LAtest Wikileaks Fiasco [Archive]

pauldun170

11-29-2010, 09:23 AM

Good for wikileaks.

I have yet to hear a compelling case justifying our Government hiding things from the its citizens.
"Its embarrassing" is not a valid reason.

If its absolutely key to national security...then they shouldn't have been using normal communication channels.

pauldun170

11-29-2010, 09:25 AM

Collect biometric data on foreign diplomats? Really, Ms. Clinton?

Yes
Biometric info on North Korean diplomats.
Why do you have a problem with it? We are technically still in war mode with those nutbags so why not have our war face on?

Papa_Complex

11-29-2010, 09:33 AM

Yes
Biometric info on North Korean diplomats.
Why do you have a problem with it? We are technically still in war mode with those nutbags so why not have our war face on?

I believe that the actual directive was for any, with specific attention given to Security Council members, not North Korea.

pauldun170

11-29-2010, 09:46 AM

I believe that the actual directive was for any, with specific attention given to Security Council members, not North Korea.

Oh..
I still dont have a problem with it.

Papa_Complex

11-29-2010, 09:49 AM

Oh..
I still dont have a problem with it.

I have a problem with diplomatic personnel taking part in espionage.

pauldun170

11-29-2010, 10:12 AM

I have a problem with diplomatic personnel taking part in espionage.

I guess I'd rather our guys be armed with as much info as possible when making negotiations.

Based on the info released, I had already assumed the practices mentioned were common place in the diplomatic community.

Papa_Complex

11-29-2010, 10:56 AM

I guess I'd rather our guys be armed with as much info as possible when making negotiations.

Based on the info released, I had already assumed the practices mentioned were common place in the diplomatic community.

They shoot spies, you know. You should be able to trust that DIPLOMATIC personnel are dealing in a fairly open way with you, not committing acts of espionage. When such happens it isn't uncommon for countries to break diplomatic ties, or simply expel the offenders. "Diplomatic Immunity has just been revoked."

pauldun170

11-29-2010, 10:57 AM

http://gawker.com/5700705/all-the-hottest-diplomatic-gossip-from-the-latest-wikileak?skyline=true&s=i
http://gizmodo.com/5701199/wikileaks-diplomatic-bombshell-reveals-strange-tech-snooping-schemes

derf

11-29-2010, 06:38 PM

If its absolutely key to national security...then they shouldn't have been using normal communication channels.

A diplomatic cable message is supposed to be secure

EpyonXero

11-29-2010, 07:55 PM

I dont see any value in releasing this information. Its like making someones personal text messages public. The war documents released before had useful information that gave insights into Iraq and Afghanistan. I havent seen any revelations in what was released this week, most of the opinions are probably common sentiments around Washington that arent shared publicly, its just embarrassing to see this leak out.

Washington doesnt have a high opinion of the UK government: Im not surprised, Cameron ran on a platform of no longer bending to the USs will like Tony Blair.

The king of Saudi Arabia wants the US to attack Iran: Anybody who knows about the Middle East will know that Saudi Arabia are basically enemies. Iran is Shiite and Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Iran blames the West for the condition of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia relize on the West almost completely for its economy. Iran wants to to be the big dog in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the big dog because of its financial influence.

Homeslice

11-29-2010, 07:59 PM

It pretty much goes without saying that almost every embassy is bugged, and that many "diplomats" or "trade officials" are intellgence agents. "Deputy Under-Secretary for Agriculture" yeah right.

pauldun170

11-30-2010, 01:56 PM

http://www.satirewire.com/content/?p=2238

KSGregman

11-30-2010, 02:28 PM

http://www.satirewire.com/content/?p=2238

That site is GOLD.... :rofl:

goof2

12-01-2010, 02:02 PM

They shoot spies, you know. You should be able to trust that DIPLOMATIC personnel are dealing in a fairly open way with you, not committing acts of espionage. When such happens it isn't uncommon for countries to break diplomatic ties, or simply expel the offenders. "Diplomatic Immunity has just been revoked."

I'm just guessing since I have never been involved in anything close to that field, but I would think intelligence agencies would have an exceedingly difficult time collecting information if their agents' business cards say "Covert Agent" on them. It is a bit naive to think that this isn't happening all the time.

Papa_Complex

12-01-2010, 02:20 PM

I'm just guessing since I have never been involved in anything close to that field, but I would think intelligence agencies would have an exceedingly difficult time collecting information if their agents' business cards say "Covert Agent" on them. It is a bit naive to think that this isn't happening all the time.

Hardly what I'm saying, at all. What I'm saying is that using a DIPLOMATIC MISSION to perform espionage is completely contrary to its purpose. It's a breach of the trust that permits such places to operate as if they were foreign soil, and it's personnel to carry diplomatic immunity. As far as I'm concerned the moment that a diplomatic mission is used to cover such purpose, the hosting nation can freely enter and search, and either expel or charge with espionage anyone within it.

If you want to perform such operations OUTSIDE of the rules for such missions, then so be it.

goof2

12-01-2010, 02:51 PM

Hardly what I'm saying, at all. What I'm saying is that using a DIPLOMATIC MISSION to perform espionage is completely contrary to its purpose. It's a breach of the trust that permits such places to operate as if they were foreign soil, and it's personnel to carry diplomatic immunity. As far as I'm concerned the moment that a diplomatic mission is used to cover such purpose, the hosting nation can freely enter and search, and either expel or charge with espionage anyone within it.

If you want to perform such operations OUTSIDE of the rules for such missions, then so be it.

