Thread: Wikileaks: Good or bad?

Originally Posted by gssixgun

You honestly believe that!!!!!

Wow can I come live on Happy Happy Joy Joy planet with you

I gotta go hone razors at least there is one thing that exists on both our worlds

Can I come?

Again. After reading some of these Wikileaks documents i find them mostly ashamed, not really dangerous to any nation. Real secret documents are in whole other networks where Wikileaks cannot ever reach.
While i'm not interested on crucifying this or that person on leakin' some stupid yet revealing memorandums to Wiki, i'm more interested about what these documents tell about the people/countries behind it.
Remember, dear folks, that it is not about the USA only. Some documents that tell about other countries (yes there are really other countries ) did not come from US sources but from their own. Some are maybe 10 years old but still tell about things our own int.officials have not been willing to release.

For example, there are more than 600 documents about my country (that is the cold snowy place, nobody seems to know/care where it is ). It is an open secret that some of our politicians did spy for US, and some for Russia. Their names have not been released. Now almost every person i know waits that their names are soon to be released with Wikileaks. Then the time has come to consider how should real traitors be treated.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Commiecat,

My point wasn't that it was impossible to get out, but it would mean certain death to whoever were caught doing it. The government's response to IP piracy was to start executing people infringing on copyrights... But, I'm sure they'd be much more tolerant of someone leaking classified information.

Fair enough, but my original point was that Mr. Goldburg displayed nothing but ignorance by suggesting that it's Assange's fault that this information is being leaked, and that Wikileaks can pick and choose where they want the information to come from. They set up a site for the world to access, and said that if you have unpublished information that the public should know about, you can provide it to them anonymously to release. It's a simple and effective model, and if/when Wikileaks goes down, something else will pop up in its place.

Jimmy's mention of Tiananmen Square is relevant in that all those protesters knew exactly what would happen to them, yet they were still motivated to go forward with it. In the most populous country in the world, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would contact Wikileaks (have I mentioned that it's anonymous, unlike a protest?) because they felt that strongly about whatever information they had.

The ones with the most secrets will be the ones with the most leaks. Occam's razor. Severe punishments have never completely stopped betrayal against laws or government before, and in this day and age it's much easier to do and get away with it.

I think that there is a place for organisations like Wikileaks but only when they actually have a filter and release information that really is in the public interest. From what I've seen, there is nothing in the latest leaks that is really a smoking gun.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

[If Julian Assange really wants to be noble, idealistic and heroic -- if he really wants to make the world a safer place -- he would use his considerable talents to uncover the dark secrets hidden in places like Iran, China and Russia. I'll bet they have some really great secrets.
.

To be fair, his goal is running a whistle blower site, not a spy agency.

@glen:
Oleg Penkovsky: Hero or traitor? The answer depends of course on which side you are on, but did his actions turn out for good or not?

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Jim,

Those are good points, but it fails to take into account that there are thousands of cables that haven't been released yet, and of those that did, although I've read some I know I have not had time to read all of them... I know it's possible that someone has, but I doubt you're one of them. So, I'll defer to the government assessment that releasing some of these documents can endanger lives. Furthermore, one could argue that the embarrassing stuff could damage the credibility of the US to such a degree to endanger lives. There will be future conflicts, and there's no way for us to know the extent of how those embarrassing documents will affect the allies' of the US willingness to support us. Considering the current administration is up in arms about the leaks, I doubt this is a problem of Fox News type reporting...

Up in arms?

Defence Secretary Robert Gates sought to play down the significance of the leaks. "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for US foreign policy? I think fairly modest," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.
"The fact is governments deal with the United States because it is in their interests, not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they believe we can keep secrets," he said.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

I can say that the United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential, including private discussions between counterparts or our diplomats’ personal assessments and observations.

The only real reference to danger from "the administration" is this:

such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government… By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals.

From White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and he is speaking in generalities--not specifics. At the time of speaking, he had no idea what documents were there. I think it's safe to assume that it was a general "Our secrets are our business" kind of thing.

**edit**
There's also this:

Assange told TIME that all the documents were redacted “carefully.” “They are all reviewed, and they’re all redacted either by us or by the newspapers concerned,” he said. The New York Times explained to its readers that it allowed the Obama administration to redact the cables due to national security interests before being published. Assange added that WikiLeaks “formally asked the State Department for assistance with that. That request was formally rejected.”

So there has actually been review to prevent loss of lives and the revelation of any real state secrets. So...yeah. Not the end of the world.

Congress, however, and the pundits are all going crazy--and they don't know what's there.

Basically, everyone is guessing. And the people who enjoy unrest, foment panic and ride it into the limelight, are using this like they use anything else. Will there be consequences? Surely. Will people be put in danger? Who knows! Possibly. People are put in danger every day. The TSA told us we were all in danger from breast milk and bottled water being on planes.

But I really, REALLY like facts. Facts are good. Drum-thumping and rabble-rousing suck it hard.

Originally Posted by JimR

Will people be put in danger? Who knows! Possibly. People are put in danger every day. The TSA told us we were all in danger from breast milk and bottled water being on planes.

who knows, who cares, give us dirty laundry

Before I deployed to Afghanistan to work in COIN (counter insurgency operations)operations we were given two books written by Lester W. Grau The Other Side of the Mountain and The Bear Went Over the Mountain. The first book explained the battles fought from the Afghan perspective, the second from the Russian. With these two books you could read about actual battles and see what both sides did during the battles that were fought. The same thing can now be done to SF troops with information from wikileaks not exactly detailed battle info but just the fact that the enemy knows for certain SF soldiers were in waziristan. On wikileaks when you read about Special Services
Group (SSG) (people who support Special Forces) personnel for reconnaissance activities or that Special Forces soldiers were in a certain area of Pakistan during a specific time period and battles were fought. Well now the bad guys now know for certain SF soldiers were there and can piece together the tactics used and figure out ways to defeat them. SF soldiers do not look like or dress like soldiers so they can blend in with the local population. By the release of that information it makes the dangerous job that SF soldiers perform even more dangerous for them.

Jim,

You and I both know that it isn't hard to find more quotes from the administration calling the release "dangerous", "reckless", and referencing the risk of people dying over these leaks (and future ones to come). We all have "google" at our disposal.

The fact is that the current administration recognizes the fact that these types of disclosures could cost lives. This isn't about Fox News, NeoCons, or whoever else might "suck it hard".

By the way, I'm not a fan of Fox News at all, but don't dog them while holding up such bastions of objectivity as the BBC and Al Jazeera.