Wikileaks

[Poptart Invasion]

i totally agree with there being watchdogs for the average citizen against the gov't. but...this guy isnt what we need.
you want to expose dirty spending by big banks? swell! you want to expose war-crimes, so those responsible for dishonoring the mantle of a soldier are brought to justice? right on, buddy!

you want to expose the names of gov't informants, who are helping are soldiers fight the guys they really wanna be fighting, who provide information that, in some cases, prevents civilian casualties, prevents military casualties, and may even decrease enemy casualties by increases the chance of capture, rather than the killing, of terrorists and insurrectionists, possibly leading to a another (albeit, detained) informant?

and do you want to do this, knowing full well that these individuals, who would have had it easier if they had kept to themselves, or worse yet, aided terrorists, yet decided that the right course of action, whether you agree or not, was to aid the coilition forces, in the hope of a more prosperous and stable home, if not tomorrow then prehaps someday, for their family, for their children, and for future generations--expose them by name and location, knowing full well they and their entire family, even their children, potentialy face death at the hand of merciless, indiscriminate, slaughtering butchers?

go.
right.
the.
fuck.
to.
hell.
you.
worthless.
disgusting.
bottom-feeding.
scum-sucking.
piece.
of.
dogshit.
bastard.

i dont care what phoney charge they slap on this monster. he's not the champion of democracy or the free-exchange of ideas. we need one, but this cretan isnt it.
i hope he rots in a secret prison for the rest of his life for the soldiers and innocent civilians hes put at risk. maybe its not the ideals i should be standing by as an american, and i tend to be more idealistic than most of my fellow citizens. but the only fair thing would be worse; slaughtering HIM. preferable making it last an hour for each life that came to an end because of his leaks.

but that wouldnt be a precedent i could stand behind, even as applicable for this prick as it might be. a precedent i can get behind: themistoclese. his lie saved democracy. i can support a lie that gets this dispicable stain at least a modicum of the punishment he deserves.

i hope the day they catch him is the last day he ever sees the sun again.

Its funny how nobody can name a single person directly affected. Its almost as if the media are fear-mongering, government controlled propaganda stages who have spouted this crap so ignorant fuckwads like you start parroting this bullshit about him having blood on his hands.

Julian Assange is a free-speech activist. He is a fucking hero who doing more to end government corruption than anyone else has (or at least publicly) for decades.

because the govenment controls all media? yeah, and all the hits obama, and bush before him, have taken are just love taps. if they had any say in it, do you think they would have let the media sky-rocket this guy's status in the public's awareness to begin with?

the names are availible at wikileaks. look them up if you have such faith in your savior.

When governments show total disregard for human rights and show that those in charge have interests that exclude mine, I have no desire to side with them. If my country's politicians, who do things in my name as a citizen of my country, do something shameful or harmful, I want to know. I'm fully willing to forfeit some of my safety for the existence of WikiLeaks.

want to forfeit your safety, fine. how do you feel about the families of the informants? think you, or anyone, has a right to forfeit theirs?


"A group of human-rights organizations is pressing WikiLeaks to do a better job of redacting names from thousands of war documents it is publishing, joining the list of critics that claim the Web site's actions could jeopardize the safety of Afghans who aided the U.S. military.

'The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html

but, you know, im sure Amnesty International, Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, Open Society Institute, and Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission are all just puppets for the government like the media.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The Goverment is clearly not performing their duties. None in the entire world I'd like to claim.
Wikileaks is doing a good job, granted I never go there but that doesn't mean I see the potential of it.

If you let the Goverment rule ungoverened, it will lie to you unquestionable and will make your life miserable.
To say that "It is not for Civilians eyes" is the same as accepting that you live in slavery, a goverment that watches you.

I'm sorry, I feel I cannot phrase this any better..
I hope my point gets through to you.

I'm of the mind that all information is suitable for civilian eyes...but not at all times.
There are times where suppression of information is appropriate.

To quote Men in Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

I'm in agreement that we need more disclosure of government secrets; especially in a world that is becoming more globally inter-connected (just for the average person to gain a sense of what is really at stake), but there are just certain things that we need to try to deal with quietly before going to the public.

If you let an organization operate in total secrecy for long enough, eventually, nothing will be beneath them.

 

[Something Amyss]

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way about this guy running WikiLeaks. I'm frankly surprised the government doesn't shut him down and imprison him for treason

Yeah, why don't they lock up an Australian for Treason?

