Wikileaks

[Poptart Invasion]

nevermind, took awhile for my previous post to load so i thought it had failed to all together.

 

[Zaik]

i've always been a huge supporter of total free speech, EXCEPT when whatever it is causes great harm. wikileaks seems to be trying to destroy relationships between countries, so that is a huge problem.

I think one of the other diplomats said it best when they said, "You guys should see what we say about you."

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

i believe it's good that there are modern times robin hoods around the world... i like to see governments of the world getting a slap, each at a time, for their secrecy and politians for doing business along with their privilegial positions.

now we just have to wait for some good UFO/Alien archives to appear, or something related.

 

[Koroviev]

The latest stuff is mostly "the US says one thing, thinks another" and that's perfectly fine to show IMO. If this starts happening more often, it'll just force governments to be more honest.

Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, begs to differ. He argues that while Wikileaks will be a boon for historians in the short-term, it will prove to be a double-edged sword in the long-term. He argues that rather than surrendering to Assange, the United States government will do everything in its power to silence him and his supporters. Moreover, Drezner asserts that the government will become more secretive, taking measures to ensure that there is a very limited paper trail of classified information, and furthermore, that what remains of the paper trail is kept out of untrustworthy hands. Thus, in the long-term, Drezner believes that future historians will have a lot less information to draw conclusions from as a consequence of the governmental response to Assange's actions that he proposes.

Source: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-WikiLeaks-Is-Bad-for/125628

 

[Poptart Invasion]

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

Because they scan the internet for stories, usually automatically, from the bigger news sites and copy and paste them to try and gain views. It's not rocket-science. and a large number of smaller sites do it...that or they hold their own agenda, as Fox news does too.

Fox aren't a good source of news, at all.

snip

Do you have any evidence that actually proves people are at harms risk thanks to this information? Have you seen the Wiki-leaks posts? Have you heard any stories about anyone being affected by these leaks [bar the government(s) involved of course]?

I bet the answer is no, because you're just quoting media sensationalism that doesn't really exist...

i dont suppose the part you left out when quoting me had the link about AMNESTY FRICKIN INTERNATIONAL, among OTHER human rights groups, decrying his lack of redaction of civilian names, that terrorist groups vowed to act upon by (oh boy, aint THIS out of character of those rascally terrorists) KILLING them.

and the media sensationalism doesnt exist? then why are you in a fuss about it?

ohhhhhh, you mean the BASIS of the sensationalism doesnt exist. right, because government controls all media (and the folks at Amnesty International for that matter), because this man did ALL the proper redactions because he responsible when it comes to releasing state secrets to the world, the civilians have nothing to worry about because terrorists are nice people, and JFK was killed by the Mole Rat Men.

thanks, for a second, none of it made any sense to me. good thing you were able to clarify it.

 

[michael_ab]

heres a simile to abstractly state my opinion of things like wikileaks.

do you want your mom to know where your porn stash is? or your little brother where your condoms are?

you know that awesome girl your trying to date? do you want her parents to see your texts calling them assholes? or the same girlfriend seeing those pics you sent to the hot cheerleader at school?

BUT

i bet you always want to know exactly when your parents are keeping tabs on what your doing. (looking at online history or just peeking in to check on you)

we all need secrets to keep relations stable and our intrests safe, but we also need to know when someone has plans for us, or if they are watching us. wikileaks is doing the right thing, but they need to go about it more delicatly

 

[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.

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.

...wow...just wow.

so, its these people fault? based on them sticking their necks out for a powerful force in their country (a force they didnt ask for) because they think this force, whether its true or not, can bring them stability and safety, or hell, even slightly decrease the likelihood of their 8 year old child from being car-bombed on their way to school?

...i have nothing to say to you.

It's not their "fault". I'm not blaming them for anything. They probably haven't done anything that I want to give them blame for.

 

[D_987]

First and foremost I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to communicate; if you wish to argue a point on a forum it's probably best to write in a cohesive and readable manner, lest nobody take you seriously.

i dont suppose the part you left out when quoting me had the link about AMNESTY FRICKIN INTERNATIONAL, among OTHER human rights groups, decrying his lack of redaction of civilian names, that terrorist groups vowed to act upon by (oh boy, aint THIS out of character of those rascally terrorists) KILLING them.

Has any action been taken by these groups? I think, if it had, we'd hear a big media storm about it. Fact is nothing has happened; and yes I am saying Amnesty international has an agenda; they're a big charity organization; and these organizations, much like the government, are often corrupt - or waste money. I have little to base this off [much like your own claims] but you're not going to stop me claiming otherwise.

and the media sensationalism doesnt exist? then why are you in a fuss about it?

Not sure what you're saying here; that was my point all along...

ohhhhhh, you mean the BASIS of the sensationalism doesnt exist.

