Wikileaks Vs The World

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Okay I did a search and found no other Wikileaks topics besides the one about the Sweden bring the founder up on charges one. Anyone if you have been following Wikileaks should know that a lot of shit has gone down with them lately. The founder is now in hiding. Amazon has pulled the plug so has Paypal. Apparently Wikileaks has a bunch of contingency plans and insurance which is encrypted with a 256 key encryption code. Wikileaks now has a Swiss address and is fighting to stay afloat since it has lost some major funding. They are even being attacked by bot nets for DoS attacks.

The question I pose is who is in the right here. Is Wikileaks in the right because they are releasing information to the public that should/shouldn't be known? Is the rest of the world in the right for going after Wikileaks for releasing sensitive information to the public that can/could/has caused pain/suffering/death from the knowledge being released?

Well, journalism used to uncover awful truths about politics all the time. They mostly stopped.
WikiLeaks sort of fills that gap in a less organized yet more effective manner. I'm on WikiLeaks' side on this, the public has a right to know what their governments do, especially when it comes at a delay like this. There's no indication that any of this stuff endangers running operations, which is the only situation where I could find such secrecy understandable and acceptable. That's not what this is about, though, these people just don't like their dirty laundry displayed in public.

Looking back on History, we see a prime example of this type of thing happening in WWII. The Chicago Tribune published America's battleplan for the Pacific, which was centered around our battleships with carrier support. The Japanese got their hands on this, so they knew most of America's plans before they even thought of Pearl Harbor. It was only last minute contingency plans of relying on our carriers after our battleships got destroyed that saved the American fleet overwhelming defeat.
How can this be applied to the topic? Wikileaks is publishing sensitive material, much like the Tribune did. They might continue publishing sensitive material until they accidentally publish something current and extremely secrete, like where America's nuclear silos are. The enemies of America can now get their hands on sensitive materials and use this knowledge against the free world.
I don't fear wikileaks for what they've done, I fear them for what they might unknowingly do. However, at the moment I'm not for or against their cause, I'm just wary of what might happen. In fact, I had myself quite a laugh when I read that the Saudi princes are telling America to bomb Iran and in doing so, siding with Israel, their enemy.

Krion_Vark:
The question I pose is who is in the right here. Is Wikileaks in the right because they are releasing information to the public that should/shouldn't be known? Is the rest of the world in the right for going after Wikileaks for releasing sensitive information to the public that can/could/has caused pain/suffering/death from the knowledge being released?

The rest of the world? I think you're mistaking knee jerk reactions from politicians for general public opinion.

Also, you should be aware that Wikileaks (in concert with three mayor international newspapers) goes thru all the material and decideds what's safe to publish.
So far only a tiny portion (821 as of now) of the 251,287 docs have been released so far.
If they were as reckless as their critics claim they are, they would have released the whole batch at once.

bl4ckh4wk64:
Diplomatic cables wont contain such information. At the very worst they will name an informer or a backchannel contact and thus potentially set individuals in danger.
In other words - no military secrets.

Wikileaks is already back up on many other servers across the world. just try www.wikileaks.nl or www.wikileaks.de

Yeah sure they "might" do some harm at some point. But they can also put a stop to it. Right now its not wikileaks that is damaging the US foreign relationships. Its the US goverment it self. You want a good relationship with other countries? Don't talk shit about them behind there backs. Look governments pull way to much shit behind out backs an then lie to our face.
If they can't be truthful bye them selves some one will have to do it for them.

Besides most world leaders got a pretty thick skin so i doubt there that upset some of the shit was kinda funny.

I think politicians and diplomats need to be called out on it whenever they cock things up and talk bullshit, so what Wikileaks does it a very good thing.

Alot of people, however, seem to think it's perfectly okay for politicians to cock things up and that the bad thing is that people find out about it.

Politicians should always be held accountable, if they just hush everything up that will never happen.

Elcarsh:
I think politicians and diplomats need to be called out on it whenever they cock things up and talk bullshit, so what Wikileaks does it a very good thing.

Alot of people, however, seem to think it's perfectly okay for politicians to cock things up and that the bad thing is that people find out about it.

Politicians should always be held accountable, if they just hush everything up that will never happen.

