Poll: WikiLeaks - Good or bad?

[Dasrufken]

I think it's somewhat misleading to generalize so heavily that the U.S. government is "good". That there might not be bad people within even a "good" national entity is just silly. That "good people" are necessarily doing "good things" is naieve.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to classify the government itself as "good", but rather the country as a whole. I was essentially trying to convey the idea that we're pretty set on not letting the world explode. Obviously, other countries are doing that too, and I'm obviously biased as an American myself, but from where I am, it doesn't really seem like the U.S. is doing anything explicitly bad that we're not desperately trying to fix right now.

Besides letting your government take away your right to privacy without a fight, invading a country under false pretenses, actively trying to circumvent the rights you fought so hard to get in the first place, treating illegal immigrants as though they were terrorists, happily torturing prisoners in the name of national security, developing a culture of racism against the Muslim people, covering up the murder of civilians, fostering a culture of ignorance by allowing the religious fundamentalists to decide what GOVERNMENT RAN SCHOOLS are allowed to teach and of course placing an actor on the terror alert watch list because he was in a film about environmentalism?

I know that not all Americans are so stupid, blind, malicious and idiotically patriotic the point they think they can do no wrong but saying that America is by any stretch of the imagination "good" is frankly absurd.

And to prove this isn't just blind America hate:
My country is frankly America' *****,our government does whatever yours says no matter how absurd,
Our school system is starting to get embarrassing, our judicial system is to be honest a joke, our politicians act like spoiled children not to mention the rampant corruption.

At any rate I think Wiki leaks is a good thing I'm of the opinion that the government should never be aloud to hide anything from it's people (with the exception of military tactics and maneuvers during times of war) Particularly not changes in laws and policies that could affect the people.

are you by any chance swedish?

Also, thank you for posting my exact views on this matter aswell.

 

[Sjakie]

I think it's good because it will force the affected Governments to play and deal fair with other countries.

 

[lizabeth19]

Right now I'm not entirely sure about whether Wikileaks is a good or bad thing. It really does remain to be seen how this plays out in the international areana of politics. Will wikileads make countries more cautious in its diplomatic and political posturing if a reveal of the facade is only click away? Or will political entities become so paranoid at the mere thought of any potentially information being revealed that they enact laws or provisions that make whistle-blowing, if not impossible, too costly for even the most daring.

That said, I'm sort of getting a...thrill out of reading about the recently revealed polticial nicknaming, diplomatic bitching and juicy backroom deals. It's like watching the self-implosion of the top-of-the-hierarchy high-school clique happening in the the corridor. Slightly awkward and a bit shocking but oh-so deliciously voyeristic.

 

[SimuLord]

Do you know what you call it when you steal state secrets and leak them to a country's enemies or even its allies? It's called "espionage". Julian Assange is a spy. But people treat him like he's a real-life Three Dog.

The leaks about the North Korea situation with China in particular show just how dangerous that site is and how WikiLeaks would just as soon cause World War 3 or set the cause of east Asian diplomacy back 60 years rather than know when to keep their mouths shut. Loose lips sink ships.

I say Assange ought to be strung up as a spy.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Do you know what you call it when you steal state secrets and leak them to a country's enemies or even its allies? It's called "espionage". Julian Assange is a spy.

Except that he didn't steal state secrets himself, which is a pretty big difference.

 

[moretimethansense]

snip

snip

snip again

are you by any chance swedish?

Also, thank you for posting my exact views on this matter aswell.

UK England, Cumbria to be more specific
And you're welcome.

 

[Grigori361]

I hold no issue with it so long as wikileaks leaks things all across the board, I'm all for transparency and anoymous whistle blowing from those who feel it's needed, that helecopter murder spree if you've seen it, it also standard a(if unofficial) US operating procedure so I have heard.

I'd rather enjoy more people knowing about it.

Secondarily, yes I get that secret things are secret for a reason, but remember that wikileaks has refused to leak a sizable amount of what they've been given because it could endanger lives (as opposed to just embarrass) .

But that is just me.

 

[Grigori361]

Information is power, and that power can be used to curtail the abusive regimes in charge at the moment. So yes, WikiLeaks is good.



Now someone post ACTA on there!

that's already been done out the ass, as I recall the ONLY publicly accessible copies of ACTA are from wikileaks

 

[FoOd77]

To me it just seems like all Assange is accomplishing is souring relations between two closely allied countries for shits 'n' giggles.

That, and he seems like a pompous ass with a giant ego who thinks he is some sort of righteous crusader for truth and justice, heroically fighting against the evil totalitarian regimes who are probably sending agents to scour the world to silence him! He doesn't exactly seem very humble, is what I'm saying.

So no, I don't much care for WikiLeaks, or it's founder.

 

[Grigori361]

Information is power, and that power can be used to curtail the abusive regimes in charge at the moment. So yes, WikiLeaks is good.



Now someone post ACTA on there!

that's already been done out the ass, as I recall the ONLY publicly accessible copies of ACTA are from wikileaks

Every time it's leaked they rewrite it.

Mhm hence the joy of leaking it anew I suppose.

 

[Toriver]

It's both good and bad, really. A lot of people have already pointed out why, but I think for the sake of convenience, I will gather up the arguments into one post:

The Good
-Keeps governments accountable to their people
-Exposes the whole truth, or as much as possible, about many controversial issues, no matter how damning
-Helps the public make more informed decisions

The Bad
-Damages relations among key allies
-Exposes potentially vital data on our national security to the enemy
-In a conflict against a non-governmental entity, only really damaging to one side, making it almost seem treasonous

Ultimately, whether a person would tend to think this is good or bad will probably come down to a few factors:
1) Their current opinion of the US
2) Whether they believe the ends justify the means
3) Their trust in government in general when it comes to national security
4) Whether they believe that some things should be kept secret for the sake of that national security

Now, to be honest, I tend to lean more against the site myself, though I can understand the arguments made by the site's supporters. However, I also believe that in order to actually make progress in these sorts of conflicts, some things really do need to be kept secret, because if you release information to the public, it WILL end up in the hands of the enemy and they WILL use it against us. You can't hide any public information, and most private information, in today's world of global access. That makes it much more difficult for our intelligence and security officials to stay one step ahead, or keep only one step behind, al-Qaeda and other groups we're fighting. Ultimately, that will also mean that we will likely have to do things that we would not normally do if this were a traditional war. We didn't have to resort to these means in previous conflicts because we were fighting more organized armies, and intelligence wasn't so hard to come by through traditional means. But in this type of conflict, we need allies and intelligence more than we would against a traditional army in order to protect our own troops as well as innocent civilians, and we may have to resort to rather harsh measures to get it. It's the age-old dilemma: would you kill (or torture) one person to save one hundred? Your answer to that question would probably come back to heavily influence your opinion of WikiLeaks.

EDIT: I'm not sure, but wouldn't this be more appropriate in R&P? It's fine here, too, but the subject matter seems more like something for that forum.

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

Im all for the truth, but when peoples lives are ruined that don't deserve it or when it in-dangers people's lives, it's not worth showing.

 

[Woodsey]

Necessary, although I don't think I can assign it good or bad.

Well put. I'm not sure if this exactly good or bad because that seems too simple, but I think the people should know, as long as what's released isn't putting people's lives at risk (I understand that this leak necessarily isn't).

On the other hand, the stuff about the other leaders sound hilarious. Kiddafi has a busty blonde Ukrainian nurse at his side? Haters gonna hate.

America however, is still trying to arrest him.

I though INTERPOL made the warrant.

The only way I could actually think of sticking good and bad to it would be to assign it to each individual leak.

 

[uc.asc]

Wikileaks is a controlled opposition of the USA government. Most documents are old or already known if you cared to research.

No, I am not going to dig the sources for you, do it yourself. My statement still stands, despite it will be challenged without sources. Go google it.

Also, why is there [almost] no dirt on Israel? Sorry, but these kind of controlled leaks seem to provoke/fuel more conflicts/wars in the world and I am not a favourite of it.

