Snowden et al

Pitt people like manning and his supporters never seem to get quite so wound up about "crimes against humanity" by iraq and afganistan (as they were) and sudan. Sri lanka. Congo north korea. And so on

What makes me particular sick about those who continue to believe in non intervention in afganistan is the pathetic acceptance of a state that all but decalred war on western citizens and commited some of the most disgusting human abuses we have seen in decades

You've been getting sick rather a lot of late. Too much bile, I'd say.

Your suggestion that people like Manning and his supporters don't seem to care about crimes by iraq, north korea et al is juvenile, as is your suggestion that there are al qaeda sympathisers on this forum. Presumably they are here to deceive ordinary folk by pretending to be interested in horse racing.

Simmo, people often do things for a mixture of motives and rarely enough just one. I don''t know exactly what Manning leaked but I think in general the more we know about what spooks, police and bureaucrats (but not eurocrats, you'd be too bored :whistle:) are up to the better. The idea that he gets a longer sentence than anyone involved in the carrying out of atrocities is an obvious anomaly no matter how screwed up his motives were.
 
Oh there is no doubt that many on the left will scream endlessly about the west and the jews but remain strangely quiet about sudan and so on. You didn't know that ? Strange
 
I think in general the more we know about what spooks, police and bureaucrats (but not eurocrats, you'd be too bored :whistle:) are up to the better.

Police I can agree with to an extent but some of their work needs to remain hidden.

Bureaucrats definitely - don't even get me started on the outrageous powers that our local councils currently have to do pretty much whatever the **** they want to do, regardless of the effect on people.

But spooks - well no. Can't agree - they are spies - making their activities public reduces their effectiveness. Can you imagine say, Operation Bodyguard being released to the press beforehand? I can see the press now - "you're going to do what? you're going to use a dead body as a decoy? this is outrageous, that dead man has rights, the Nazis need to know in advance about our plans to invade Normandy and not Calais otherwise we are stooping to their heinous level."

That doesn't mean that they should have carte blanche to carry out those activities in whatever means they feel is appropriate. There should certainly be oversight - but not in the press and definitely not on an internet forum when someone within the system decides that they are judge and jury.

The things that Manning originally leaked pertained to abuse of civilians and terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such things have occurred in war since the first war - they are nothing new - an estimated 2 million women were raped in Germany by the Russians in the last 2 years of WW2. We need to have a greater understanding that the people who we select to defend our countries are prone to these sort of activities. It is a necessary part of their makeup.

What should happen is that when discovered these things should be properly prosecuted within the system. Clearly that didn't happen but as far as I can discern - Bradley Manning made NO attempt to highlight this within the system before choosing to publish it on Wikileaks.
 
Of course I don't think details of operations like Bodyguard ought to be released in advance.

I think the public in all countries affected are entitled to know that their phone calls, e-mails and internet activity are being monitored as part of a giant data mining exercise and that the American authorities are handed passenger lists for every flight between most places in the world.

I think the Irish public is entitled to know that GCHQ in Cheltenham has the capability to trawl all electronic communications into and out of Ireland and that it probably does (they certainly used to). They are also entitled to know what is done with this information.

As clivex mentions, the vast bulk of what wikileaks revealed is actually quite mundane. It is good to know this, and it is good to gain an insight into the way diplomats view the world and what makes them tick. It is also good that at the back of their mind is the possibility they may have to be accountable some day for whatever briefing and advice they provide.
 



I think the Irish public is entitled to know that GCHQ in Cheltenham has the capability to trawl all electronic communications into and out of Ireland and that it probably does (they certainly used to). They are also entitled to know what is done with this information.

Horrendous job. Just had lunch with one of your countrymen and lovely man that he is, he is one of those that uses 500 words when 2 will do and regales me with completely pointless stories. He doesn't read body language either. Fingers in my ears and still he carried on

Even you would admit grey that instructing some spooks to listen in would be cruelty
 
I think the public in all countries affected are entitled to know that their phone calls, e-mails and internet activity are being monitored as part of a giant data mining exercise and that the American authorities are handed passenger lists for every flight between most places in the world.

It would have been quite naive for anyone to assume otherwise imo. I was certainly aware of such activities prior to Snowden's "revelations".

I think the Irish public is entitled to know that GCHQ in Cheltenham has the capability to trawl all electronic communications into and out of Ireland and that it probably does (they certainly used to). They are also entitled to know what is done with this information.

Again, naive to assume otherwise and, as you mention - you already have an understanding that such activities took place in the past and probably do at present. I think Grasshopper mentioned earlier what they do with it, which isn't much of a surprise either.


As clivex mentions, the vast bulk of what wikileaks revealed is actually quite mundane.

What about the bits that were not mundane and therefore had the potential to cause human life to be put at risk because neither Bradley Manning or Wikileaks could be bothered reading what they were releasing to the world?
 
'Naive' is often code for "of course we're doing it but we don't like admitting it".

Regarding leaks that put lives at risk, I wouldn't condone them but some of the claims made about this seem to have been exaggerated.
 
Simmo is right though. they have absolutely no idea of the consequences of the leaks. what if one had a list of islamist informants say?

That in itself is grossly irresponsible.

On the other hand it belted up numerous conspiracy theorists, who are starting off again about syria of course. Biggest story was that saudi didnt want iran to have nuclear weapons (wow...really) and Prince andrew is a prat ...
 
Magic idea. Hats off to him

Transferred to a womens prison with any number of (admittedly unappealing) boilers desperate for a change from carpet munching and he will be banged up and banging away for the next 35 years

They might be a bit partial to a tranny too

he will be belting screws just to get the sentence extended i reckon

Another forum classic from Clivex - very loud chortling in a crowded area here!!:lol::lol:
 
Glad someone laughed. Can be a bit bypass on here

Annoyed he called himself chelsea. Why not west bromwich albion or something ?
 
Back
Top