Of course it is a breech of trust. How honest do you think intelligence agencies should be? Covering intelligence agents as diplomats has been going on for as long as I am aware. From the reading I have done on the Cold War there may have been more intelligence agents covered as diplomats in our embassy in the Soviet Union than there were actual diplomats. The same went for their embassy here. I suspect it was tolerated under the assumption that kind of thing played a large part in keeping the war from becoming "hot".

Papa_Complex

12-01-2010, 03:11 PM

Of course it is a breech of trust. How honest do you think intelligence agencies should be? Covering intelligence agents as diplomats has been going on for as long as I am aware. From the reading I have done on the Cold War there may have been more intelligence agents covered as diplomats in our embassy in the Soviet Union than there were actual diplomats. The same went for their embassy here. I suspect it was tolerated under the assumption that kind of thing played a large part in keeping the war from becoming "hot".

Which in no way excuses doing the same to your allies.

goof2

12-01-2010, 03:28 PM

Which in no way excuses doing the same to your allies.

Allies change and assuming they will stay allies forever is negligent at best. Your country is one of our strongest allies and yet I'm pretty confident we not only spy on you, but have plans ready to go to invade or destroy your country if the necessary were to arise. Regan liked to use the phrase "trust, but verify" and the concept holds true for enemies and allies alike.

the chi

12-01-2010, 03:34 PM

Allies change and assuming they will stay allies forever is negligent at best. Your country is one of our strongest allies and yet I'm pretty confident we not only spy on you, but have plans ready to go to invade or destroy your country if the necessary were to arise. Regan liked to use the phrase "trust, but verify" and the concept holds true for enemies and allies alike.

What he said.

Sorry for your idealistic approach PC, but I'm thinking those glasses are a lil too rosy.

Diplomatic missions can pretty much be called spying missions. You are there to see how your "allies" feel about things, who else they are friends with, the position they may take in any given situation, what their weaknesses are that can be exploited, either by you or an enemy, and a million other things and report back to the powers that be. They aren't there to shake hands and drink champagne. Its a fact and information gathering tool.

Papa_Complex

12-01-2010, 03:37 PM

Hey, I've said my piece. Had to, if I was going to justify your government's opinion of Canadians, as reported by Wikileaks :lol:

I believe in setting the bar high and striving to reach it, rather than setting it low and saying that's all we're ever going to get anyway. I'm both an idealist and a realist.

pauldun170

12-01-2010, 03:39 PM

There are lots of reasons to spy on someone, more than just "They bad...we good"
Number one reason to spy on Canada is trade issues.

Papa_Complex

12-01-2010, 03:43 PM

There are lots of reasons to spy on someone, more than just "They bad...we good"
Number one reason to spy on Canada is trade issues.

So, like I said, just spy already. Don't hide it behind the diplomatic system that we are supposed to be able to trust, if any reasonable negotiations are going to take place.

the chi

12-01-2010, 03:48 PM

Hey, I didnt say I thought it was right, just that it simply is. I get accused of being naive all the time because I want to beleive the best of people. Unfortunately, especially with our current govt, I'm a realist.

goof2

12-01-2010, 03:50 PM

There are lots of reasons to spy on someone, more than just "They bad...we good"
Number one reason to spy on Canada is trade issues.

Exactly. It has to do with far more than just war/military issues. At the very least our government wants to be aware of any developing goofy cultural protectionism issues Canada may be coming up with before they see it on the front page of The Globe and Mail.:lol:

Papa_Complex

12-01-2010, 05:53 PM

Exactly. It has to do with far more than just war/military issues. At the very least our government wants to be aware of any developing goofy cultural protectionism issues Canada may be coming up with before they see it on the front page of The Globe and Mail.:lol:

Then they should read The National Post. They'd get it before our government did.

Razor

12-01-2010, 07:19 PM

There are lots of reasons to spy on someone, more than just "They bad...we good"
Number one reason to spy on Canada is trade issues.

Not to mention that we share the world's longest unsecured border with them, 'spying' is a way to maintain the status quo and ensure that if security breaks we know and can prepare for the consequences...

Razor

12-01-2010, 07:23 PM

Truth be known, the the biggest spy against the United States has been one of our staunchest allies... Isreal... but who can blame them, when you are pretty much hated by everyone on your neighborhood, you do what you must to have the bigger stick or the information to hold those neighbors back...

Papa_Complex

12-01-2010, 07:28 PM

Not to mention that we share the world's longest unsecured border with them, 'spying' is a way to maintain the status quo and ensure that if security breaks we know and can prepare for the consequences...

Right, that lousy porous border across which the 9/11 terrorists crossed.

Oh.... wait.....

Homeslice

12-01-2010, 08:10 PM

pauldun170

12-01-2010, 09:39 PM

The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/gates-on-leaks-wiki-and-otherwise/

z06boy

12-02-2010, 10:30 AM

http://www.conartistgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/dr_evil_laser.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/29/article-1334112-0C456AAD000005DC-877_468x313.jpg

:lol:

It really wouldn't hurt my feelings if he found himself on the wrong side of a set of crosshairs...:sniper: :idk:

Razor

12-02-2010, 03:31 PM

Right, that lousy porous border across which the 9/11 terrorists crossed.

Oh.... wait.....

I said nothing about the 9/11 terrorist or any other for that matter, but when you have an unsecured border and no control of the other country's immigration policies and practices, well it never hurts to 'look in' on them to try and keep your citizens safe... if they happen to see some other things too, then so be it...