How Exactly Is Wikileaks NOT A Threat To National Security?

Please watch the above video, I believe it summarizes the entire response from the political community regarding wikileaks and many saying that it's a threat to national security.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The reason why I thought to post this is because of comments in articles like in the below:
www.msnbc.msn.com...

So I thought of posting the above embedded video

Scroll down to read the comments on that MSNBC link, wherever I read a news article regarding wikileaks as of lately an incredible large amount of people are calling Assante a traitor and as well as this whistleblower.

I honestly did not think that there were this many pro-war people in the U.S.
Am I the only one surprised here?

Where are the anti-war supporters?
Where are the anti-lie supporters?
Where are the intelligent people?

I don't get it!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I've changed my mind over this in the last few weeks. The leaker is a self-serving prick, no doubt, however, given the fact that this administration is completely untrustworthy, suspect, subject to foreign influence and marxist in nature, I'm glad the leaks happened.

MY curioiusity lies in the whole event..

Some random joe leaks secret documents to the media...90k+ documents...and the media focuses in on 2 things overall...the person, and the simple general statement that there was a leak...barely even talking about the content that was leaked beyond...oh, it was just stuff we all sort of knew anyhow...

barely anyone is discussing the content....

reply to post by ModernAcademia


It was to be expected, the slander and propaganda campaign against Wikileaks and Assange who exposes the true face of the people behind the power. These are the usual suspects the MSM, pro war shills who are disturbed by getting their lies exposed. They would want nothing more than these wars to go on for their self interest and to keep all the deceit, lies and corruption under wraps.

If you're interested in a discussion on this...

Confirmed: Assange and Raimondo with Judge Napolitano (Fox Air Times and Dates)

reply to post by Crimson_King


There is a VERY good possibility that TPTB are comprised of various subfactions. With that as a possibility, this could very well be a case where they are warring against each other.

Example: The CFR might want the information released to get us OUT of Iraq, Afghanistan and keep us out of Iran, but the PNAC/neocon/Zionist factions what to keep us IN.

Look at which media outlets are reporting the story and HOW they are reporting it for a clue to this. Some clearly are bigger supporters of one subfaction over another.

That being said, whoever is behind this might not give a damn about national security.

Or they might think that staying involved in Iraq and Afghanistan and/or getting involved in Iran would be a BIGGER threat.

[edit on 7/31/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


This has been posted in other Wikileaks threads, but it has relevance here:



EDIT: Especially relevant from 4:37 on
EDIT: So relevant that I was inclined to transcribe:

"...It's getting hard to tell what's real and what's fiction.
When secrecy and censorship control the whole spectrum.
So let's consider how Julian Assange and his team channeled a potent tool for total transpiracy.
Shattering schemes and the myth we've been sold by a 4th estate that rolled over and did as it's told.
Training us all to forget and forgo.
But truth leaks like oil in the gulf of mexico.
If we know what our wars look like are we at risk of not knowing who the good guys are?
Keep your wits about you..."

[edit on 31-7-2010 by misinformational]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by misinformational]

Heck, I think the memo (Draft) that was just released regarding how our own Government has been actively pursuing ways in circumventing our Laws is far more damning. (Keeping the illegals here)

When they keep repeating "this puts our troops in harm's way" is ridiculous and rhetoric. Seriously, they 'are' in harms way; so what are they doing about it? Oh, yeah, according to these leaked documents they are funding the evil and undermining success! Undermining lives! Our soldier's lives!

I haven't read the documents, I get the gist of them, I am not blinded by "National Security" as a means to squelch unlawfulness and evil on the part of our Federal Government.

Each of us must face our Maker, Julian Assange will be rewarded for his belief in exposing Truth and Deception. If the Powers are fearful then don't use "National Security" as if heralding righteousness, because as I see it the Border is opened for business! Cha cha cha!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I made a post the other day about the immorality of the war and its costs.

I got like 3 responses, 3 flags.

People love the State, therefore people love needless violence.

War is the health of the State.

This is an interesting topic. Lately I've been wondering, what exactly is "National Security"? If one were to judge the actions, policies, and manner in which the government in the USA operates, "National Security" could mean just about anything. I view it as sort of a blanket concept that can be used to justify, excuse, and validate anything. So between that, and the "War on Terror", just about any person, idea, motive, etc., could be considered a threat.

reply to post by John_Q_Llama


Ummm...read the Patriot Act?

What you just summarized here pretty much sums that piece of work up. LOL

[edit on 7/31/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I'll admit that I haven't read it thoroughly, but I skimmed it several years ago. Does it have a definition for "National Security" somewhere in the document? I'd be shocked if it does.

Assange interview with Napalitano From this morning. At least 14 minutes of it. See last post.

reply to post by John_Q_Llama

Well to begin with, it builds on the National Security Act of 1947 and is pretty much all about national and international security. I was just saying that what you described is pretty much what the Patriot Act does...defines many, many categories of "terrorists" and terrorism.

Here's a link.


[edit on 7/31/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by John_Q_Llama

 

Well to begin with, it builds on the National Security Act of 1947 and is pretty much all about national and international security. I was just saying that what you described is pretty much what the Patriot Act does...defines many, many categories of "terrorists" and terrorism.

Here's a link.


[edit on 7/31/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Yeah, I just saw your edit on the post I replied to above.

As if that legislation isn't enough, I'm sure they can find a way to deal with someone or something if they want to badly enough. Suppose a problem arose to which they couldn't quite move forward legally with any kind of persecution, they would likely just concoct some fictitious documentation which implicates the person(s) in order to go after them. And when questioned about the validity of said document, it would simply be called truth and therefore can be acted upon.

There is no bigger threat to the Natioal Security of the US itself then the very government that is tasked with protecting itself, ooops I mean the US.
F$S

the person who leaked the info has a real birth certificate.

Not a certificate of live birth. There is a difference.

So who cares.