Thread: Wikileaks: Good or bad?

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

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.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Jim,

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.

Slghtly OT: No news outlet is perfect but I do think the BBC is far more objective and neutral than most.

Claude

Originally Posted by Claude

Slghtly OT: No news outlet is perfect but I do think the BBC is far more objective and neutral than most.

Claude

Maybe they've shifted course since their internal document revealing admitted left-leaning, anti-christian bias was revealed. You could well be right.

I personally look the Wall Street Journal and The Economist most often.

Sorry for the sidebar

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Maybe they've shifted course since their internal document revealing admitted left-leaning, anti-christian bias was revealed. You could well be right.

I personally look the Wall Street Journal and The Economist most often.

Sorry for the sidebar

Well the right accuse them of being left-leaning and the left accuse them of being right-leaning. Christian groups accuse them of being anti-christian and muslim groups accuse them of being anti-muslim, etc, etc.

On that basis I think they must be doing something right.

Agree on the Economist. Good source of information and news.

Claude

Originally Posted by Claude

Well the right accuse them of being left-leaning and the left accuse them of being right-leaning. Christian groups accuse them of being anti-christian and muslim groups accuse them of being anti-muslim, etc, etc.

On that basis I think they must be doing something right.

Agree on the Economist. Good source of information and news.

Claude

No, the BBC's journalists admitted to the bias a few years back. They had internal documents leaked where some of their "stars" were discussing it. A quick google search will reveal what I'm referencing. Like I said, they may have shifted course since then, I admittedly stopped relying on them in a similar fashion as I have Fox News, so I can't say for sure...

Originally Posted by Claude

Well the right accuse them of being left-leaning and the left accuse them of being right-leaning. Christian groups accuse them of being anti-christian and muslim groups accuse them of being anti-muslim, etc, etc.

On that basis I think they must be doing something right.

Agree on the Economist. Good source of information and news.

Claude

It was there own internal review that found they were anti-Christian and Left leaning. I watch both Fox News and the BBC on our pay TV provider in Australia and I think they are as bad as each other on the opposite sides of the spectrum.

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.