no way compares to Anne Frank’s situation.

  20. Mr Evilwrench Says:

    It’s no wonder they classified some of it; there’s no place for jr. high gossip among these “professionals”. It’s like a throng of teenagers twittering each other about their teachers, parents, and SOs. At least they had enough shame to try to hide it. As to more important stuff, yes, a professionally run outfit needs to keep some things to itself. I don’t have a problem with that, but assmange wants to hurt us, so he’ll dump out anything he can find.

    I don’t know why these dipshits think we’ll buy that crap about a PFC sourcing it all; he shouldn’t have had clearance to be in the building that had the room that had the machine that had the data. There are others involved. It shall be popcorn-worthy to see them flushed.

  21. Jay Says:

    The only things that there is a legitimate reason to keep secret are battle plans that we haven’t used yet and the plans to our superweapons. Beyond that, I think you’ll find that most of the classified stuff is being withheld because it’s embarrassing.

    An open country is a free country. Our government should not be worrying about the consequences of us knowing what it’s up to. That is for the citizens to decide.

  22. Robert Says:

    If they aren’t doing anything wrong they shouldn’t have anything to worry about.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills


blog advertising is good for you

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives