Thread: Wikileaks: Good or bad?

I think it is basically good. For what i've seen about those documents there are not real top secret information but rather mostly just data, memorandums etc that should have not been classified as secret at all.

Personally i am very interested on what they tell about my country. Where/why did/didn't our politicians lie. Who were spying for the east/west.
I know that people who serve at the military, either here, Afg or wherever, are most interested what are the real reasons they have to put their lives in danger. As someone who has been serving at few foreign tours i like to know if i was fooled. Was i just clown when i left my wife and kids for months and served foreign when our politicians decided so.
Wikileaks might also help improving human rights by telling what really happens in a places not normally seen by public.

There are surely documents that should be secret, and those who make these documents should be able to trust that they stay so. With the Wikileaks there are no real miracles revealed. Maybe officials in the future think more what/how to write in their documents.

Remember that (according to our laws) person who makes the document also decides whether it is secret or not. For example if i send an email at work to my work mates where i ask of they came to drink beer with me, or tell that admirals secretary has a nice ass, i can also declare the message top secret.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Except he is not in the US. He is in a country where they still pay some attention to the constitution and due process.

Imo the terrorist lable is hugely overused these days, and put on everyone who does anything more severe than jaywalking.

I do have to agree with this comment to some extent... It seems that at this point in our world that if anyone speaks out against a government they most likely will be "Branded" the BIG "T" word...

After spending my time in the "Sand Box"... I have a new out look on life...

P.S.: What our government(s) say about another(s), is not always what we as common people believe about that countries people...

Good or bad is irrelevant. Government officials should be thinking 2x before sharing sensitive information by email. The guy who stole the information should be punished.

One Dutch journalist phrased it like this: "most of us like saucage rolls but we don't wanna know what they are made of".

At the end of the day: we don't in North Korea but in an open democratic society.

OK, I just got done reading the "Top 10 Revelations" at Yahoo... Not that I believe much that the media has to say... But if this is what the government is worried about...

Top 10 revelations from WikiLeaks cables - Yahoo! News

Mostly, on the really sensitive stuff, it's not good.
Perhaps the only good that will come of it is that those people in the various Government agencies that have collated and collected this information will be much less careless in future. It almost seems that every man and his dog has security clearance to access this information.
On the more trivial stuff, maybe some people will learn that if you are going to insult people behind their backs, you need to be man enough to take the flak and not whine.

Some great points being made and very mixed votes. Quite interesting.

I'm enjoying reading all the various responses to this. As stated before, I am very much in favor of our corporations, banks, government and military being held accountable for their actions, and if they are doing things unethical, then I agree with supportive proof and data being publicly released. Using technology to make it both easy and anonymous for whistleblowers to provide this information is good, IMHO.

Sarah Palin wrote that we should hunt down Assange with the same urgency we persue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

Robert Gibbs basically said Assange and the site were criminals.

O'Reilly wants to execute whoever leaked the diplomatic cables.

Source: Toronto Star

Originally Posted by commiecat

Some great points being made and very mixed votes. Quite interesting.

I'm enjoying reading all the various responses to this. As stated before, I am very much in favor of our corporations, banks, government and military being held accountable for their actions, and if they are doing things unethical, then I agree with supportive proof and data being publicly released. Using technology to make it both easy and anonymous for whistleblowers to provide this information is good, IMHO.

Sarah Palin wrote that we should hunt down Assange with the same urgency we persue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

Robert Gibbs basically said Assange and the site were criminals.

O'Reilly wants to execute whoever leaked the diplomatic cables.

Source: Toronto Star

.

And there lies the rub, "Says Who"???? define it, because I assure you, our definitions are miles apart...

Originally Posted by gssixgun

.

And there lies the rub, "Says Who"???? define it, because I assure you, our definitions are miles apart...

Actually, the definition doesn't really matter. If you think it's ethical then that's fine and nobody would have a problem with it being public knowledge. If our troops save a city then let the public know about it. If our military attacks civilian targets then let the public know about it.

Sure, we can judge whether or not it's ethical differently, but I don't think it should remain any more secretive because of semantics.

The US has civilian control of the military, meaning that our elected President is Commander-in-Chief and our elected officials determine our strategic decisions. I feel that citizens have a right to know the impact of these decisions for our elections.

Originally Posted by commiecat

Actually, the definition doesn't really matter. If you think it's ethical then that's fine and nobody would have a problem with it being public knowledge. If our troops save a city then let the public know about it. If our military attacks civilian targets then let the public know about it.

If you want to see a real eye opener watch The Fog Of War, a documentary featuring Robert McNamara. At 80 some years old he recounts his take on his long government service. I knew he was secretary of defense in the Viet Nam years (google it, it was a war the USA was involved in back in ancient times) but I didn't know that in WWII he had been assistant to General Curtis LeMay. The USA equivalent of Great Britain's Bomber Harris.

LeMay told McNamara that if the US had lost the war they would have been tried as war criminals for all of the civilians they killed in firebombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities. We cringe at the thought of "collateral damage" but the bottom line is going to that extreme is how the allies won that war. Our not continuing that policy is why we lost our wars in Korea, Viet Nam and why we are losing in the mid-east.

Our adversaries intentionally target civilians, engage in unspeakable torture of their own people not to mention any prisoners they may take yet we are to behave as if we are engaged with an ethical enemy. Pity our poor boys and girls who once again have to fight a war so encumbered rather than having sympathy for the POS who use leaks to undermine us.

Originally Posted by commiecat

Sure, we can judge whether or not it's ethical differently, but I don't think it should remain any more secretive because of semantics.

This is where we agree, "We the People" can judge, "We the People" and therefore OUR elected officials, by the authority that we gave them with our vote, can decide...

NOT some Traitor who leaks the info illegally, If you want this info out, then vote that way, that is the way this country works...