The fact that we all have to bear your random ramblings on this site is proof that our host is allowing your comments to go through.

P.S. what kind of “scientist” are you Hugo? My expertise is electronics engineering (primarily analog, some digital), software engineering (including RISC and x86 Machine Code, C++, JavaScript, VBScript, Object Pascal, Python, and Lua, to name a few). Power conversion technology is my primary field of interest. Admittedly, these fields all hinge on logic and reasoning, which is why logic and reason are recognized and appreciated in the few places my eyes see them.

P.P.S. what does “whyfores” mean? – my unabridged Webster dictionary knows nothing of this word, neither does Wiktionary. Is this a scientific term?

Hugo professes to know something about the scientific method

Well, I could explain in some detail the hows, wheres and whyfores – but it’s the oddest thing, every time there’s a comment that casts some doubt on Ms. Mercer’s infallibility, it is lost to the ether. It really is the oddest bug…

[Learn a thing or two about property rights, buy yourself a web-domain, thereon you can spout second-hander neoconnerie, in addition to your odd take on the scientific method, exposed here by readers who have the time to follow you “evidence.” I am sure your blog will be as populated/frequented as the moon.—IM]

Due to the shear volume of the cables, Assange could not be expected to sift through them, sanitizing them of all references to “informants” anyways. Besides, given the muslim track record, my guess is that most of these “informants” are mis-informants trying to use the occupying US military to gain the advantage for their respective factions. Just like the Salem witch hunts: you don’t get along with your neighbor, so claim he’s a witch.

How you have associated two media articles which contain unsubstantiated allegations to facts is beyond me.

The cables, not opinion pieces.

BTW – Wikipedia and Wikileaks are entirely different entities.

[And Hugo professes to know something about the scientific method. Trust readers of this site to do the work I don’t have time to do.]

[No, Posse Comitatus.]

In many ways the Israelis were vindicated when it comes to the Middle East. There have been rumors that Israel and Saudi Arabia had worked out a deal to give Israeli aircraft unfettered use of Saudi airspace should they decide to attack Iran by air. So the fact that the Saudi’s were encouraging Obama to “take care of Iran” is not particularly surprising. You’d think with all of he aircraft we’ve sold the Saudi’s they might be able to do it on THEIR OWN. However, we know from recent previous history that the Saudis’s like to delegate their defense to others (Desert Storm).

I understand the first amendment so I understand why the WSJ would say it would be difficult to prosecute someone for information that had been leaked to them.

Clearly the Military needs more discipline within the ranks. By definition the major responsibility of the Military is to defend he country and when necessary wage war. War is a dirty but, disciplined business.

I do not consider Assange a hero as I’m still suspicious of his motives. I still suspect he is a “lefty” at heart. Although I have not researched enough to prove it… However, he has provided us an interesting view into the world of diplomatic cables and diplomacy.

http://barelyablog.com/?p=12266

[What is this spot-on comment about Wikipedia bios supposed to prove? For a “scientist” your thought process is messy.—IM]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all

And so on.

(1) Did Assange really release names – or is this just blather according to Joe Lieberman? The same Joe Lieberman who claimed there were 27,000,000 Iraqis against 1,000 “terrorists” (yet somehow we needed to have 150,000 troops to protect people who outnumbered the terrorists by 2700 to 1 !!).

(2) How “active” can these “activists” be if their activity is completely secret. The Russians KNEW who Sakharov was because he was publicly dissenting. Are these people really “activists” or just some corrupt stoolies taking some money from the US (and possibly feeding us rubbish in return)??