1. When somebody makes an assertion, backing it up is their job. If they fail to do so, they have no right to whine when they are ignored.

2. Where did this thing about israel come from, and why is my "this guy subscribes to an anti-semetic conspiracy theory" sense tingling?

(oh, right -- it's because you have singled out israel when there also is not a lot of dirt on tunisia, cyprus or the netherlands antilles; and because instead of mentioning any of the entirely fair reasons not to like israel you have instead chosen to make veiled insinuations)

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

it's a very mixed bag of good and bad. there does need to be a lot more transparency about certain things, but when leaked information costs lives, there's a problem.

 

[Jamieson 90]

I think its a good thing. Just look at the Chilcot inquiry into Iraq. It only went ahead with assurances that US interests would not be compromised and we would never have known this if the politicians had it there way, same with the expenses scandal last year.

Look at the media though, Julian Assange is wanted by Interpol all of a sudden, where did that come from? It has character assassination written all over it.

 

[uc.asc]

Wikileaks is a controlled opposition of the USA government. Most documents are old or already known if you cared to research.

No, I am not going to dig the sources for you, do it yourself. My statement still stands, despite it will be challenged without sources. Go google it.

Also, why is there [almost] no dirt on Israel? Sorry, but these kind of controlled leaks seem to provoke/fuel more conflicts/wars in the world and I am not a favourite of it.

1. When somebody makes an assertion, backing it up is their job. If they fail to do so, they have no right to whine when they are ignored.

2. Where did this thing about israel come from, and why is my "this guy subscribes to an anti-semetic conspiracy theory" sense tingling?

(oh, right -- it's because you have singled out israel when there also is not a lot of dirt on tunisia, cyprus or the netherlands antilles; and because instead of mentioning any of the entirely fair reasons not to like israel you have instead chosen to make veiled insinuations)

Too bad I already covered myself in before you could make any statements of your own.

I know statements without sources are to be challenged and I don't really care if you check the sources on your own or not, google is basically your friend and it gets you top rank results.

Also, I am anti-semetic conspiracy theory? You have the balls to make such claims or even feel this in your gut, I am in no way a person that opposes Jews or their religion they follow. Even more, I am to respect the religion itself and it's people or I couldn't be called Muslim.

Check it out, there is really nothing on Israel whilst they have done questionable/despicable things, why you establish a connection with me being a possible anti-semetic person is beyond me.

You can re-read the part in the parentheses if that helps you.

 

[Halceon]

The only things the leaks put to risk is the safety of governments from their own people. I support it whole-heartedly and will probably donate once I get my internet-capable card set up.

 

[EasySt17]

While I do think it is important that there is such an thing as government accountability wikileaks is not a tool that improves that situation. For one thing negotiations between world leaders shouldn't be transparent. If it were we would see how every country acts in its own selfish self interest. That's not a good thing for world peace. Second, as far a war goes, anyone who thinks occupying an urban environment with terrorists hiding amoung civilians isn't going to result in some civilian fatalities is bat-shit retarded. Quite frankly I don't trust the vast majority of people to foster an informed, educated opinion about most controverial topics anyway.

 

[Eumersian]

I feel like there's a serious potential for danger here. Just because nothing really incriminating has been leaked yet doesn't mean that it won't be leaked. Have you ever kept a secret? Yes? I thought so. People keep secrets from one another all the time, because certain people not knowing is better than them knowing.

If you shoplifted some skittles from a convenience store, would you tell your parents? The police? Probably not. You know that what you just did was illegal, or at least I hope so. But you believe that what you did wasn't a horrible crime, so you don't feel guilty and like you have to admit it to stay sane.

Let's bump it up a bit. How many underage pornography watchers are there on earth? Based on evidence from certain peoples' posts (not here, of course), probably quite a few. How many of them routinely tell their parents about the porn that they watch. Probably very few.

I know all that may come off as a weak argument. Weak arguments are usually my specialty. But I truly believe that wikileaks is not noble in any respect. People should leave it to themselves to reveal their own issues if they ever want to. The possible ends it may generate certainly do not justify these means.