Thread: Wikileaks: Good or bad?

Like Jimmy said, in the real world, being an idealist on everything doesn't work out so well. That's why undercover cops do "bad" stuff sometimes, and that's why the governments work with less than ideal characters sometimes.

You guys keep talking about the whistleblowing aspect of this, but then you argue that this is mostly just embarrassing stuff. So does whistle blowing just mean trying to embarrass and discredit?

No, the revealing of wrong doing isn't worse than the wrong doing. However, that's not really what's going on. So we're arguing hypotheticals and semantics now lol

So, comparing this to Enron is fallacious as well. The governments and professional societies absolutely encourage whistleblowers in business. However, stealing confidential documents and releasing them when that could compromise our national interests is not.

I was going getting my Accounting Degree immediately after the Enron thing went down, and we studied it extensively. What the whistleblowers did was not illegal by any stretch...

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Like Jimmy said, in the real world, being an idealist on everything doesn't work out so well. That's why undercover cops do "bad" stuff sometimes, and that's why the governments work with less than ideal characters sometimes.

You guys keep talking about the whistleblowing aspect of this, but then you argue that this is mostly just embarrassing stuff. So does whistle blowing just mean trying to embarrass and discredit?

No, the revealing of wrong doing isn't worse than the wrong doing. However, that's not really what's going on. So we're arguing hypotheticals and semantics now lol

Well usually being caught in a lie is embarrassing for a public figure, and I've been arguing about the facts that have been released, not hypothetical. Hypothetical is saying things like "what if they publish our troop locations?" as a means to support the argument against the site.

I do not care about a diplomat's credit card number.
I do care about what that diplomat bought on that card if it's reimbursed with tax payer money.
I do care about how that diplomat handles themselves when dealing with the people they are paid to interact with.

I do not care about a general's private life.
I do care about what that general is telling journalists, and what they are doing with our troops and supplies.

I do not care about a bank executive's license plate number.
I do care about what that bank is telling the public and what they are doing with their money.

I would equally support this information coming from any government. Would so many people be against Wikileaks if all the information was about Pakistan or North Korea? If releasing names is such a tragedy, why was it okay for the military to release Bradley Manning's name? Talk about jeopardizing lives -- he's been imprisoned for more than four months without a trial and a significant portion of the public already wants him executed.

EDIT: Ahh, so the military is off limits from exposure because of course anytime they got caught in a lie they would claim it's a compromise to our national interests to release said lie. That's why we have the TSA today. It's exactly the same as Enron, only the military gets a pass because they have a scarier excuse.

Ok. You win. As long as the information gets out, we shouldn't care how it's obtained, and it doesn't matter what the consequences might be. The government needs PFCs stealing documents and having confidential documents released for the whole world to see just to make sure they have adequate oversight. Looks like the case is closed...

Enjoy, men.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Ok. You win. As long as the information gets out, we shouldn't care how it's obtained, and it doesn't matter what the consequences might be. The government needs PFCs stealing documents and having confidential documents released for the whole world to see just to make sure they have adequate oversight. Looks like the case is closed...

Enjoy, men.

He never said "doesn't matter what the consequences might be." Stop twisting his words.

Originally Posted by commiecat

If the documents do not affect the public and can endanger any lives, then it is not published and/or names are redacted. This is how Wikileaks works.

Originally Posted by markevens

He never said "doesn't matter what the consequences might be." Stop twisting his words.

He said that, but is arguing against the people who know more information than all of us. Remember the current administration's strongest condemnation due to the risk to lives that these releases pose that I linked earlier? I'm not twisting anything, I'm connecting the dots that he refuses to accept should be connected. At least according to the government

The state condems them for the risk of lives not because it actually puts lives at risk (see wikileaks redaction policy for more), but because most people will believe what the government tells them and not investgate for themselves whether or not there is truth to it.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

He said that, but is arguing against the people who know more information than all of us. Remember the current administration's strongest condemnation due to the risk to lives that these releases pose that I linked earlier? I'm not twisting anything, I'm connecting the dots that he refuses to accept should be connected. At least according to the government

If I'm arguing "against the people who know more information" then please show me evidence that the opposite side knows anything, because right now they've provided nothing but words while confirming that the information Wikileaks has provided is legitimate.

Perhaps the disagreement lies in what we consider dangerous. It is my opinion that the government and military are condemning the site strictly for PR reasons, and using the "lives are being jeopardized" excuse for support. Wikileaks has been doing this for four years, and the only thing that has changed is the data they receive.

That would be like me trying to argue against decisions made by moderators here on SRP. You guys are privy to significantly more information, have discussions we aren't privy, and make decisions that you guys feel are best. And, I'm of the opinion that's the way it should be. When you guys make a call on something, I defer to those with the most information.

I see this similarly. Reasonable people can disagree, right? We disagree on some very very basic principles, and from that unfit foundation, we can never build a consensus on this particular situation. I don't have a problem with that, and I'm happy to not have to be right. In fact, I'm 99.785% certain that neither of us have enough information to really know the best way to handle it. As I see it, you'd prefer to err on the release the information side and deal with the fallout later, and I'd prefer to not have stolen confidential documents aired for the whole world to see. That's probably because I believe that our government (even though I disagree with a lot they do) generally has our, and hopefully the world's, best interest in mind when making decisions. Of course it's not perfect, but I believe the US to be "good guys".

Now, if it were another country's documents that were released, I'd honestly be less riled about that, but I would expect them to execute whoever stole confidential documents to leak...

Asking me to prove they know anything doesn't seem to be productive at all. How about reading all the cables, and giving a completely accurate prediction of what will happen based on their release prior to recommending they be released. I see that as a similarly unproductive recommendation, and I suggest we just agree to disagree because I'll never bring you around the "correct" way of thinking

Cheers,