WikiLeaks

[QuambaFu]

This story keeps getting bigger here in the U.S. I just thought I would start a thread and get peoples reactions to some of the information coming out. I don't see a lot of surprises yet but there will probably be some political fallout, some blaming, and some demonizing of Julian Assange as we've already seen.

I think this is a good thing as long as Wikileaks continue to publish all verifiable information that is leaked to them. It is the free market version of regulation. This information will allow people to make better choices as it pertains to elections and which companies to support. What is even better is that politicians from the left and right seem to be scared shitless of these leaks. The idea of scared politicians brings a smile to my face.

Here's a pretty good interview of Assange by Forbes magazine: An Interview With WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange - Andy Greenberg - The Firewall - Forbes

 

[Guitarman700]

Screw assange and screw wikileaks. He's putting people's lives in danger, and demolishing years of diplomatic ties. Its reckless and stupid.

 

[Rev2010]

I'm against it and can't believe it's taken so long for the government to go after them. Not for nothing, but teenagers are arrested and put on trial by the RIAA for sharing *36* songs! And this is far more critical. Certain leaks I think aren't a big deal. But anything that is classified, protected, or extremely sensitive in nature I think should be left that way. As much as we all would like the inside scoop if it's illegal then that's that.


Rev.

 

[Randy]

I'm actually kinda on the fence about this one. I get the concerns about safety of personnel and security, and I also noticed the guy seems to be a bit of a jackass, but I don't recall anyone being killed based on the information from their last dump.

FWIW, the government does a lot of insidious things from time-to-time and, sometimes, there's some value in putting information out there and taking them to task for hypocrisy. I don't necessarily think it's the most responsible means of getting information out, but there's a precedent(*ahem* Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *ahem*) for relevant information to be made available, despite who's interest it is to keep it from seeing the light of day.

 

[Randy]

Wait, I just agreed with QuambaFu about something. Fuck it, I take all of what I just said back.

 

[HighGain510]

but there's a president (*ahem* Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *ahem*)

Which president was it Randy? I know you meant precedent.

 

[vampiregenocide]

Screw assange and screw wikileaks. He's putting people's lives in danger, and demolishing years of diplomatic ties. Its reckless and stupid.

Agreed. I'm all for governments being honest, but theres a lot of shit we don't and shouldn't know. We elect our governments and put them in a position of responsibility and we have to accept that, we can't then demand they report to us on everything they do, thats like saying okay you do this job, but you have to do whatever I want even though I don't really know shit about it. Governments do a lot of shit we'd be quick to judge on, but they do it because theres little else to do. We'd do it in the same situation. Obviously they do some evil shit sometimes though.

The fact it is damaging international ties is another big issue, of course wikileaks doesn't think about that because they like most people think freedom of information = good.

 

[orb451]

Yeah count me among the few that are also not big fans of WikiLeaks at least as it pertains to our government. Want to release some "Big Tobacco" or other corporate whistle-blower crap? Have at it. But leave the government's intel under wraps.

And Randy, I believe after the last release (or one right before it) the Taliban was more than happy to go on the hunt for "informants" and those they saw as traitors for giving our troops information.

 

[Randy]

Which president was it Randy? I know you meant precedent.

Har-har, ya' big lug.

 

[Randy]

I have a significantly different read on this from the one I had after the first dump. Again, I in no way want to put men and women on the ground in danger but since there was this "OMG! CATASTROPHE!" talk after the first dump and I have seen no confirmed reports of somebody killed based on this information, the blind outrage is lost on me at this point.

 

[orb451]

I have a significantly different read on this from the one I had after the first dump. Again, I in no way want to put men and women on the ground in danger but since there was this "OMG! CATASTROPHE!" talk after the first dump and I have seen no confirmed reports of somebody killed based on this information, the blind outrage is lost on me at this point.

Understood. The hysteria was going pretty strong for a while. Here's a link to an article about someone killed as a direct result of one of the recent leaks.

Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks - Newsweek

 

[Scar Symmetry]

I'm actually kinda on the fence about this one. I get the concerns about safety of personnel and security, and I also noticed the guy seems to be a bit of a jackass, but I don't recall anyone being killed based on the information from their last dump.

FWIW, the government does a lot of insidious things from time-to-time and, sometimes, there's some value in putting information out there and taking them to task for hypocrisy. I don't necessarily think it's the most responsible means of getting information out, but there's a precedent (*ahem* Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *ahem*) for relevant information to be made available, despite who's interest it is to keep it from seeing the light of day.

This.

 

[Randy]

Understood. The hysteria was going pretty strong for a while. Here's a link to an article about someone killed as a direct result of one of the recent leaks.

Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks - Newsweek

That most certainly should've been bigger news than it's been, in that case. There's more coverage of the hysteria than there is of actual effects. While seeing that would make me a little more cautious about the dangers of that information, I *personally* found the connection between what's outlined in the article and the leak to be pretty vague but it's a valid point.

 

[orb451]

That most certainly should've been bigger news than it's been, in that case. There's more coverage of the hysteria than there is of actual effects. While seeing that would make me a little more cautious about the dangers of that information, I *personally* found the connection between what's outlined in the article and the leak to be pretty vague but it's a valid point.

