The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

There's some interesting stuff in this latest wikileaks.

Wikileaks release -- BBC

Is there anything in that list that you wouldn't have expected? Honestly?

[StrangeSox]

Is there anything in that list that you wouldn't have expected? Honestly?

 

I didn't say surprising or shocking.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm interested to see where this goes from here. I did my law school "thesis" project on prior restraint and the pentagon papers. Obviously it's too late for this batch of leaks, but I wonder how serious they'll get for the next round.

[Balta1701]

I'm interested to see where this goes from here. I did my law school "thesis" project on prior restraint and the pentagon papers. Obviously it's too late for this batch of leaks, but I wonder how serious they'll get for the next round.

Not sure what you mean...what do you expect to see in "the next round" that would be more serious?

 

[DukeNukeEm]

Is there anything in that list that you wouldn't have expected? Honestly?

There's a lot in there that you wouldn't expect. Puts a whole new light on the missile bases not being built in Poland and the Czech Repbulic.

[Balta1701]

There's a lot in there that you wouldn't expect. Puts a whole new light on the missile bases not being built in Poland and the Czech Repbulic.

Elaborate?

[DukeNukeEm]

Its pretty clear that Iran has the ability to hit Western Europe, which is what that shield was meant to stop. A lot of people thought it was to counter Russia which obviously now wasn't its main purpose. Instead now that same shield has been moved to Middle East to protect those countries who are a lot more worried about Iran than anybody thought.

 

Not many people knew Iran had that kind of capability.

[Balta1701]

Not many people knew Iran had that kind of capability.

Brussels (AFP) Feb 3, 2009

Iran's announcement that it has launched its first satellite would, if true, confirm that the Islamic republic has missiles capable of striking Israel and southeast Europe, a NATO officer said Tuesday.

 

However the officer said, on condition of anonymity, that it could take up to a week to verify whether Tehran's claim that it had sent an Omid (Hope) satellite into space carried by the home-built Safir-2 space rocket was true.

 

"It will take several days for all our countries to examine the information," the high-ranking officer said.

 

"First we will verify whether it is really a satellite and at what altitude it is travelling at," he said.

 

He noted the apparent "light weight of the satellite -- from 25 to 40 kilogrammes (55-88 pounds) -- and the quite low altitude, from 250 to 500 kilometres (155-310 miles), at which it would be flying."

 

"If this is confirmed, it would mean that their rockets are capable of firing 2,000-3,000 kilometres, and would therefore have the range to hit part of Europe and Israel," he said.

 

"It would be confirmation of their potential."

Link

[Jenksismyhero]

Not sure what you mean...what do you expect to see in "the next round" that would be more serious?

 

Locations of certain defenses, specific diplomatic strategies, something that might affect the relationship with country A as a result of working with country B. Who knows. He's let go of 2 "rounds" of documents thus far. I'm guessing he's got more in his pocket, but maybe not.

[DukeNukeEm]

Link

 

Israel/parts of Europe =/ Berlin, Paris and London. I'm not saying that's even a substantial threat, but we should've told them that before we chose to not build those ABM sites.

[Balta1701]

Locations of certain defenses, specific diplomatic strategies, something that might affect the relationship with country A as a result of working with country B. Who knows. He's let go of 2 "rounds" of documents thus far. I'm guessing he's got more in his pocket, but maybe not.

I can see how it's plausible that there could be something major in the next heap...I'm just surprised that if they had something like that, it wouldn't be released in the first tranche to make sure it gets attention.

[Balta1701]

Obama to announce pay freeze for federal employees

 

Somehow the GOP will find fault in this even though they're all about cutting spending.

"The V Chip and School Uniform phase of his presidency."

[FlaSoxxJim]

I can see how it's plausible that there could be something major in the next heap...I'm just surprised that if they had something like that, it wouldn't be released in the first tranche to make sure it gets attention.

 

I have never used the word "tranche" in a sentence in my life, and now I must do so.

[Balta1701]

I have never used the word "tranche" in a sentence in my life, and now I must do so.

I stole it from a previous political conversation...the "2nd tranche of the TARP dollars".

[lostfan]

I really think Assange is full of s***, and all the leaked documents don't mean what the already-convinced think they mean. Yeah, there's some interesting tidbits in there, I'm not at liberty to really say everything i think on the topic for obvious reasons but really, like Balta said, the vast majority of those documents say things that pretty much everyone already knew and/or it's just diplomats talking s***. Most of the "revelations" weren't anything the government was really trying to hide anyway. There are no "big lies" or conspiracies either - if there were, they aren't going to be classified "SECRET" so that a couple million people have easy access to it. Still, there's a reason that stuff isn't public knowledge. How would you look if someone forwarded your e-mail communications somewhere to make them public without you knowing that's what would happen?

 

Assange recently has been trying to make the United States out to be some kind of hypocritical corrupt fascist police state but I fail to see how any of those documents make us different (or worse) than any other country. Iran finds out we're concerned about its nuclear program and we're trying to push others towards sanctions? Oh no! Medvedev finds out that our diplomats think Putin is really the one pulling the strings? Shocking! Spiegel self-righteously said America seems to be interested in securing its influence in the world. WELL NO s*** GUYS, WELCOME TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. Now where is the evidence of war crimes? Of laws being broken? Of treaties being violated? Oh that's right there is none. Now, Assange, since you think it's so hypocritical of the U.S. to be making statements in private, tell me what purpose it would serve for Secretary Clinton and/or Gates to go to Moscow and tell them in public that we think they're a corrupt authoritarian state?