I said the opposite...

right, because government controls all media (and the folks at Amnesty International for that matter), because this man did ALL the proper redactions because he responsible when it comes to releasing state secrets to the world, the civilians have nothing to worry about because terrorists are nice people, and JFK was killed by the Mole Rat Men.

Again, please link [and actually back up your original claim] of proof, from a credible source that anyone has been adversely affected by Wiki-Leaks; if you cannot, I cannot take what you're saying seriously.

 

[Koroviev]

First and foremost I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to communicate; if you wish to argue a point on a forum it's probably best to write in a cohesive and readable manner, lest nobody take you seriously.

i dont suppose the part you left out when quoting me had the link about AMNESTY FRICKIN INTERNATIONAL, among OTHER human rights groups, decrying his lack of redaction of civilian names, that terrorist groups vowed to act upon by (oh boy, aint THIS out of character of those rascally terrorists) KILLING them.

Has any action been taken by these groups? I think, if it had, we'd hear a big media storm about it. Fact is nothing has happened; and yes I am saying Amnesty international has an agenda; they're a big charity organization; and these organizations, much like the government, are often corrupt - or waste money. I have little to base this off [much like your own claims] but you're not going to stop me claiming otherwise.

I'm not taking sides here, but I'd like to point out that two wrongs don't make a right; it's a fallacy. That he has not sourced his claims does not justify you doing the same.

 

[kokoska]

It seems to me that all the pro wikileak arguments come down to the idea that the government is a collection of evil overlords and the internet is a beautiful haven of free information in which no harm is possible.

There are two prongs to the wikileaks issue, in that some of the leaks do indeed deserve to be made known.

Such leaks involve the morbid realities of war. While I don?t think any rational person would suggest these realities were unknown (or anything new to the stage of humanity), exposing the detailed accounts does a small part to keep the public freshly appalled at them, and help keep the government from committing them too nonchalantly.

However, and here is where Wikileaks becomes completely counterproductive, a significant portion of the documents are destructive in nature.

Such leaks involve name-calling among diplomats, listings of critical locations, names of former undercover operatives, contingency plans for war, etc...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11933089
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11859472
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11932041
i compel anyone to give some kind of reason that any of this particular info ought to be accessible to the world. They are blatantly destructive, and while they may not have cost lives (yet), the certainly endanger them, and serve to break down the possibility for future diplomatic discourse.

The only reason I can think of is 'for the lulz'. Well then you can go throw yourself off a bridge, you hypocritical, shallow toady. To put it in terms such a person might understand, your the joker from that one batman movie everyone loves. But remember the joker isn?t the vigilante your meant to be rooting for. Yea.

Therefore to support wikileaks is kind of asinine. The information they revealed that was positive does little to further inform or resolve the issue it concerns itself with, and the rest is destructive in nature. The good is then made irrelevant by the bad, and wikileaks is then bad.

CASE CLOSED.

 

[D_987]

I'm not taking sides here, but I'd like to point out that two wrongs don't make a right; it's a fallacy. That he has not sourced his claims does not justify you doing the same.

That was the whole point. Well done on spotting it, however.

 

[Robyrt]

Again, please link [and actually back up your original claim] of proof, from a credible source that anyone has been adversely affected by Wiki-Leaks; if you cannot, I cannot take what you're saying seriously.

Huffington Post [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks-update-us-tries_n_789031.html] quotes the Italian foreign minister calling it "the September 11th of world diplomacy."
CNN [http://www.studentnews.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/01/wikileaks.reaction/index.html] has the Turkish PM threatening to sue the US for slander.
In fact, virtually everyone involved with diplomacy in any way is claiming to be "adversely affected" by these leaks.

So yeah, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Just because it doesn't result in anyone getting shot doesn't mean it doesn't have adverse repercussions.

 

[tobi the good boy]

A better question to all this is. Why didnt he use this information and sell it off to the highest bidder, he could have made himself the next shadow broker WHY!!!!

 

[D_987]

Again, please link [and actually back up your original claim] of proof, from a credible source that anyone has been adversely affected by Wiki-Leaks; if you cannot, I cannot take what you're saying seriously.

Huffington Post [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks-update-us-tries_n_789031.html] quotes the Italian foreign minister calling it "the September 11th of world diplomacy."
CNN [http://www.studentnews.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/01/wikileaks.reaction/index.html] has the Turkish PM threatening to sue the US for slander.
In fact, virtually everyone involved with diplomacy in any way is claiming to be "adversely affected" by these leaks.

So yeah, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Just because it doesn't result in anyone getting shot doesn't mean it doesn't have adverse repercussions.

Does it have repercussions on ordinary citizens or soldiers? Because that was the point the person I responded to was making. The answer, in both these cases, is no. It simply means a breakdown in governmental communication due to reports the US shouldn't have created in the first place. You need to look at posts within the context they were written.

 

[Koroviev]

I'm not taking sides here, but I'd like to point out that two wrongs don't make a right; it's a fallacy. That he has not sourced his claims does not justify you doing the same.

