Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ken]

Very conspiratorial undertones in some of the replies here.  While I certainly could, I'll not go on at length about my personal opinion of the emo shitbag US Army private who stole these docs in the first place or the Bond-villain-esque Julian Assange's little demonstration of 'free speech' (or his 'insurance policy'), but you can gather from my vocabulary where I stand.  Let me simply leave you with these facts: you are less safe because of what WikiLeaks is doing right now and there are good people out there who will die because of the compromise of classified data that has taken place.  Classified information is kept hidden for a reason, and that reason is not to keep some secret evil universe of black helicopters and summary executions from being exposed--it is to keep you safe.  If you disagree with your government, go run for office and change it.  Don't undo decades of work by people who, honestly bearing your best interests in mind, have devoted themselves to the defense of your right to do what the previous sentence suggested.

Thanks.

[Senn Typhos]

It's not acceptable to say, "well I don't beat my kids as much as my neighbor does."

The fact that this side of the world generally does "less" doesn't excuse the things that do happen.

Again, the statement wasn't, "the west does less of this so it's okay."

Verbatim, the statement was, its "more difficult." This is, most likely in this space and time, true.

Yes, governments are often corrupt. I don't know about the rest of you, but I didn't need Wikileaks to know politics is usually tied to greed and manipulation.

[Mizhara]

Not trolling here, but I predict this thread remains active for three months.

Or a week.

* Mizhara randomly quotes Ayn Rand at Senn.

[Senn Typhos]

Ah, nuts, I didn't read that post and now I helped make it come true...

And I'm doing it again now! D:

Stop it! ><

[Benjamin Shepherd]

Eh, what the hell, I'm up for a debate with Ken.

Obviously this is close to you, because of your military occupation. I do not necessarily agree with WikiLeaks and their decision to leak classified information. However, because it was given to them by a disgruntled soldier, they decided to, well, leak it. A few points:

1. All of these people calling for Julian Assange to be "executed" or "put on trial for treason" should really focus on what exactly they're saying. Aside from the blatantly violent threats, you can't put the guy on trial for treason because he isn't American. If they want to kill him anyway, that's the worst unilateral neocon lack of Geneva respect ever. gg.

2. If WikiLeaks is evil for doing this, then by default the New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel should all be charged with leaking information. We cannot nitpick at the specifics and say that one organization self-censored this much info, and the others didn't.

3. This is the Internet. I am a center-left believer of social democracy and for net neutrality, but the freedom of information must be left untouched. Once a government halts all movement of information on the Internet, they become China (albeit on a milder scale), hands down. Governments around the world have had documents leaked onto the Internet, with unsuccessful action taken. It's too late; they will remain free for everyone to see.

And in my opinion, I don't see anyone being killed as a direct result of these leaked cables. The information are mostly critical analyses and reaffirmations of diplomatic standings, with the exception of one document that lists locations of important facilities around the world. This is nothing different than a terrorist using one of Google's wonderful features.

[Vikarion]

Oh, I don't really think going after Mr. Assange will help anything. I mean, certainly, if it stopped the leaks, killing him might be an option. But people like Julian Assange are a dime a dozen, and if he goes, someone else will step up to be the new celebrity.

No, the correct way to do this is to eliminate the person who actually leaked the information. Harsh penalties for revealing leaked information, as opposed to disseminating it, are much more likely to work.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, that's my opinion for a useful solution.

[Invelious]

I would have to disagree Vik, the moment the person who revealed the information is killed, it only gives the rest of the world just cause to hate and the people who know of and have access to the information to reveal it. Killing him, would only prove how corrupt the government and its people really are.

The freedom of speech, and the right of the electors to know what their elected are doing is something that should never be suppressed. If things have to be hidden, then something wrong has happened. Preventing negative historic events from happening again, requires that we know what happened.  

[Milo Caman]

Post

Whoo, didn't expect things to get quite so heated. Alright:

I don't necessarily agree with what Wikileaks has done, (IE, releasing documents regarding the war in the middle east that put the lives on soldiers working there at risk, that's just fucking stupid) Julian Assange needs to learn to use more discretion when releasing shit.

