Thread: Wikileaks: Good or bad?

There was a poll on MSNBC regarding comments by Congressman Peter King about whether or not Wikileaks should be labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization. As of right now, 70% of the people voting on MSNBC think it should be.

So do you think that the existence of Wikileaks and their recent release of diplomatic cables is good, bad, or much ado about nothing? Vote, state your case, and keep the discussion civil.

Personally, I'm in favor of the information being released. The fact that so many people are adamantly against it makes me think that there's probably much worse information on file. Having said that, of course I made the poll results public.

Releasing information that could get individuals killed is not a "good" thing IMO.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Releasing information that could get individuals killed is not a "good" thing IMO.

We have information on how to get a razor deadly sharp, and an emoticon celebrating it!

Originally Posted by commiecat

We have information on how to get a razor deadly sharp, and an emoticon celebrating it!

I would definitely call that a leak.

I can't imagine that any good will come from the release, but I'm not sure I'd call it terrorist without knowing more about the motives of those responsible.

Knowledge is both good and bad, with lots of grey in between. I stand behind WikiLeaks in principal, but I don't stand behind putting lives in danger. But hey, I pay taxes and that money puts people in danger every day all around the world, so hey, we're all hypocrites.

I voted good.

The reason is simple. If people have to be aware of the possibility of their words finding the public, then perhaps they will start being more careful about their choice of words. I am an admin here. if I have to deal with conflict situations, I always write my PMs in the assumption that they will get forwarded or shared. It would be monumentally stupid to do otherwise.

In the current example of leaked diplomatic posts...
I think in this case I can say: if you don't want to get caught with your pants down, don't pull your pants down. Getting angry about getting caught is childish. Personally, I'd expect more professional conduct in such communication. For diplomats I can hardly call them diplomatic.

He is treading thin ice. Once labeled a terrorist he'll be locked in a back room with no trial never to see daylight or a friendly face again.

Originally Posted by life2short1971

He is treading thin ice. Once labeled a terrorist he'll be locked in a back room with no trial never to see daylight or a friendly face again.

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.

Diplomats may want to share opinions on their counterparts from other nations that are legitimate (e.g., even somewhat innocuous stuff like ... we don't think they're truthful, they have not kept their word before, they don't have the support of their people, they are bluffing, our negotiation strategies, etc.). This is stuff that we need to be able to share confidentially within our own government and intelligence organizations that would harm our ability to deal with other countries ... I don't see how publicizing this can be construed as "good". I understand that not all of this information is harmful, but I sure do see how this kind of thing could jeopardize our country's effectiveness and security.