Indeed. The perfect example of this attitude is ravensheart18's post in the other thread, stating there should be a 50-year period of secrecy before documents are released to the public. Great, so not only would whatever political misbehaviour or outright crimes they revealed be so far in the past they would be impossible to correct, most of the politicians involved would be dead, or very near to it, and thus immune from prosecution.

I maintain that information, of ANY kind, should only be kept secret for the duration of the specific event. Diplomatic conferences should make their minutes available within a month of completion. Military documents, abstracted if it would put lives in danger to release them in their entirety, should be released as soon as the specific operation has completed(none of this "part of an ongoing conflict" bullshit, or we'd never see anything as they'd just classify everything as part of the War On Terror, which we all know is never going to end). And if politicians can't manage to operate without blanket secrecy? They need to find a new way of doing things which allows them to; democracy is a sham unless the public are kept informed of their governments behaviour, and the results of that behaviour.

bl4ckh4wk64:
Looking back on History, we see a prime example of this type of thing happening in WWII. The Chicago Tribune published America's battleplan for the Pacific, which was centered around our battleships with carrier support. The Japanese got their hands on this, so they knew most of America's plans before they even thought of Pearl Harbor. It was only last minute contingency plans of relying on our carriers after our battleships got destroyed that saved the American fleet overwhelming defeat.
How can this be applied to the topic? Wikileaks is publishing sensitive material, much like the Tribune did. They might continue publishing sensitive material until they accidentally publish something current and extremely secrete, like where America's nuclear silos are. The enemies of America can now get their hands on sensitive materials and use this knowledge against the free world.
I don't fear wikileaks for what they've done, I fear them for what they might unknowingly do. However, at the moment I'm not for or against their cause, I'm just wary of what might happen. In fact, I had myself quite a laugh when I read that the Saudi princes are telling America to bomb Iran and in doing so, siding with Israel, their enemy.

All of the papers and magazine that got early access to the cables/logs AND WikiLeaks have redacted the names of informants and people whose lives could be at risk. What you are spouting is just the lame excuse of the U.S. government for shit that they did.

They are getting their payback. I am surprised they got by this long. If they think they can for intestine purposes, support espionage on the world's sole super power, and get away with it, they obviously have another thing coming.

As far as I'm concerned, Wikileaks is a very good thing. The recent leaks have exposed just how much America really values it's allies *COUGH world police COUGH* and things like that deserve to be known.
It's also had the side-affect of making politicians who try to discredit it look a bit stupid.
I mean, calling for the execution of Julian Assange? You seem to be forgetting that he's protected as a journalist under US law.

I don't really what Wikileaks has been doing, on the basis that they didn't give any real info.

From what I've seen, it's just: "Hey guys! Did you know that war is hell, politicians act like gossipy bitches behind closed doors, and that Governments actually lie to the people?!?!?! Weird, I know!"

Rather than anything actually important.

I like what wikileaks does/did.

Our governments are supposed to do what we want. They are the arm, we are the brain. We should get information on what's going on in the world.

Shock and Awe:
They are getting their payback. I am surprised they got by this long. If they think they can for intestine purposes, support espionage on the world's sole super power, and get away with it, they obviously have another thing coming.

Intestine purposes? Huh?

Are you saying the people in the land of the free and home of the brave don't deserve to know anything about what their leaders are doing?

I see the real problem with Wikileaks is that they release information that the public DOES NOT need to know. There are some things we don't need to know right now because of a threat of mass hysteria.

And really, I think Wikileaks may have the tendancy to release stupid information as well as important imformation. Is releasing what political leaders say about each other really important? NO.

I'm not saying our governments should keep things from us, but I've know people in power and they have to keep some things secret for a while. It's better to slowly release big news than to drop a big news in the publics lap and let them deal with it.

I'm not that big a fan of Wikileaks, I can understand why they do it, but I don't like that they do it.

VanityGirl:
I see the real problem with Wikileaks is that they release information that the public DOES NOT need to know. There are some things we don't need to know right now because of a threat of mass hysteria.

And really, I think Wikileaks may have the tendancy to release stupid information as well as important imformation. Is releasing what political leaders say about each other really important? NO.

I'm not saying our governments should keep things from us, but I've know people in power and they have to keep some things secret for a while. It's better to slowly release big news than to drop a big news in the publics lap and let them deal with it.

I'm not that big a fan of Wikileaks, I can understand why they do it, but I don't like that they do it.

Wait, what kind of an objection is that, since what you are describing is EXACTLY what is happening.