That was the whole point. Well done on spotting it, however.

I don't quite follow.

 

[CaptainKoala]

He committed espionage, and the US general who helped him committed treason, both are very serious crimes. They broke the law and should be punished.

 

[kokoska]

Again, please link [and actually back up your original claim] of proof, from a credible source that anyone has been adversely affected by Wiki-Leaks; if you cannot, I cannot take what you're saying seriously.

Huffington Post [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks-update-us-tries_n_789031.html] quotes the Italian foreign minister calling it "the September 11th of world diplomacy."
CNN [http://www.studentnews.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/01/wikileaks.reaction/index.html] has the Turkish PM threatening to sue the US for slander.
In fact, virtually everyone involved with diplomacy in any way is claiming to be "adversely affected" by these leaks.

So yeah, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Just because it doesn't result in anyone getting shot doesn't mean it doesn't have adverse repercussions.

Does it have repercussions on ordinary citizens or soldiers? Because that was the point the person I responded to was making. The answer, in both these cases, is no. It simply means a breakdown in governmental communication due to reports the US shouldn't have created in the first place. You need to look at posts within the context they were written.

of course it does. for citizens and soldiers, a breakdown in diplomacy leaves only hostility. wars evolve in the absence of diplomacy, and war is paid for by everyone. furthermore there are economic reprecussions, as tensions between nations rises. also, as an american taxpayer,(you may or may not b, idk) you paid for the battle plans wikileaks nulified, and you will pay for the diplomatic damages in more transitive ways than the lawsuit huffington post cited. context.

 

[Koroviev]

He committed espionage, and the US general who helped him committed treason, both are very serious crimes. They broke the law and should be punished.

That's not very specific. Who is he? Which general?

 

[Poptart Invasion]

First and foremost I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to communicate; if you wish to argue a point on a forum it's probably best to write in a cohesive and readable manner, lest nobody take you seriously.

i dont suppose the part you left out when quoting me had the link about AMNESTY FRICKIN INTERNATIONAL, among OTHER human rights groups, decrying his lack of redaction of civilian names, that terrorist groups vowed to act upon by (oh boy, aint THIS out of character of those rascally terrorists) KILLING them.

Has any action been taken by these groups? I think, if it had, we'd hear a big media storm about it. Fact is nothing has happened; and yes I am saying Amnesty international has an agenda; they're a big charity organization; and these organizations, much like the government, are often corrupt - or waste money. I have little to base this off [much like your own claims] but you're not going to stop me claiming otherwise.

and the media sensationalism doesnt exist? then why are you in a fuss about it?

Not sure what you're saying here; that was my point all along...

ohhhhhh, you mean the BASIS of the sensationalism doesnt exist.

I said the opposite...

right, because government controls all media (and the folks at Amnesty International for that matter), because this man did ALL the proper redactions because he responsible when it comes to releasing state secrets to the world, the civilians have nothing to worry about because terrorists are nice people, and JFK was killed by the Mole Rat Men.

Again, please link [and actually back up your original claim] of proof, from a credible source that anyone has been adversely affected by Wiki-Leaks; if you cannot, I cannot take what you're saying seriously.

1) A.I. has ties to Assange, collaberating many leaks, even giving him an award. Still, they didnt like his complete disregard for the civilians listed in the document. heres the link (again): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html

no, its not a .org, but i searched amnesty.org and found NO articles of theirs denouncing the story, despite wsj not even being close to the only ones saying it. most people try to do that when false claims are made.

2) Yes, because if theres anything terrorists are known for, its their hollow threats of murder, isnt it? i hear they sell girl scout cookies too.

3) I was mocking you.

4) ...wait, what? the opposite would be that the basis of the media fuss DOES exist, meaning that leak DID put lives at risks. and im incohesive? do you know what opposite means? do you know what basis means? do you know what words in general mean?

5) seriously, if you add up the pieces at this point, youre just dense. you dont release a list of people under witness protection and claim its not gonna hurt anyone. what do you REALLY (and ask your brain for help on this one this time) think would happen to those individuals if a group of fanatical extremists get ahold of them?

 

[Simonism451]

He committed espionage, and the US general who helped him committed treason, both are very serious crimes. They broke the law and should be punished.

So then Woodward and Bernstein were commiting espionage too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

of course it does. for citizens and soldiers, a breakdown in diplomacy leaves only hostility. wars evolve in the absence of diplomacy, and war is paid for by everyone. furthermore there are economic reprecussions, as tensions between nations rises. also, as an american taxpayer,(you may or may not b, idk) you paid for the battle plans wikileaks nulified, and you will pay for the diplomatic damages in more transitive ways than the lawsuit huffington post cited. context.

Yes good Americans pay their taxes for battleplans whose content they dont know.
Oh and by the way: Battleplans? From what ive heard this far, the leaked Info is rather vague.
Like: this guy told us, that we might want to bomb this part of the earth sometime...
But maybe i got it wrong...