I DO Agree with the principal of the organization, Some stuff that's been leaked, especially regarding things like ACTA and censorship bills, needed to be bought into the public domain, because it turns out that various Media groups are sticking their noses where they shouldn't be, and frankly, if my personal freedoms are going to be taken away by some Hollywood parasite, I'd like to be able to know in advance so I can mail moltov cocktails to the relevant people.

[Louella Dougans]

Wikileaks has an editorial policy.

Editorial policies are biased. They have an agenda.

There was a video a while back, where they had edited footage from a helicopter. They also had the full reel, which would put more things in context, but they still chose to publish an edited one. The link to the full reel was very small on their page.

Big difference between "Rules of engagement are appalling, here is the evidence, judge for yourself" vs "Hey, here's edited highlights of helicopter pr0n! isn't that shocking!"

As a result, people are exposed to more danger. To get more publicity and traffic on an internet site. This does not appear to me to be particularly less callous and cynical and contemptuous than some of the things they are revealing.

So, I do not believe they are as innocent as some people appear to think.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

Wikileaks has an editorial policy.

Editorial policies are biased. They have an agenda.

There was a video a while back, where they had edited footage from a helicopter. They also had the full reel, which would put more things in context, but they still chose to publish an edited one. The link to the full reel was very small on their page.

Big difference between "Rules of engagement are appalling, here is the evidence, judge for yourself" vs "Hey, here's edited highlights of helicopter pr0n! isn't that shocking!"

As a result, people are exposed to more danger. To get more publicity and traffic on an internet site. This does not appear to me to be particularly less callous and cynical and contemptuous than some of the things they are revealing.

So, I do not believe they are as innocent as some people appear to think.

Well, yes, they have an agenda. Who doesn't?

However the full footage doesn't make that crew look much better. Especially the part at the end where they are firing missiles at a building. They come over much like your average trigger happy EVE denizen.

[Casiella]

As a colleague of mine said, this isn't a simple issue and your opinion on it shouldn't be, either.

For example, one can draw a distinction between the Afghanistan war logs (including highly specific data, individual names, etc.) and diplomatic cables indicating the opinions of ambassadors and other US State Department personnel.

One can also have differing opinions of the overall Wikileaks project and Assange as an individual.

Finally, one can also point out the hypocrisy of selectively choosing when to support the rule of law and when to support extrajudicial assassinations for political purposes.

[orange]

There are some issues surrounding this that are simple.

A member of the military who leaked classified information should be tried, preferably under military law (UCMJ), in accordance with the law.  He/she signed what are effectively contracts and broke them.

And here is an operational impact that is likely to have consequences in the field.  It is however a choice the military must make; flow of information versus operational timeliness.

2. If WikiLeaks is evil for doing this, then by default the New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel should all be charged with leaking information. We cannot nitpick at the specifics and say that one organization self-censored this much info, and the others didn't.

I think this needs to be played up more.  The Washington Post ran a series of articles last summer.  Military members have been directed not to comment on the material.

The wikileaks information (which I am advised to not read/visit/consume from wikileaks, but can from NYT or The Guardian) released thus far does not concern me nearly as much as the reactions to the fact it was released.

There is a data-war in which the skirmishes are on-going; hopefully it does not grow.  It is also a data-war where the actors are not necessarily states, but private citizens, net-militias if you will.

[Ken]

1. All of these people calling for Julian Assange to be "executed" or "put on trial for treason" should really focus on what exactly they're saying. Aside from the blatantly violent threats, you can't put the guy on trial for treason because he isn't American. If they want to kill him anyway, that's the worst unilateral neocon lack of Geneva respect ever. gg.

There are plenty of non-Americans in American jails on long sentences.  But you could always try him at the Hague.  Win for international jurisprudence.

2. If WikiLeaks is evil for doing this, then by default the New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel should all be charged with leaking information. We cannot nitpick at the specifics and say that one organization self-censored this much info, and the others didn't.

I agree.  Anyone who helped spread classified data without legal authority from the classifier to do so is liable.  A strong defensive move on WikiLeaks' part is that hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world are now implicated.  No legitimate judicial infrastructure can support that many arrests or trials.  So the only viable legal recourse is to try and punish a figurehead.  Mr Assange seems happy to pose for the cameras and be that figurehead.  What a martyr.