In this particular instance, I'm neither for or against wikileaks. Basically, the cables they released are full of nothing but shit we already knew/suspected. Nothing significant will happen because of them, and the incident should be forgotten within a few months.

The reaction of some people are somewhat terrifying and shows how a country like China can get away with censoring it's media. If you try to claim that somehow wikileaks shouldn't also have protection as every other journalistic website or newspaper have then I ask you what is the difference between the two? Why should the one have protection while the other does not?

The public deserves to know the truth about how their government really works, and Wikileaks does this when hardly any other news outlet does.

Putting people in danger is the excuse they always give you. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.

Wikileaks already had my favor for exposing civilian murder cover ups. I have no sympathy for dumbass diplomats who can't watch what they say in writing. This is just a bunch of indignant politicians crying.

I say release everything, danger be damned.

Wikileaks imo can do whatever they want. It's the leakers like pvt. Manning that should be executed for treason.

spectrenihlus:
Wikileaks imo can do whatever they want. It's the leakers like pvt. Manning that should be executed for treason.

A soldier who refuses an order to massacre civilians is a hero.

A soldier who exposes others who have massacred civilians is a traitor who should be murdered by the state.

I don't think I'll ever understand America.

Krion_Vark:
Apparently Wikileaks has a bunch of contingency plans and insurance which is encrypted with a 256 key encryption code.

Correction the insurance file that you're referring to is only suggested to be encrypted with AES256 algorithm. If the insurance file is encrypted there's no real way of knowing what kind of algorithm is being used, even though it's suggested that it's AES256. The file could also just be complete garbage with the purpose of being disinformation or a clever bluff.

In any case the only people who would know what is in the file if there is anything in the file besides garbage would be the people holding the key (i.e. Julian Assange) and possibly a few people in the NSA if you are one to believe certain rumors that AES encryption has a mythical secret backdoor put in place by the NSA, but that's just speculation.

It's an interesting 1.4 gigs and quite a clever move on the part of wikileaks distributing it throughout the internet like they did especially if it is in fact what it appears to be.

sosolidshoe:

spectrenihlus:
Wikileaks imo can do whatever they want. It's the leakers like pvt. Manning that should be executed for treason.

A soldier who refuses an order to massacre civilians is a hero.

A soldier who exposes others who have massacred civilians is a traitor who should be murdered by the state.

I don't think I'll ever understand America.

He didn't upload specific files pertaining to civilian casualties he uploaded a whole mess of files that he was supposed to take care of. He betrayed the trust of his government and endangered lives. He is a traitor and should receive the harshest punishment to deter other would be leakers.

spectrenihlus:

sosolidshoe:

spectrenihlus:
Wikileaks imo can do whatever they want. It's the leakers like pvt. Manning that should be executed for treason.

A soldier who refuses an order to massacre civilians is a hero.

A soldier who exposes others who have massacred civilians is a traitor who should be murdered by the state.

I don't think I'll ever understand America.

He didn't upload specific files pertaining to civilian casualties he uploaded a whole mess of files that he was supposed to take care of. He betrayed the trust of his government and endangered lives. He is a traitor and should receive the harshest punishment to deter other would be leakers.

Traitor = One who actively works against his country by providing aid to it's enemy.

Releasing documents to everyone != treason. As evidence by the fact that he will not be charged for treason.

Also enough of this "he endangered lives" bullshit. He gave them to a guy whose known to look over documents and remove names and withhold documents that could result in people's deaths. It's just a cheap cop-out claim the military uses so they don't have to admit that they've fucked up.

Shaoken:

spectrenihlus:

sosolidshoe:

A soldier who refuses an order to massacre civilians is a hero.

A soldier who exposes others who have massacred civilians is a traitor who should be murdered by the state.

I don't think I'll ever understand America.

He didn't upload specific files pertaining to civilian casualties he uploaded a whole mess of files that he was supposed to take care of. He betrayed the trust of his government and endangered lives. He is a traitor and should receive the harshest punishment to deter other would be leakers.

Traitor = One who actively works against his country by providing aid to it's enemy.

Releasing documents to everyone != treason. As evidence by the fact that he will not be charged for treason.

Also enough of this "he endangered lives" bullshit. He gave them to a guy whose known to look over documents and remove names and withhold documents that could result in people's deaths. It's just a cheap cop-out claim the military uses so they don't have to admit that they've fucked up.