Well unfortunately I think it's something (the leaks) that has a rippling effect that without a lot of people there (Afghanistan) to report on events, is very hard to quantify just *how* much (if at all) peoples' lives are directly affected.

Like I said I'm fine with corporate whistle-blower, insider-trading, etc type stuff being released. But things like the most recent release and the few prior that all involve our government and the shit it does and doesn't do, just leave it in the closet. Revealing it, as shown vaguely in this article and elsewhere isn't actually *helping* anything or anyone.

 

[Randy]

I'd argue it's because nobody's *doing* anything about the information they're getting out of it. That's what I'm, personally, outraged over.

This feels like the case of the guy who dug up e-mails between his wife and some guy she's cheating with, then when confronted, the argument centers around how wrong he is for digging through her e-mails instead of it being about her schtuping some dude.

Perhaps the more responsible course of action were if the person who acquired the information actually had a goal in mind for it and, without airing it to the public, confronted our representatives about it. Feels a little better because the risk of negative repercussions to innocent people is lessened, but TBH, the administrative handling of this gives me zero faith they'd change anything regardless.

 

[QuambaFu]

Wait, I just agreed with QuambaFu about something. Fuck it, I take all of what I just said back.

Randy, I love you man. I'll try to give you some reasons to dislike me below.

I guess the main reason I like this is because if the decisions made by politicians, military personnel, and corporate executives are made with the possibility that wrong-doing may be exposed they will more than likely chose to do what is right/legal... hopefully.

Quote from Eric Holder, "To the extent there are gaps in our laws, we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing." Close those gaps, interesting choice of words. Plus, there are a lot of scare tactics being used to try to diminish the fallout from this.

Really there isn't much in these latest leaks that is surprising. Some of the Saudi's fund terrorism and want Iran's nuke program stopped, big shocker there. Vladimir Putin is still in control of Russia, surprise surprise <-- insert sarcasm font. I think some of the most damaging info is that our diplomats are being used to collect personal information and even DNA on foreign leaders. I thought that was the job of the CIA not the state department.

The next major leak is supposedly involving a large US Bank. I'm guessing it's about Goldman-Sachs, as their executive team is pretty interchangable with the treasury and federal reserve.

 

[orb451]

I'd argue it's because nobody's *doing* anything about the information they're getting out of it. That's what I'm, personally, outraged over.

This feels like the case of the guy who dug up e-mails between his wife and some guy she's cheating with, then when confronted, the argument centers around how wrong he is for digging through her e-mails instead of it being about her schtuping some dude.

Perhaps the more responsible course of action were if the person who acquired the information actually had a goal in mind for it and, without airing it to the public, confronted our representatives about it. Feels a little better because the risk of negative repercussions to innocent people is lessened, but TBH, the administrative handling of this gives me zero faith they'd change anything regardless.

Well I think that was the goal of the that one intelligence analyst that released, or rather stole this data and then gave it to WikiLeaks. That in releasing it to the masses that "things would change". But in my estimation, it's naive to think that way. This won't change anything but how classified data is stored and who has access to it. That's what will change. Not the actual dealings of our government. Not their attitudes or abuses of power. And so basically you and others that are incensed by what is revealed are wasting your time being upset.

And that's not meant in a condescending or smug way, I just mean that in the long run, I really don't see the releases changing anything about our government's behavior for the better. In the interim, the releases have more *potential* for doing more harm than good. That's my take on it

 

[ddtonfire]

There's more coverage of the hysteria than there is of actual effects.

This always seems to be the case, unfortunately.

 

[Randy]

Randy, I love you man. I'll try to give you some reasons to dislike me below.

I guess the main reason I like this is because if the decisions made by politicians, military personnel, and corporate executives are made with the possibility that wrong-doing may be exposed they will more than likely chose to do what is right/legal... hopefully.

Quote from Eric Holder, "To the extent there are gaps in our laws, we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing." Close those gaps, interesting choice of words. Plus, there are a lot of scare tactics being used to try to diminish the fallout from this.

Really there isn't much in these latest leaks that is surprising. Some of the Saudi's fund terrorism and want Iran's nuke program stopped, big shocker there. Vladimir Putin is still in control of Russia, surprise surprise <-- insert sarcasm font. I think some of the most damaging info is that our diplomats are being used to collect personal information and even DNA on foreign leaders. I thought that was the job of the CIA not the state department.

The next major leak is supposedly involving a large US Bank. I'm guessing it's about Goldman-Sachs, as their executive team is pretty interchangable with the treasury and federal reserve.

Nope. Still agreeing with you. You'll have to try harder next time.

 

[Randy]

in the long run, I really don't see the releases changing anything about our government's behavior for the better.

I'm registered in one of the "big two" instead of an independent, despite blatantly illegal/unethical behavior on both sides. I believe, despite the complete unlikelihood that it'll happen, in reforming and salvaging something if you believe in the fundamentals. Do I think realistically my party or my federal government is going reform itself into what'd be ideal? Not really. But I'm stubborn.