Wikileaks

[DeletedUser]

Alright this is a very broad topic. Three points about wikileaks that I think need to be answered/discussed.

1. Do you think that Julian Assange's alleged sexual assault was legitimate or if it is just an attempt to tarnish his reputation and create more problems for wikileaks?

2. Do you think Wikileaks had a postive or negative impact on _________? (Fill in blank with US, World Relations/Peace, the country you live in or anything else you can think of)

3. Regardless of wether it had a positive or negative impact do you still support the concept and actions of wikileaks?

 

[DeletedUser25707]

1. Well, judging from Assange's interviews and the way he talked about it I'd say it's legitimate... in fact, Assange strike me as someone who don't think rules and laws apply to him because of what he's doing [or what he was preparing to do] and who'd know that after he publish documents pretty much any charge of sexual assault [unless there's video evidence] would be dismissed by public as "attempt to tarnish his reputation and create more problems for wikileaks"

2. I think it's still too early to tell what [if any] effect publishing those documents had

3. The concept is fine, but the way wikileaks done it is deffinatelly not.

 

[DeletedUser]

2. If he hadn't published the site I doubt he'd be in this mess right now, so wikileaks had a negative effect of the fools future.

The documents he published are/were classified for a reason.
Wikileaks published documents about incidents where civillians being accidentally killed in iraq etc. Its terrible but it happens, when you think about it accidents like that are bound to happen when there's bullets zipping around allover the place, those of us who don't have our heads shover so far up our own ... can see that things like this will happen, its not acceptable but it happens, there's nothing we can do about. Wikileaks has published this and now the citizens of the US, UK etc who are completely oblivious to what happens in warzones are going crazy about it.

THAT is why such documents are not to be viewed by the public.

Went a little astray but I think it's valid

 

[DeletedUser]

X-Cool-X, it wasn't just "some" civilians. The report provided evidence that the majority of persons killed in this conflict were innocent civilians, not combatants. As well, it demonstrated that the report previously provided by an independent party, and ridiculed by the Bush administration, was in fact correct and that the Bush administration participated in a cover-up.

When you consider this, Wikileaks did what any respectable newspaper should have done when they received such information. An ethical newsgroup would not aid in a cover-up if they obtain verifiable information about criminal behavior on the part of a nation's government, and that's exactly what it was. Killing one or two Iraqi civilians for every Iraqi combatant is not fighting a war, that's genocide.

 

[DeletedUser14029]

Quoting a Grunt in the name Half-Life: Opposing Force:
'Government cover-up is not on my job description!‘

If Wikileaks can set things right again, I support it 100%
Kinda sad to see the helicopter pilot gun down a lot of people like playing video games...

 

[DeletedUser]

2. If he hadn't published the site I doubt he'd be in this mess right now, so wikileaks had a negative effect of the fools future.

The documents he published are/were classified for a reason.
Wikileaks published documents about incidents where civillians being accidentally killed in iraq etc. Its terrible but it happens, when you think about it accidents like that are bound to happen when there's bullets zipping around allover the place, those of us who don't have our heads shover so far up our own ... can see that things like this will happen, its not acceptable but it happens, there's nothing we can do about. Wikileaks has published this and now the citizens of the US, UK etc who are completely oblivious to what happens in warzones are going crazy about it.

THAT is why such documents are not to be viewed by the public.

Went a little astray but I think it's valid

Point by point here:
Were they really classifed for a reason? A record 15.6 million documents were classified last year, nearly double the number in 2001. The reason wikileaks is important is because now everything is being classified for no reason. Read the time article on that.

"Wikileaks has published this and now the citizens of the US, UK etc who are completely oblivious to what happens in warzones are going crazy about it."
Here you are saying that these citizens are oblivious in a negative way, yet in the next sentence: "THAT is why such documents are not to be viewed by the public." you attack the medium through which these same citizens are meant to gain knowledge.

Are the citizens supposed to know whats going on or not, you make up your mind and then tell me?

 

[DeletedUser]

3. The concept is fine, but the way wikileaks done it is deffinatelly not.

How else would you suggest it was done? I hear this alot and to me it just sounds like blind patriotism coming in conflict with what you have really heard.

 

[DeletedUser22575]

Alright this is a very broad topic. Three points about wikileaks that I think need to be answered/discussed.

1. Do you think that Julian Assange's alleged sexual assault was legitimate or if it is just an attempt to tarnish his reputation and create more problems for wikileaks?

2. Do you think Wikileaks had a postive or negative impact on _________? (Fill in blank with US, World Relations/Peace, the country you live in or anything else you can think of)

3. Regardless of wether it had a positive or negative impact do you still support the concept and actions of wikileaks?

I think that the way it was done was fine. The US government had the opportunity to work with them on these leases and refused. Instead they threatened and blustered, and are now working on putting pressure on those business that do financial transactions handling donations, servers they use, and governments to put them out of business.

And this is with no charges being filed against anyone.

Typical of the ways governments have been working if you read some of those releases.

Any "free press" no matter the type, standard old newspapers to new modern Internet sites Like wikileaks have an obligation to make public events like the killings of civilians in war zones despite governments attempts to classify them to prevent it.

Classifications of these types are just an attempt to hide and distort the truth about the wars that a countries governments fight in the name of their citizens.

As we learned in Vietnam "Trust Us" does not work when it comes to governments and wars.

 

[DeletedUser]

Some secrecy is necessary even in an open society to protect national security.

Everything else should be subject to scrutiny in a democracy by the tax-payer/electorate.
All wikileaks seems to have done is expose the incompetence and hypocrisy of the previous US administration - which US citizens have a right to know about. Knowing that this sort of information may reach the public domain should act as an incentive for more ethical governance. Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, nothing seems to have been learnt by our political masters and they appear more intent on pursuing vendettas than setting their house in order.

 

[DeletedUser25707]

How else would you suggest it was done? I hear this alot and to me it just sounds like blind patriotism coming in conflict with what you have really heard.

Simple... you blank out and censored names of any non-US source and individual US diplomats were talking to.

I've checked some of the documents relevant to my country [I'm not from US] and all the names were clearly visible. Fortunately, my country is a democracy and those people won't suffer any consequences for talking to US diplomats but that is not always true... there are countries around the world where talking to foreigners about sensitive subjects could get those people executed.

So releasing all those documents as they are without any censorship is first and foremost irresponsible... and Assange and Wikileaks are responsible for any individual who got prosecuted, imprisoned or executed around the world because of release of those documents. This is why I'm against Wikileaks and what they did.

 

[DeletedUser]

... and Assange and Wikileaks are responsible for any individual who got prosecuted, imprisoned or executed around the world because of release of those documents......

Surely the people responsible are the dictators, sadists and murderers who do such things - why let them off the hook by diluting 'responsibility'?

 

[DeletedUser25707]

Surely the people responsible are the dictators, sadists and murderers who do such things - why let them off the hook by diluting 'responsibility'?

Those guys will do the deed... but it's Assange and Wikileaks who put those people in danger. Who is more to blame: A guy pulling the trigger or a guy throwing someone into the line of fire?

 

[DeletedUser]

Those guys will do the deed... but it's Assange and Wikileaks who put those people in danger. Who is more to blame: A guy pulling the trigger or a guy throwing someone into the line of fire?

The answer to that question is 'the guy pulling the trigger'.
Less flippantly - this is just information; it's not filtered for moral content.
It's just as likely that someone's life will be protected by an outflux of information as it is that it will be endangered. Arguably, knowing that their actions may be publicised may actually prevent people behaving immorally or illegally.
It's blinkered to think that this is all bad (or all good) and Assange isn't a hero, but he isn't a villain either.

Look at this chain:

US gov't keeps classified information -----> Pte. Manning makes copy and leaks it --------> Wikileaks releases it to public domain --------> Media outlets publicise contents ------> Individuals read/view media.

Well, you could blame the government for poor security, or the whistle-blower for breaching conditions of employment, or the head of the company which owns the server used to leak, or the media proprietors for spreading the leaks to sell their products, or the end-user for buying those products.
Take your pick.

My stance is that if governments behaved ethically and openly (as they should) there wouldn't be an issue.

 

[DeletedUser25707]

Well US government is to blame for poor security and Pte. Manning [and by the way, calling him whistle blower is insult to all whistle blowers!] should be executed for treason but neither one of those made those documents available to public and put everyone in danger.

Assange and Wikileaks did that... so they are to be blamed for everything bad that happen to those people.

 

[DeletedUser22493]

Regarding the Leaks on the middle east war;
I think the general public has a right to know what’s going on down there. After all, most us are in a democratic country, and how are we to make up our minds about who should make decisions regarding OUR country, when we don't even know what decisions they REALLY are making..?

We all know that what’s going on down in the middle east is some grim "tihs".
We all know its not a "Perfect War", where only the bad guys are dying, and the civilians live happily ever after.
But bloody hell, its still a war that needs to be fought to prevent these religious fanatics from blowing the world up!
Im blessed with such a realistic imagination, that without having been there, I know that the war down there isn't something pulled out "Rambo". It's a dirty war, where every single person you meet is potentially brain washed, and will either love you or kill you. Or both at the same time. Every road is a mine field, and all food may be poison. Every street is a war zone, and every car is a bomb.

I do not blame them for killing what everyone is calling "civilians". Because down there, the only difference between a civilian and a enemy, is that one will kill you and the other won't.

This war isn't fought to save the people there. They are already brainwashed. Its to save the next generation from falling under the same faith their parents did. Slaves under religious fanatics.

This got a little out of context, but you can't have Wiki, without the Iraq war.

 

[DeletedUser1121]

Well US government is to blame for poor security and Pte. Manning [and by the way, calling him whistle blower is insult to all whistle blowers!] should be executed for treason but neither one of those made those documents available to public and put everyone in danger.

Assange and Wikileaks did that... so they are to be blamed for everything bad that happen to those people.

Sure, it is wikileaks' fault that people's lives are in danger...
Please tell me who is in danger, because all the information that has been published has been anonymised.

If you think wikileaks has been the most ethical one in the whole chain Eli mentioned above.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well US government is to blame for poor security and Pte. Manning [and by the way, calling him whistle blower is insult to all whistle blowers!] should be executed for treason but neither one of those made those documents available to public and put everyone in danger.

Assange and Wikileaks did that... so they are to be blamed for everything bad that happen to those people.

Sounds like you have your mind make up and that your answer to everything is to dangle some bodies on ropes, so I won't waste time arguing.
But what about the bod who negligently gave Manning security clearance? Or the guys who print the papers? Or that swine who put everyone's lives in danger by coming up with the internet, something Berners-Lee I think he was called? Should we hang them all?
If Desi's right (and he often is) then your premiss for this whole topic is redundant anyway.

 

[DeletedUser25707]

Sounds like you have your mind make up and that your answer to everything is to dangle some bodies on ropes, so I won't waste time arguing.
But what about the bod who negligently gave Manning security clearance? Or the guys who print the papers? Or that swine who put everyone's lives in danger by coming up with the internet, something Berners-Lee I think he was called? Should we hang them all?
If Desi's right (and he often is) then your premiss for this whole topic is redundant anyway.

Since when is wanting to have someone who commit a treason be executed [and Manning commited treason] considered a bad thing? After all, it's still a more or less normal punisment in almost all countries around the world.

And nice try with shifting the blame... guess in your mind everyone is responsible other than Assange and Wikileaks. Person giving Manning a security clearance is guilty of bad judgment and maybe doing his job poorly. But he's not responsible for Manning's actions in any way... only Manning is. And why would papers publishing something Wikileaks ALREADY published be responsible for anything... it's like saying people reporting about car accident are responsible for that accident. As for person who come up with Internet... it's not his fault someone use it the way Wikileaks did... just as it wasn't Nobel's fault his invention was used like it was by some people. So don't try that line of argument again.

And Desi was wrong... documents were not anonymised... or at least not all of them. Like I said, "I've checked some of the documents relevant to my country and all the names were clearly visible."

 

[DeletedUser]

Since when is wanting to have someone who commit a treason be executed [and Manning commited treason] considered a bad thing? After all, it's still a more or less normal punisment in almost all countries around the world.

Including Iran, Burma, China, Saudi Arabia.....no doubt. Fine countries all, but off-topic.

And nice try with shifting the blame... guess in your mind everyone is responsible other than Assange and Wikileaks.

Nope. Read again. Just by saying that you're being selective isn't the same as saying that I'd be unselective. You seem convinced that the buck stops with Assange but you haven't shown me why.

Person giving Manning a security clearance is guilty of bad judgment and maybe doing his job poorly. But he's not responsible for Manning's actions in any way... only Manning is.

That's my original point about dictators etc.

And why would papers publishing something Wikileaks ALREADY published be responsible for anything... it's like saying people reporting about car accident are responsible for that accident. As for person who come up with Internet... it's not his fault someone use it the way Wikileaks did... just as it wasn't Nobel's fault his invention was used like it was by some people. So don't try that line of argument again.

Whoa! You're not saying it's wrong to publish this stuff, only to be the first one to publish it? Okay, that's novel.
Edit: (PS. Does the word 'sarcasm' mean anything to you?)

And Desi was wrong... documents were not anonymised... or at least not all of them. Like I said, "I've checked some of the documents relevant to my country and all the names were clearly visible."

I'll leave that to the two of you.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well US government is to blame for poor security and Pte. Manning [and by the way, calling him whistle blower is insult to all whistle blowers!] should be executed for treason but neither one of those made those documents available to public and put everyone in danger.

Assange and Wikileaks did that... so they are to be blamed for everything bad that happen to those people.

Bit hasty mate, you want someone executed? So you're going to kill someone in cold blood?

If documents leak, it's the documents owners fault, due to security faults.