User talk:Leotardo

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

<1>

Quick question

Over in the saloon bar (and three days ago, sorry about the timing) you said (regarding the wikileaks release of a list of "sites essential to US national security): "The other thing is that list of 'secret sensitive sites' wasn't secret. The only valid argument that can be made about that list is "you put it all in one place!"". Do you have a source or reference or something for this? I'm talking about it with someone else and I can't for the life of me find anything about it since all the search strings I can think of just take me to articles talking about wikileaks releasing the list. X Stickman (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stickman. Here's a couple:

1. Christian Science Monitor: "For instance, Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura port, which processes more than 4 million barrels of oil each day, the biggest oil-exporting port in the world, made the list. So did the Abqaiq Processing Center, considered the biggest crude oil processing plant in the world. Yet anyone could have found this out years earlier just by reading "Sleeping with the Devil," a bestseller by former CIA operative Robert Baer. "Much information today that is classified as 'secret' is often available publicly (online or otherwise), even without WikiLeaks," writes Terry O'Sullivan, a University of Akron researcher who has analyzed global critical infrastructure for the Department of Homeland Security. "It's not the items on that list that are secret, per se. It's the fact that someone in the State Dept. thinks they are worthy” of that designation."
2. Wired: "Although the facilities listed are not secret - and the locations for most of them can be found through a simple Google search - British and U.S. authorities denounced WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange for releasing the list." Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, said that while it might interest potential attackers to know what facilities the U.S. deemed sensitive and critical, a motivated attacker is capable of selecting his own targets without government aid. "My own opinion is that there's no shortage of potential targets that hostile actors might find interesting, and they don't need a State Department list to assist them," he told Threat Level, noting that the list, produced in a run-on format, makes it difficult to decipher."
3. Edmonton Sun: The leaked documents aren't igniting any fear at Alliance or Enbridge, say company spokesmen. "It's really fairly obvious information," said Alliance's Alan Roth. Roth said Alliance's pipeline system, which runs from northeastern B.C. through to Illinois, is monitored closely by security. "Our pipelines have in place comprehensive security plans that meet (federal) guidelines," he said. "Beyond that we don't share the specifics of our security plans." The WikiLeaks release came as no great shock, said Enbridge spokeswoman Jennifer Varey.
4. CTV News: "WikiLeaks is trying to make the point that diplomats in foreign countries are essentially spying without the knowledge of the host government," Smith said in an interview with CTV News Monday. "But it would seem fairly easy for anyone -- if they were asked to identify what in Canada might be targets of terrorists -- it would be pretty easy for you or me to come up with a list like this," Smith added, noting that the cable was originally distributed to more than 2.5 million people in the U.S.

Of course, in the words of Max Frankel (who released the Pentagon Papers), "Governments must finally acknowledge that secrets shared with millions of "cleared" officials, including lowly army clerks, are not secret." All of that said, I don't think this was the best release they made as I think the whole 'State Department trying to collect world leader DNA samples' release made the point they were trying to make with this. They should have held this back, but the reaction is way overblown. --Leotardo (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That was a quick response! Thank you. X Stickman (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You have won the "Jack Hughes" award for being progressive and ethical!

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god!

Fab Five/1-30/244f19b07ff97058.htm –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

lol - I was going to make a bad joke but stopped myself. --Leotardo (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Knock it off NOW

If you start taking the piss out of my relatives I'll take you to the coop for flagrant violation of community standards. First and last warning. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction deleting comments from people who are composed of weak DNA. --Leotardo (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

2 minutes

You beat me by two minutes :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! I was torn about going with the Gingrich angle, or the gloat angle, so I'm glad we had them both covered. --Leotardo (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)