You honestly think releasing these documents doesn't endanger lives? Ok fine, let's that the leak on Yemen in which the king of Yemen allowed the United States to drone potential al qaeda sites in Yemen, In those attacks a few civilians were killed so the king told his people that he ordered the attacks to calm them down. Now they know that it was the United States that did these attacks and also that their king was complicit with it. You seriously don't think that that will not put his life in danger now?

spectrenihlus:
In those attacks a few civilians were killed so the king told his people that he ordered the attacks to calm them down. Now they know that it was the United States that did these attacks and also that their king was complicit with it. You seriously don't think that that will not put his life in danger now?

Right, so let's just gloss over the part in that little story where innocent civilians where killed, like that's no big deal, and worry about the safety of corrupt middle eastern leaders.

Because that seems like a reasonable priority.

VanityGirl:
I see the real problem with Wikileaks is that they release information that the public DOES NOT need to know. There are some things we don't need to know right now because of a threat of mass hysteria.

People are going to become hysterical over something, no matter what. Try as they might, the government can't prevent the public from freaking out over stupid things. If not some leaked secret, then it will be over some disease that killed two people in Mexico. I say sit back and enjoy the ride!

Bohemian Waltz:

spectrenihlus:
In those attacks a few civilians were killed so the king told his people that he ordered the attacks to calm them down. Now they know that it was the United States that did these attacks and also that their king was complicit with it. You seriously don't think that that will not put his life in danger now?

Right, so let's just gloss over the part in that little story where innocent civilians where killed, like that's no big deal, and worry about the safety corrupt middle eastern leaders.

Because that seems reasonable.

Innocent civilians are always killed there is no way around it, it simply is a reality of war. It sucks true but in those strikes we are getting al qaeda who kill more civilians than any one else.

politicians cannot be allowed a free pass for fucking the world up. i'm with wikileaks

spectrenihlus:

Bohemian Waltz:

spectrenihlus:
In those attacks a few civilians were killed so the king told his people that he ordered the attacks to calm them down. Now they know that it was the United States that did these attacks and also that their king was complicit with it. You seriously don't think that that will not put his life in danger now?

Right, so let's just gloss over the part in that little story where innocent civilians where killed, like that's no big deal, and worry about the safety of corrupt middle eastern leaders.

Because that seems like a reasonable priority.

Innocent civilians are always killed there is no way around it, it simply is a reality of war. It sucks true but in those strikes we are getting al qaeda who kill more civilians than any one else.

Damn your nations reputation and diplomatic credibility, you forfeit that when you make the mistake of killing innocent people accident or not. If innocents died then people have the right to know who was involved in the fuck up that got em killed at the very least if not an apology for you know for the murder and what not.

You don't get a free pass to accidentally kill civilians in foreign countries and not have to come to terms with on some level because of your war on terror.

spectrenihlus:
Innocent civilians are always killed there is no way around it, it simply is a reality of war. It sucks true but in those strikes we are getting al qaeda who kill more civilians than any one else.

In a democratic nation wars are carried out in the name of and with a mandate from the people. The ability of the public to make good quality, informed decisions about warfare requires decent knowledge - albeit not necessarily the fine detail of individual issues - about what war means both for their own troops, the enemy, and innocents.

Arguing the public must be protected from the realities of war so the nation can prosecute it effectively is an argument for the infantilisation of the populace regarding war. A nation where the people are blind to the horrors of war is one whose government or populace will feel very free to pursue war, including when the case for it is poor. It will increase abuses, decrease motivation to minimise innocent casualties, and so on.

* * *

To put it another way, imagine how different people perceptions would be if, before declaring war, the government would publically say:

"We project 5000 of our soldiers dead, 20,000 enemy soldiers dead, 100,000 enemy civilians accidentally killed. Add to that twice those numbers wounded. Infrastructure will be destroyed leading to up to 60% of the target country's civilians being mostly without power, fuel, schools, modern medicine and clean water for three to six months. Realistically our troops are going to illegally torture or abuse an estimated 8000, murder an estimated 500 and rape up to 1000; we'll mostly cover up those instances, but we'll prosecute a few scapegoats if the evidence is clear enough."