 

[fulano]

People seem to focus on the negative, oddly. Hasn't anyone been relieved to find out that the government is just, well, evil instead of, uh, evil, Darth Vader style? There's no worldwide conspiracy to harvest organs, to cover up for child international porn rings, etc., etc. At the very least I do take solace on that.

Now, on to the meat of it: this is bullshit (more on topic, amirite?). Why is Assange the badguy for a lot of people for doing this (mind you, he may have other troubles)? What he's doing is called journalism. A source contacts him and he makes the infirmation public if he deems it of relevance. The end. That's what news outlets used to do way back when, but not anymore. And who does the state of things favor? Whomever happens to be in power at any point in time.

Granted, I don't agree that just one man can hold this much power over the media, but what we have seen is a paradigm shift in how information is presented to the public and that is worthwhile for all of us. Now, news outlets are a feeling the throes of obsolescence and they don't like it. What good are they when somebody can leak sensitive information for the world at large to digest without them getting involved? They're dealing with a situation where they are not in control of the processing of the context anymore and it freezes the shit in their asses as that has become good bussiness practice over teh years (and hence why journalism is pretty much fucked these days).

When governments show total disregard for human rights and show that those in charge have interests that exclude mine, I have no desire to side with them. If my country's politicians, who do things in my name as a citizen of my country, do something shameful or harmful, I want to know. I'm fully willing to forfeit some of my safety for the existence of WikiLeaks.

Why forfeit? Where did you get this idea? They're not leaking information about undercover CIA agents or anything of that sort, unlike a previous american administration (*cough* Valerie Plame *cough*), but rather a shitload of info the government doesn't want you to know about. That's it. It's more about this: The government is already spying on you, and it is legal. Shouldn't you at least know what your diplomats are doing, or whose countries it is trying to make deals with to take the Guantanamo prisoners, or why some of your diplomats were tasked with spying on other foreign ones, etc.? Don't let them fool you, it's not your ass at stake. It's theirs.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Watch this and tell me that wikileaks isn't doing the right thing.

I'm not embedding it as I personally find its content offensive.

 

[Jodah]

Everyone has secrets. The Government is no different, and should not be different. The trick is to have a balance of having appropriate secrets and not sweeping everything under the rug. The Government by itself would likely hide too much (as we have seen in the past). Wikileaks, imo, goes too far in the opposite direction. One day we will reach the balance, hopefully, but right now we have not.

 

[Koroviev]

i totally agree with there being watchdogs for the average citizen against the gov't. but...this guy isnt what we need.
you want to expose dirty spending by big banks? swell! you want to expose war-crimes, so those responsible for dishonoring the mantle of a soldier are brought to justice? right on, buddy!

you want to expose the names of gov't informants, who are helping are soldiers fight the guys they really wanna be fighting, who provide information that, in some cases, prevents civilian casualties, prevents military casualties, and may even decrease enemy casualties by increases the chance of capture, rather than the killing, of terrorists and insurrectionists, possibly leading to a another (albeit, detained) informant?

and do you want to do this, knowing full well that these individuals, who would have had it easier if they had kept to themselves, or worse yet, aided terrorists, yet decided that the right course of action, whether you agree or not, was to aid the coilition forces, in the hope of a more prosperous and stable home, if not tomorrow then prehaps someday, for their family, for their children, and for future generations--expose them by name and location, knowing full well they and their entire family, even their children, potentialy face death at the hand of merciless, indiscriminate, slaughtering butchers?

go.
right.
the.
fuck.
to.
hell.
you.
worthless.
disgusting.
bottom-feeding.
scum-sucking.
piece.
of.
dogshit.
bastard.

i dont care what phoney charge they slap on this monster. he's not the champion of democracy or the free-exchange of ideas. we need one, but this cretan isnt it.
i hope he rots in a secret prison for the rest of his life for the soldiers and innocent civilians hes put at risk. maybe its not the ideals i should be standing by as an american, and i tend to be more idealistic than most of my fellow citizens. but the only fair thing would be worse; slaughtering HIM. preferable making it last an hour for each life that came to an end because of his leaks.

but that wouldnt be a precedent i could stand behind, even as applicable for this prick as it might be. a precedent i can get behind: themistoclese. his lie saved democracy. i can support a lie that gets this dispicable stain at least a modicum of the punishment he deserves.

i hope the day they catch him is the last day he ever sees the sun again.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way about this guy running WikiLeaks. I'm frankly surprised the government doesn't shut him down and imprison him for treason; he's threatening to reveal information that could kill our citizens and likely anyone else they've associated with.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/05/wikileaks-ready-release-massive-insurance-file-shut/

And then there's this. How exactly does this guy get away with blackmailing the U.S.? In any sane world, he would arrested and if he launched the files, put to death in front of the firing squad.

