I dont think anyone who has reviewed the data actually believes this isnt harmful to America. If it is a direct harm to soldiers on the ground is less clear.

I dont want the guy hanged or ever arrested. I do want some guarantee that he will not screw over America again. I agree that we can put some screws to him financialy.

I still don't think I've heard anything that would be harmful for any American lives because the nature of the cables and the fact that they are removing names. I have no doubts that the leaks harm the credibility of our diplomats and they disprove some of the reasons why we went to war with other countries. I think one of them even revealed that we're involved in another war of which our involvement was unknown. That said, I don't think the leaks are what hurts America's credibility as much as the actions taken by our diplomats and executives.

I don't think you should be able to restrict donations to wikileaks through any form of government pressure because the precedent set by the Citizen's United case. Since they determined that corporations are people and money is a form of free speech, restricting someone's right to spend their money is a violation of free speech.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/4/2010 5:09:00 AM (view original):
The documents can give foreign agents a clear pattern of the process that we go through in inteligence matters, as well as specific data that could put soldiers at risk.

Please be specific about the specific data that puts soldiers at risk.

It isnt like there is a specific address on a leak that someone may blow up. The ways it might work is this....

A leaked document shows they talk about something on july 21. Terrorists didnt know how this was leaked. By analyzing where and when the information became available they may be able to narrow down the source. This source could stop getting information to give us, or it could get false information.

A piece of information may travel from building a to building b. This shows how our internal inteligence net works. This gioves them insight on how to disrupt communication before an offensive.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/11/2010 1:46:00 AM (view original):
It isnt like there is a specific address on a leak that someone may blow up. The ways it might work is this....

A leaked document shows they talk about something on july 21. Terrorists didnt know how this was leaked. By analyzing where and when the information became available they may be able to narrow down the source. This source could stop getting information to give us, or it could get false information.

A piece of information may travel from building a to building b. This shows how our internal inteligence net works. This gioves them insight on how to disrupt communication before an offensive.

"How it might work." In other words, there really is nothing you can point to to back up your assertion. You have only blue sky conjecture.

No one has been killed yet if that is what you mean.

Are you saying that none of the documents released fit the profie I set forth?

I'm asking which do and how. And how they have endangered our soldiers. Not some hypothetical well maybe just maybe this could have happened and this could have happened and then maybe this could happen. That's all conjecture. 

I have admitted that no incident have occured to date. I freely admit the truth in that matter.

Can you now admit that there can be a threat in the release of a large number of top seceret documents? Can you at least admit a small possibility?

They are not top secret, merely classified. That is a big distinction.

Yes, I will. A small possibility that there can be. In other words, there's really no case against WikiLeaks. In fact, will you at least admit that there is a small possibility that WikiLeaks combed the cables for any such information. Or that the source(s) withheld anything of that nature. Or that there is a small possibility it can snow in Jamaica in July?

1 I see no evidence of "Combing".

2 There is a difference between a small possibility and "Well nothing is really impossible".

We are arguing this, well because that is what we do. I am not 100% committed to this.

I dont want him arrested or executed. I am ok with some financial pressure to get him to play ball with us a little more.

For the most part I dont oppose people seeing the truth. Most of this doesnt show any real problem with our actions, and could lead to the small possbility.

This isnt the Pentagon papers.

But will you at least admit that a small possibility of it exists. Just because you don't have evidence of it doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

Posted by babypop985 on 12/12/2010 8:09:00 AM (view original):
They are not top secret, merely classified. That is a big distinction.

I was under the impression that 6% of the ducuments carried top seceret status, but I am not sure of that.

Posted by zadnor on 12/12/2010 5:00:00 PM (view original):
But will you at least admit that a small possibility of it exists. Just because you don't have evidence of it doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

I will freely admit that I have no evidence either way, except for anecdotal evidence of information that has been attributed to leaked documents. Your statement could be true.

In reality the drop by wikileaks was so large that it may be impossible for an average citizen to actually analyze it.

So many statements could be true.