I think that's a useful sort of thing the public should know before their democratically elected government declares war. If the government declines to inform its citizens of those realities, I might like some other organisation to do so instead, because as an elector I think it's my right and duty to know so I can decide whether the war is worth the costs.

Bohemian Waltz:

spectrenihlus:

Bohemian Waltz:

Right, so let's just gloss over the part in that little story where innocent civilians where killed, like that's no big deal, and worry about the safety of corrupt middle eastern leaders.

Because that seems like a reasonable priority.

Innocent civilians are always killed there is no way around it, it simply is a reality of war. It sucks true but in those strikes we are getting al qaeda who kill more civilians than any one else.

Damn your nations reputation and diplomatic credibility, you forfeit that when you make the mistake of killing innocent people accident or not. If innocents died then people have the right to know who was involved in the fuck up that got em killed at the very least if not an apology for you know for the murder and what not.

You don't get a free pass to accidentally kill civilians in foreign countries and not have to come to terms with on some level because of your war on terror.

Show me a nation that hasn't killed an innocent civilian in a war. Also it is not murder soldiers of the United States or any free world nation for that matter don't go in with the intention of killing civilians.

spectrenihlus:

Bohemian Waltz:

spectrenihlus:
Innocent civilians are always killed there is no way around it, it simply is a reality of war. It sucks true but in those strikes we are getting al qaeda who kill more civilians than any one else.

Damn your nations reputation and diplomatic credibility, you forfeit that when you make the mistake of killing innocent people accident or not. If innocents died then people have the right to know who was involved in the fuck up that got em killed at the very least if not an apology for you know for the murder and what not.

You don't get a free pass to accidentally kill civilians in foreign countries and not have to come to terms with on some level because of your war on terror.

Show me a nation that hasn't killed an innocent civilian in a war. Also it is not murder soldiers of the United States or any free world nation for that matter don't go in with the intention of killing civilians.

It'd be nice if they told us when they killed civilians though, so, you know, we could make informed decisions about wars ourselves.

Instead we have to rely on Wikileaks to do the job for us. You know the Pentagon Papers? Yeah, pretty sure they're still officially classified.

If the government's not going to be honest with its citizens, how can we trust them?

Agema:

spectrenihlus:
Innocent civilians are always killed there is no way around it, it simply is a reality of war. It sucks true but in those strikes we are getting al qaeda who kill more civilians than any one else.

In a democratic nation wars are carried out in the name of and with a mandate from the people. The ability of the public to make good quality, informed decisions about warfare requires decent knowledge - albeit not necessarily the fine detail of individual issues - about what war means both for their own troops, the enemy, and innocents.

Arguing the public must be protected from the realities of war so the nation can prosecute it effectively is an argument for the infantilisation of the populace regarding war. A nation where the people are blind to the horrors of war is one whose government or populace will feel very free to pursue war, including when the case for it is poor. It will increase abuses, decrease motivation to minimise innocent casualties, and so on.

* * *

To put it another way, imagine how different people perceptions would be if, before declaring war, the government would publically say:

"We project 5000 of our soldiers dead, 20,000 enemy soldiers dead, 100,000 enemy civilians accidentally killed. Add to that twice those numbers wounded. Infrastructure will be destroyed leading to up to 60% of the target country's civilians being mostly without power, fuel, schools, modern medicine and clean water for three to six months. Realistically our troops are going to illegally torture or abuse an estimated 8000, murder an estimated 500 and rape up to 1000; we'll mostly cover up those instances, but we'll prosecute a few scapegoats if the evidence is clear enough."

I think that's a useful sort of thing the public should know before their democratically elected government declares war. If the government declines to inform its citizens of those realities, I might like some other organisation to do so instead, because as an elector I think it's my right and duty to know so I can decide whether the war is worth the costs.

Doing it this way would make sure nothing gets done ever. Sometimes a leader has to make an executive decision and do it and if it turned out to be the wrong decision than we the people have the power to not have him in for another term.

spectrenihlus:
Doing it this way would make sure nothing gets done ever. Sometimes a leader has to make an executive decision and do it and if it turned out to be the wrong decision than we the people have the power to not have him in for another term.

That's not the only sort of accountability a leader has in a just system. E.g. Milosevic, although he died before the trial was over.
However, for people to be prosecuted for their crimes, these crimes have to be known first. And that's where WikiLeaks can come in.
The military and other institutions should provide the necessary information on its own but that's not how it goes.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked