WIKILeaks thread

[dreamblade]

This is probably the most important story out there right now on the international level. Instead of pursuing those responsible for writing the memos, emails, etc..., the one pursued is the one who reported the misdeeds.

Why are they aiming to shoot the messenger?

More importantly, what does this say about our supposed freedom of the press?

 

[dreamblade]

How the world sees the US after the release of the WIKILeaks cables

How the world sees the US after the release of the WIKILeaks cables

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-reaction-world-reaction?intcmp=239

 

[Jesus Quintana]

Last I checked - "Possession of stolen property" is pretty much a crime everywhere in the world.

I hold wikileaks in contempt for the obvious reason that Assange has showed contempt for due process.
If he is really innocent of raping those two women then why isn't he willing to face his accusers?

Douchebag.

 

[Ryder]

I am glad It happened. I hope more leaks come out.

 

[dreamblade]

Last I checked - "Possession of stolen property" is pretty much a crime everywhere in the world.

I hold wikileaks in contempt for the obvious reason that Assange has showed contempt for due process.
If he is really innocent of raping those two women then why isn't he willing to face his accusers?

Douchebag.

Information is not property. That's a concept that has only been spouted by corporations and government in the last 15 years.

As for Assange's alleged rape, if you follow the actual story instead of the hype, you would know that it's a "withdrawal of consent" issue not rape. And it's off-topic here, for that matter.

Please stick to the topic of Wikileaks's muzzling, prosecution, and impact, not its editors character flaws.

 

[Jesus Quintana]

Steal someone's idea and find out if its not property. Its why for example PATENTS exist.
"Information is not property."
Well post your personal information here including any credit card info and we'll see if information is not property! LOL!

 

[dreamblade]

Patents exist, but their application has been twisted in the last two decades, but once again this is not the topic. Why not start your own thread on the issue and stop hijacking mine? I'm asking politely.

 

[Chunky]

Patents exist, but their application has been twisted in the last two decades, but once again this is not the topic. Why not start your own thread on the issue and stop hijacking mine? I'm asking politely.

You are asking politely but he is giving his opinion and he thinks that what Wikileaks has done is wrong. He doesn't agree with your position but I don't think he is hi-jacking the thread.

I ask you this, why have no secrets been released about Russia, North Korea, China? Is it maybe because the author knows he would be assassinated?

Why is it always about the big bad USA?

 

[Curly]

Hackers attacked Visa and Mastercard because of it. Cannot remember who else was attacked, anyone remember.

 

[Trump]

This is an interesting article and our resident Asian expert Eric Blair has a blurb at the end.

https://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/breaking-wikileaks-being-used-to.html

 

[Nova5]

Why are they aiming to shoot the messenger?

According to Wikipedia the expression ‘Shooting the messenger’ refers to the following: any kind of punishment meted out to the person bringing bad news, but in modern times has taken on an ironic dimension as well.

 

[dreamblade]

@Chunky: actually, Wikileaks has indeed released documents on China in the past. Lately, it has been focusing on US policy, as the hot topic of the day.

As for my argument with Short-Hairless, he was attacking Assange over the rape charges, which has nothing to do with the Wikileaks phenomenon or the attempts to shut it down. Assange's character flaw is not on topic, it's the odd pursuit of attacking the media instead of rectifying the un-democratic behaviour, and most people finding this way of thought acceptable.

We seem to be lulled into complacency... Trust our leaders to do what's in our best interests, with no oversight.

 

[Hangman]

But there was oversight. The elected officials, etc are by definition trusted to do what's our best interests, that's why you vote for them.

Maybe I'm coming at this from a different perspective based on my experiences, but sensitive information is classified for a reason. We don;t all get to have a say in every decision, that's why we have elected representatives. They ARE supposed to make decisions on our behalf. It's not a matter of being "lulled into complacency." There's no conspiracy here.

I believe that all this Wikileaks thing has done is exposed people to a system they don't really understand. All governments have laws regarding official secrets. Any government needs to be able to discuss things secretly in order to make decisions in their best interests, and theoretically in the best interests of the people they represent.

As Canadians, we have an expectation that we have a "right-to-know" things. Normally, this transparency is expected when it comes to our personal interactions with the government. However, when something is classified, there are two criteria that must be met for legal disclosure: 1) holding the appropriate security clearance, and 2) Need-to-know. "Want-to-know", or "feel-entitled-to-know" does not constitute need-to-know. Who classifies the material? The originator. This is the original author, who must also hold at least the security clearance that they are assigning, and subject matter expertise.

Subject matter expertise is important here too. Some amateur, unfamiliar with that subject, and the follow-on effects of disclosure, should not be releasing that information. I have worked in the TS world. As far as I am concerned , that information remains classified, even if it has been hosed all over the Internet.

Perhaps over the years, diplomats, militaries and intelligence staffers abused the security afforded by legal classifications. But without the means for governments to speak privately and frankly, I think that you would find the world a much worse place than it is, not better.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

 

[Auggie]

WikiLeaks is valuable, we need more transparency in our society to make democracy really work.
A whistleblower can expose the truth.

It's continuing the idea of the free press, which isn't so free or bold as it once was.

 

[dreamblade]

But there was oversight. The elected officials, etc are by definition trusted to do what's our best interests, that's why you vote for them.

Maybe I'm coming at this from a different perspective based on my experiences, but sensitive information is classified for a reason. We don;t all get to have a say in every decision, that's why we have elected representatives. They ARE supposed to make decisions on our behalf. It's not a matter of being "lulled into complacency." There's no conspiracy here.

Indeed, but as years go by, I find myself scratching my head at what these duly elected officials are doing.

NAFTA?
Second Iraq?
Outsourcing Deregulation?
Muzzling of Scientific Reports on Climate Change?

Just some of the examples of decisions made by our leaders that did no have their people's best interests at heart. Also, the candidates for the positions of power are less and less ideal, resulting in voter apathy, and sometimes voter fraud. The crooked politician is such a staple of our society, it's not even a joke anymore, it's part of life.

I believe that all this Wikileaks thing has done is exposed people to a system they don't really understand.

True, but bodies like Wikileaks also lets those who do understand the game what happened. As I said earlier, I understand and fully support the necessity of governments sometimes doing bad things for good reasons, but I just keep on seeing more and more bad things done for bad reasons.

Subject matter expertise is important here too. Some amateur, unfamiliar with that subject, and the follow-on effects of disclosure, should not be releasing that information.

Agreed. Subject matter expertise is tantamount, but even in a body like Wikileaks, there's at least a 2 check system that determines what gets published: The whistleblower (an insider and likely a SME), and the publishing editor, also experienced with handling such information.

Perhaps over the years, diplomats, militaries and intelligence staffers abused the security afforded by legal classifications.

Basically, this is what is happening. How many times has the US government hidden from scrutiny by slapping a CLASSIFIED sticker on a subject in the last decade? What about what happened here during the G20?

If bodies like Wikileaks don't exist, the press won't follow, happily mired in sensationalism.

 

[tboy]

I'm not 100% up on everything that was leaked but according to some news reports, wikileaks put out information on informants aiding the allies in Iraq. This will probably result in people getting killed (most likely beheaded).

If this IS the case, then Assange should (at the very least) spend the rest of his life in jail. More appropriately, he should be executed.

Now as Hangman so aptly put it: there is a "need to know" and a "want to know" difference. If the releasing of any document results in anyone's death, then the right to life supercedes our desire to know everything.

One of the documents leaked discussed something about soldiers killing two reuters reporters or something? I don't know the specifics but sorry folks, in war time people get killed in a warzone. I mean hell, anyone remember a city called Dresden? I think just about every civilian was killed in the bombing campaign.

The thing is, ever since Vietnam, the media reporting on wartime activities has damaged the military's ability to wage war due to people at home, not being able to stomach what they see on TV. War is hell, people get blown to bits, civilians get killed, if the media was so prolific in WWII I think that war would have turned out differently.

I equate this whole situation to our privacy laws. For those who are defending Assange, I wonder how they'd feel if all THEIR personal information, including criminal record, including their bank account info and PIN number, was posted all over the net for all to see?

Edit:

Ok, I did a little research on the Iraq video and discovered that I saw this video months ago. It shows an apache crew shooting at a group of people on the ground in an area that was recently occupied by enemy forces with an RPG. "On the other site" I made mention of the true problem with the reaction to this video: that innocents were killed or injured. My comments were: how fucking stupid do you have to be, to see an attack helicopter shooting at the ground, to stay around and see what happens? Any idiot with half a mind would get the hell outta dodge as fast as humanly possible. Sorry, but if you're dumb enough to stand between two warring parties don't be surprised if you get an ak up the ass......

As for the US comments about other countries, how would anyone feel about their private emails to their friends, wives, work being released? Private conversations are just that.

Now if there were documents openly stating how the government is planning on hosing me for more tax money or how to go about changing the laws so that if we blink the wrong way we'll be arrested, then I'd be concerned. If I saw a memo from Harpo saying that he "didn't like the italian prime minister" who the fuck really cares?

 

[Hangman]

But the press just mines Wikileaks for sensationalist crap anyway. I remember a New York Times piece wondering why some of the most 'troubling' revelations in the Afghanistan intelligence documents hadn't been followed up. Reports like Taliban planning to poison NATO drinking water supplies, etc. They weren't followed up because a trained analyst who is familiar with the situation knows those reports are bullshit and doesn't waste resources tracking them down.

All these leaks are going to do is encourage people not to write things down or keep any records. I know for a fact that if I had to assume that anything classified that I wrote or communicated would be posted by some crusader on the Internet, then I wouldn't write it. So now the leakers have effectively made sure that there will be NO paper trail anymore, even at the Top Secret level. The men and women who work at these levels are not stupid, and will find ways to get things done secretly. All it is going to do is cost us, the taxpayer, more money as civil servants etc spend more and more budget allocations on secure communications, deeper background checks and internal investigations to root out the criminals or traitors who disclose this stuff illegally.

If you work with classified material and can't trust the loyalty of people around you to honour their clearances and yours, then it quickly devolves into an endless witch hunt.

And yes, anyone with legitimate access to this material who chooses to break their oath, various laws and policies, and release it is at best a criminal and at worst a traitor.

 

[tboy]

Once again, you nailed it Hangman and your name is apropos: that's what they do to traitors.

Not sure if anyone remembers or knows about this but the biggest "leak" of information was regarding the F15/Mig 29. Anyone notice how almost exact those two planes are? Supposedly the engineering drawings, specs, test results, everything was handed over to the russians. BFD a lot of people will say, but the government spent millions in development costs and that money was simply handed over to another country.

I bet those supporting the leaks would shit bricks when they realize their taxes went up exponentially, or the debt went up, because of that....

 

[Jawbone]

I am in complete agreement with Hangman and Tboy on this one! Although I am not a fan of Government. there is a need for classified info being kept classified or it can weaken a nation.

 

[Nova5]

Lawyer for WikiLeaks' Assange says client faces U.S. charges . . . Pentagon plans prosecution . . .