 

And, since the whole goal is supposed to be to increase transparency, is this really going to help? No, if it has any effect it will be negative... democratic governments will become MORE secretive, not less. Western nations aren't the ones who need to be getting picked on anyway. What happens in Russia to someone who comes forward with honest-to-god evidence of corruption? Prison. China? If you even think about it, prison. Iran? Prison, then they murder your family in front of you, then you are executed. See where this is going... yeah, America has its problems with confronting actually wrongdoing by the government (see: half the Bush administration) but then again Manning leaked a bunch of s*** that served no practical purpose for the public to see.

[StrangeSox]

You have q clearance, lostfan?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I stole it from a previous political conversation...the "2nd tranche of the TARP dollars".

 

That sort of use seems to make more sense, as I believe the term is a commerce term referring to structured finance payouts or some such business I don't understand. Still, I know it's not a word I've ever had the pleasure of using.

Edited November 30, 2010 by FlaSoxxJim

[lostfan]

You have q clearance, lostfan?

Is q supposed to be a? I'm gonna cop out and not answer that directly but I'm sure I've implied it at one time or another

[Balta1701]

And, since the whole goal is supposed to be to increase transparency, is this really going to help? No, if it has any effect it will be negative... democratic governments will become MORE secretive, not less. Western nations aren't the ones who need to be getting picked on anyway. What happens in Russia to someone who comes forward with honest-to-god evidence of corruption? Prison. China? If you even think about it, prison. Iran? Prison, then they murder your family in front of you, then you are executed. See where this is going... yeah, America has its problems with confronting actually wrongdoing by the government (see: half the Bush administration) but then again Manning leaked a bunch of s*** that served no practical purpose for the public to see.

Now, this is actually a topic that interests me and that I can legitimately respond to. Although I'm not convinced either way...the argument on the other side is that if a government realizes that its classification operation has simply become too big, if the numbers of people who have some level of security clearance that could allow them to access this number of documents is in the millions...even law enforcement penalties won't be enough to prevent large leaks of data. The 2 responses can be...classifying things further, which will potentially restrict information flow to people who actually need it, or opening up things that really don't need to be classified...like most of the documents in the Iraq and Afghanistan war files, for example.

 

This pile, I'm not sure that I'd call them classified as much as I'd call them private...at the level of personal emails and such. So, I'm not sure they really tell me that much.

[NorthSideSox72]

A 10 year freeze on federal wages? That doesn't even start to sound like smart politics. Let alone policy.

 

At least I'm sure we won't hear about how the Obama administration doesn't negotiate with Republicans again, right? Because they caved on something stupid that they'd want without being asked to do so.

That's not what they meant. A one year freeze, assuming raises kick in afterwards at typical percentages, saves money in year one AND years foward. The only reason that wouldn't apply is if future raises were larger than what we typically scheduled to make up for the freeze.

 

[Balta1701]

That's not what they meant. A one year freeze, assuming raises kick in afterwards at typical percentages, saves money in year one AND years foward. The only reason that wouldn't apply is if future raises were larger than what we typically scheduled to make up for the freeze.

That can't be right, look at how the math works out. It starts at $2 billion next year. If you compound $2 billion with 3-4% increases per year, and sum over them, you don't get to $28 billion over 5 or $60 billion over 10. You get ~$10 billion over 5 years. You'd have to be getting 51% year over year raises on that $2 billion sum for it to save $28 billion over 5 years.

[NorthSideSox72]

That can't be right, look at how the math works out. It starts at $2 billion next year. If you compound $2 billion with 3-4% increases per year, and sum over them, you don't get to $28 billion over 5 or $60 billion over 10. You get ~$10 billion over 5 years. You'd have to be getting 51% year over year raises on that $2 billion sum for it to save $28 billion over 5 years.

Well, its more like $12B over 5, but still, you are right that it doesn't add up. The wording there is funny though - its hard to tell what they mean in terms of how long the freezes last. If its $28B over 5 and $60B over 10, then that pretty much means the freezes do NOT continue past year 5. But the $28B over 5 number means it would have to be more than 1 year. So how many years it he freeze? Somewhere in the 2 to 5 year range, apparently.

 

[Balta1701]

Oh Goodie. The Roberts court is about to take up a case where they have the opportunity to declare public financing of political campaigns to be illegal. I think we all know how that will turn out.

[Balta1701]

ZBig with an interesting take.

The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia on this issue -- Wiki -- Wiki -- WikiLeaks on this issue? They're getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, what are you referring to?

 

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, for example, there are references to a report by our officials that some Chinese leaders favor a reunified Korea under South Korea.

 

This is clearly designed to embarrass the Chinese and our relationship with them. The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home.

 

...

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what is it -- what are you worried about with regard to the knowledge that...

 

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It's not a question of worry. It's, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.

 

And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren't some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments.

 

For example, leaving aside the personal gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.

[StrangeSox]

Is q supposed to be a? I'm gonna cop out and not answer that directly but I'm sure I've implied it at one time or another

nvm, Q Clearance is a DoE clearance, I thought it was more universal in the Federal govenment. Equivalent to DoD Top Secret.