So, no, this isn't free speech. Not when you're blackmailing a government.

I don't have a well-formed opinion on the matter, but regardless, I wouldn't cite Fox News as a reliable source of information. Really, I wouldn't cite most cable news networks. Too many sensational headlines, too little depth.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way about this guy running WikiLeaks. I'm frankly surprised the government doesn't shut him down and imprison him for treason

Yeah, why don't they lock up an Australian for Treason?

Sedition is what I meant. Even so, just because he is an Australian doesn't excuse him using blackmail to stay working, so let's not pretend he's do-gooder.

And, if you want to really get technical, read this and tell me he's only threatening us.

"Assange warns that any government that tries to curtail his activities risks triggering a new deluge of state and commercial secrets.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/05/wikileaks-ready-release-massive-insurance-file-shut/#ixzz17RuDghlY"

 

[Gigano]

...
The big problem is that in the last couple administrations, the US government has gotten out of control with its use of "classified." I can't speak as much for other governments, but it's getting ridiculous. I'm not saying the US has never abused the system before, nor that they shouldn't ever classify things, but it just gets crazy at points.

Someone needs to hold them accountable. That used to be the press and the people.

I'd rather see the people and press resume that role than fairly reckless idealists like Assange & Co. Civil disobedience can sometimes serve a purpose[footnote]Whether this instance does I'm not really sure[/footnote], but it's not really a solution. There got to be some politicians and journalists whose 9/11 paranoia and nationalism rush has lifted enough that the core principles of western civil rights democracies are coming back to them, even in the US.

The government is there to serve its people. They aren't above us and they deserve no privacy. All too often people respect the government as if they are special -- royal like, even. They are however, in debt to us, the people, and should be doing everything in their power to make our lives better. Anything they do or say should be heard by us.

Freedom of information - it's a good thing.

Wholeheartedly agreed, at least on the internal front. Given that there's external relations to foreign powers - not all stable and democratic - to consider if you want to improve the conditions for their populations and keep your own ones safe, I believe some secrecy should be allowed for in international diplomatic relations. Sort of like affirmative action; it's not ideal and clash with a principle or two, but in an imperfect world still marred by a brutal history it can be a necessity for worthwhile gains and keeping far more severe practical problems from the door.

Assange doesn't seem to have caused any real harm yet, so I won't condemn him, but I don't see him always being in the right in his uncompromising open source philosophy, and situations could arise where he did end up destabilizing the diplomatic process. A perfect philosophy in an imperfect world is fit only for a goal, not a method.

 

[BlackStar42]

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way about this guy running WikiLeaks. I'm frankly surprised the government doesn't shut him down and imprison him for treason; he's threatening to reveal information that could kill our citizens and likely anyone else they've associated with.



So, no, this isn't free speech. Not when you're blackmailing a government.

You can't arrest him for treason because he isn't a US citizen. They are trying to shut him down- that's what this rape case is about.

 

[AgentBJ09]

i totally agree with there being watchdogs for the average citizen against the gov't. but...this guy isnt what we need.
you want to expose dirty spending by big banks? swell! you want to expose war-crimes, so those responsible for dishonoring the mantle of a soldier are brought to justice? right on, buddy!

you want to expose the names of gov't informants, who are helping are soldiers fight the guys they really wanna be fighting, who provide information that, in some cases, prevents civilian casualties, prevents military casualties, and may even decrease enemy casualties by increases the chance of capture, rather than the killing, of terrorists and insurrectionists, possibly leading to a another (albeit, detained) informant?

and do you want to do this, knowing full well that these individuals, who would have had it easier if they had kept to themselves, or worse yet, aided terrorists, yet decided that the right course of action, whether you agree or not, was to aid the coilition forces, in the hope of a more prosperous and stable home, if not tomorrow then prehaps someday, for their family, for their children, and for future generations--expose them by name and location, knowing full well they and their entire family, even their children, potentialy face death at the hand of merciless, indiscriminate, slaughtering butchers?

go.
right.
the.
fuck.
to.
hell.
you.
worthless.
disgusting.
bottom-feeding.
scum-sucking.
piece.
of.
dogshit.
bastard.

i dont care what phoney charge they slap on this monster. he's not the champion of democracy or the free-exchange of ideas. we need one, but this cretan isnt it.
i hope he rots in a secret prison for the rest of his life for the soldiers and innocent civilians hes put at risk. maybe its not the ideals i should be standing by as an american, and i tend to be more idealistic than most of my fellow citizens. but the only fair thing would be worse; slaughtering HIM. preferable making it last an hour for each life that came to an end because of his leaks.

but that wouldnt be a precedent i could stand behind, even as applicable for this prick as it might be. a precedent i can get behind: themistoclese. his lie saved democracy. i can support a lie that gets this dispicable stain at least a modicum of the punishment he deserves.

i hope the day they catch him is the last day he ever sees the sun again.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way about this guy running WikiLeaks. I'm frankly surprised the government doesn't shut him down and imprison him for treason; he's threatening to reveal information that could kill our citizens and likely anyone else they've associated with.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/05/wikileaks-ready-release-massive-insurance-file-shut/

And then there's this. How exactly does this guy get away with blackmailing the U.S.? In any sane world, he would arrested and if he launched the files, put to death in front of the firing squad.

So, no, this isn't free speech. Not when you're blackmailing a government.

I don't have a well-formed opinion on the matter, but regardless, I wouldn't cite Fox News as a reliable source of information. Really, I wouldn't cite most cable news networks. Too many sensational headlines, too little depth.

OK, then. Here's a few other sites that had this news.

http://patriotupdate.com/stories/read/6417/WikiLeaks-Ready-to-Release-Giant-Insurance-File-if-Shut-Down

http://njuice.com/WikiLeaks-Ready-Release-Giant-Insurance-File-Shut-Down

http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/why-hasnt-the-us-filed-injunctions-over-publishing-wikileaks-stories/

http://current.com/news/92844606_wikileaks-ready-to-release-giant-insurance-file-if-shut-down.htm

If FOX isn't credible, why then are many of these sites using their news piece?

 

[RobCoxxy]

First time I heard of Wikileaks was this weekend, some friends were chatting about all the conspiracys and whatnot... went to check it out and it's not there... /shrug. Seemed interesting, anyway.

Government shut down the server companies hosting it.

Wikileaks are in the right.

 

[mklnjbh]

We should know what the government is doing, not who exactly is doing things in the government. I would certainly like to see documents that directly relate to dark dealings in Washington, but I don't want to CIA agent doing them at risk of outside attack. Maybe just blot out the names? Hm?

 

[Koroviev]

OK, then. Here's a few other sites that had this news.

http://patriotupdate.com/stories/read/6417/WikiLeaks-Ready-to-Release-Giant-Insurance-File-if-Shut-Down

http://njuice.com/WikiLeaks-Ready-Release-Giant-Insurance-File-Shut-Down

http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/why-hasnt-the-us-filed-injunctions-over-publishing-wikileaks-stories/

http://current.com/news/92844606_wikileaks-ready-to-release-giant-insurance-file-if-shut-down.htm

If FOX isn't credible, why then are many of these sites using their news piece?

Those are not academic sources. Let me clarify by saying that I am not claiming that the news story is wrong. Rather, what I am saying is that you could do better in terms of support. The problem with the average news story is that it is meant to appeal to the general public. In other words, current events are often subjected to the oversimplification brush. Moreover, news organizations have a profit motive. There is a clear incentive for them to report in such a way that is appealing to a wide audience, as opposed to in such a way that is deep and informative.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sedition is what I meant. Even so, just because he is an Australian doesn't excuse him using blackmail to stay working, so let's not pretend he's do-gooder.

I didn't pretend he was a do-gooder. I tend not to think in black-and-white terms, and not believing he's guilty of treason does not automatically mean he's a saint.

And, if you want to really get technical, read this and tell me he's only threatening us.

Why would I say that, period? Are you putting words in my mouth?

Why does it not surprise me that you're sourcing from Fox News while apparently resorting to dishonest tactics to knock me down in strawman effigy? Will you next call me out on my support of al Qaeda because I pointed out an obvious fallacy within your prior post?

Sedition's a bit much, as well, but that's another story.

 

[KeyMaster45]

You know, this is the first Wikileaks related thread I have seen on the Escapist. I am very disappointed, really. However, I can't say that I am all that surprised given the nature of the community here.

If you don't manually visit the religion and politics forum you're not going to see them on the recent posts list. I'm fairly certain there are a few threads discussing it in there over the last year.

Frankly I don't like the guy who runs it, he comes off as a serious tool. I don't visit Wikileaks but it seems that he's usually only targeting the US which kinda leaves me to question if he's really out to do what he says. If he's posted stuff about other nations how come we don't hear about it? Why is it that everyone gets a wedgie whenever he leaks US documents and not other countries if the US isn't the only one?

Bottom line, I don't think he's really doing what he does for the greater good and in fact comes off not unlike a cheesy Bond villain.(kinda like the one in Tomorrow Never Dies) I believe that the idea he hides behind is a noble one; all governments should be held accountable for their actions, however, doing something like releasing those private diplomat cables only serves to create discord amongst nations.

 

[Blaster395]

The servers are still somewhat functional
www.Wikileaks.de is working fine
Anyway, wikileaks offered to talk to some US officials if they want any specific names, dates, or locations removed in order to protect people, and the Officials just ignored the whole thing saying that they refuse to negotiate.
I think that wikileaks are doing the right thing. After all, if the US keep saying bad things about countries behind their backs, it deserves to have bad relations with them.

I bet computers at the pentagon are searching everything we say here for anything Anti-US.


You know what's even worse, the US has a filtering system capable of filtering websites from being viewed not only in the US, but in every country in the world... Sounds very easy to abuse.

 

[Verp]

When governments show total disregard for human rights and show that those in charge have interests that exclude mine, I have no desire to side with them. If my country's politicians, who do things in my name as a citizen of my country, do something shameful or harmful, I want to know. I'm fully willing to forfeit some of my safety for the existence of WikiLeaks.

Why forfeit? Where did you get this idea? They're not leaking information about undercover CIA agents or anything of that sort, unlike a previous american administration (*cough* Valerie Plame *cough*), but rather a shitload of info the government doesn't want you to know about. That's it. It's more about this: The government is already spying on you, and it is legal. Shouldn't you at least know what your diplomats are doing, or whose countries it is trying to make deals with to take the Guantanamo prisoners, or why some of your diplomats were tasked with spying on other foreign ones, etc.? Don't let them fool you, it's not your ass at stake. It's theirs.

Well, my main point is that it's no use for any media to try to instill a fear in me -- I'm already more afraid of what my government and its allies are doing behind my back than any external force and truthfully, I'd rather expose myself to external dangers than the stagnation and rotting inside my country.

When governments show total disregard for human rights and show that those in charge have interests that exclude mine, I have no desire to side with them. If my country's politicians, who do things in my name as a citizen of my country, do something shameful or harmful, I want to know. I'm fully willing to forfeit some of my safety for the existence of WikiLeaks.

want to forfeit your safety, fine. how do you feel about the families of the informants? think you, or anyone, has a right to forfeit theirs?


"A group of human-rights organizations is pressing WikiLeaks to do a better job of redacting names from thousands of war documents it is publishing, joining the list of critics that claim the Web site's actions could jeopardize the safety of Afghans who aided the U.S. military.

'The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html

but, you know, im sure Amnesty International, Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, Open Society Institute, and Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission are all just puppets for the government like the media.

I don't feel that their lives have any more value than anyone else who is endangered by war. I think that their safety was forfeited the moment war started and one of them decided to become involved -- they've been pawns in it ever since. The moment war begins, everyone involved loses.

If a government wants my support in protecting its pawns, it would have to establish trust with me, because otherwise I cannot trust that it won't do what the opposing powers want to do to the informants and their families, but for somebody on the other side. After trust has been established, I'm willing to give up WikiLeaks.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

[Frankly I don't like the guy who runs it, he comes off as a serious tool. I don't visit Wikileaks but it seems that he's usually only targeting the US which kinda leaves me to question if he's really out to do what he says. If he's posted stuff about other nations how come we don't hear about it? Why is it that everyone gets a wedgie whenever he leaks US documents and not other countries if the US isn't the only one?

Wikileaks have released documents from other countries before but you'll probably find that the bulk of their information comes from the US so that's where most of the "Leaks" focus on.

 

[Dr.Poisonfreak]

I'm all for it, don't misconstrue that however.

I believe that in order for countries to have a relationship that means something, as with couples, it has to be based on honesty.

But thats just what i think, i realise my point of view is heavily flawed in many aspects, but who knows? maybe this website will help countries solve their issues to attack a common enemy, which in this case is Juian Assange.