3. This is the Internet. I am a center-left believer of social democracy and for net neutrality, but the freedom of information must be left untouched.

I am as well and I agree. 

If things have to be hidden, then something wrong has happened. Preventing negative historic events from happening again, requires that we know what happened.

It would not have done us much good if the Manhattan Project were conducted through a write-in campaign in the NYT or the plans for D-Day were discussed in every Parisian cafe prior to June 6th, 1944.  Even when far less imperious things than war are discussed in a public forum they have the potential to spiral out of control.  Diplomats, spies, and soldiers do their work under a veil of secrecy because information is dangerous.

There is a certain category of information--classified information--that is not free to consume for that very reason.  As I've already stated it is kept in trust by a small segment of the population for the benefit of the larger whole and is, over time, sanitized and declassified so that a full perspective of history can be gained.  This usually takes place by the time the individuals involved are all retired or dead and the events in question are no longer of immediate interest.

Look, at some point you have to trust that your government is doing the right thing, but at no time should you ever assume that it is perfect or is always doing what it should be doing.  Governments are made of people and people make mistakes.  So if you don't like the particular secrets you think (or know, in this case) your government is keeping, and you live in place where you are free to do something about it--vote or better yet get yourself into a position where you can change the system from the inside and affect that change.

And in my opinion, I don't see anyone being killed as a direct result of these leaked cables.

When classified is leaked contemporaneously to the events it documents, it almost always has the potential to not only damage a nation's "interests", which may have dubious value even to its own citizens, but to place people in very real physical danger.  WikiLeaks has not scrubbed source identities from its publications, for example, and those are real people who may already be dead because their 'treachery' to one cause or another is suddenly brought to light.  If you think that this does not happen, I have a few stories I could tell you someday...

Once a government halts all movement of information on the Internet, they become China (albeit on a milder scale), hands down. Governments around the world have had documents leaked onto the Internet, with unsuccessful action taken.

We aren't talking about the PRC and the US has by no stretch of the imagination become the PRC just because they don't want sensitive classified information to get out to everyone with a BitTorrent client.

It's too late; they will remain free for everyone to see.

That's true, they will.  You can't undo this, and I certainly wouldn't propose to try.  What you can do is punish the people who have broken the law.  You can also do some civic duty and not perpetuate the breach and speak out against the mindset that seeks to portray doing so in a positive or "liberating" light.

the correct way to do this is to eliminate the person who actually leaked the information.

He's in jail and I look forward to reading the proceedings of his court martial.

However the full footage doesn't make that crew look much better.

Hey, guess what?  War is fucking hell.  Don't elect people who steer you toward one.

[Mizhara]

The 'dangers' of this whistleblowing strikes me as enormously overblown. There's been some exceedingly serious whistleblowing done in the past, equally condemned and portrayed as a vile act that'll lead to lives being lost and so on and so forth.

So far, that's never materialized. No lives have been lost in the past whistleblowing events (that wouldn't have been dead anyway) and nor have any serious repercussion hit neither the forces in the middle-east or any other people's lives. As far as we know, anyway. You'd think the ones decrying the evil of this whistleblowing would have pointed out examples if there'd been any.

So far there's been no negative effects to this that aren't heavily outweighed by the benefits of seeing the lying and scheming sacks of shit for what they really are. Maybe there'll be a little less public cocksucking with backroom backstabbing going on for a little while, or at the very least there will be some incentive for learning from mistakes of the past.

[Casiella]

Given that the criminality of the actions taken by Wikileaks is questionable, and the criminality under international law even more so, I don't see The Hague taking this up anytime soon. The US isn't even a signatory to the ICC, making this that much more difficult. (I draw a clear distinction here between the actions of the leaker, whether that be Manning as alleged or someone else, and those of Wikileaks.) NYT v US made clear that the leaker may be liable, but the publisher generally is not.

And a categorical assertion that Wikileaks has not scrubbed any identities is demonstrably false (though definitely not as responsibly as they perhaps should have done with earlier releases). In fact, there is considerable evidence that Wikileaks has gone further with their harm minimization efforts than most of the US politicians would acknowledge.

I definitely believe that my support of the release of the diplomatic cables is my civic duty. Anyone is, of course free to disagree, but let's remember that there are well-intentioned people on both sides of the debate.