Dueling Cultures: Wikileaks

[BonsaiK]

Well, regardless of "whether they had it coming" I'm pretty sure a gay guy stealing information from them didn't exactly put gay rights into a positive light for the military.

I'm sure it didn't, but the idea is not to put gay rights in a positive light, because gay rights are self-evident to anybody with a brain and thus don't need to be put in a positive light. The idea is to create annoyance for people who oppose gay rights, thus making them think (maybe) "maybe if we weren't such assholes and had given these people the rights that they wanted, we wouldn't now be in this much of a pickle".

 

[Ultrajoe]

My view on the subject is based entirely on one critical piece of information: did Wikileaks solicit the information. If they did, then they are guilty of espionage. If they did not, then they are guilty of being bereft of good sense a crime all of us answer for at some point.

The party who gave the information is a traitor plain and simple. If the information was passed to wikileaks without solicitation, then wikileaks is more or less free to transmit the information. The penalties for revealing classified information only apply to those who are supposed to be working with it in the first place.

Traitor? We still use that word?

Of course, there will be repercussions naturally. I suspect the founder of Wikileaks will quickly realize that international espionage is a dangerous business and the world's intelligence communities do not care for being made to look a fool.

Fortunately, they're also not idiots. Nobody is going to go after Assange in anything but subtle terms, because for all the dirt one country might have dug from their own closets, they get a goldmine of international activity laid before them.

 

[Akalistos]

I was raised since i was very young,

Really? Good for you. [I had to]

The government should be transparent except for military and police work. I would help the people understand some choice they make as well as keeping corruption out.

 

[Akalistos]

I understand the strategic necessity for keeping some things secret, but...

Wikileaks didn't harm anyone who didn't have it coming through their own stupidity. Impact on things like American security is basically zero because Wikileaks thoughtfully edited out names in sensitive cases where certain people might have been put in danger by leaked documents.

Bolded is most important.

Because of that, I can't stand against WikiLeaks.

They don't censor the names of locations though. One document was literally a list of important locations in the Mid East that if were taken out or attacked could cripple the ability of US and NATO forces over there. It's a laundry list of "to hit" places.

Now it's nice that they do that for individuals but people live and work at those locations too.

That falls under strategic necessity; thank you for reading what I put.

Also, should we really give a flying f#@k about what one politician say about another person behind closed doors? People talk shit about other people, is the international political gossip really the best use of resources?

When people are talking shit about our allies, this is a problem for international relations.

*quick edit* The treason bit comes from stealing (ie downloading) documents from the government without permission to do so. Selling government documents technically falls under treason so I can see the charges easily.

Transparency is a major necessity in a democracy.

You disappoint me Naheal. You forgot that they don't sell document but make them public which is a big flaw in his reply.

 

[Naheal]

I understand the strategic necessity for keeping some things secret, but...

Wikileaks didn't harm anyone who didn't have it coming through their own stupidity. Impact on things like American security is basically zero because Wikileaks thoughtfully edited out names in sensitive cases where certain people might have been put in danger by leaked documents.

Bolded is most important.

Because of that, I can't stand against WikiLeaks.

They don't censor the names of locations though. One document was literally a list of important locations in the Mid East that if were taken out or attacked could cripple the ability of US and NATO forces over there. It's a laundry list of "to hit" places.

Now it's nice that they do that for individuals but people live and work at those locations too.

That falls under strategic necessity; thank you for reading what I put.

Also, should we really give a flying f#@k about what one politician say about another person behind closed doors? People talk shit about other people, is the international political gossip really the best use of resources?

When people are talking shit about our allies, this is a problem for international relations.

*quick edit* The treason bit comes from stealing (ie downloading) documents from the government without permission to do so. Selling government documents technically falls under treason so I can see the charges easily.

Transparency is a major necessity in a democracy.

You disappoint me Naheal. You forgot that they don't sell document but make them public which is a big flaw in his reply.

Only a minor one, actually. If potentially damaging documents are made public, then anyone can get access to them.

 

[TimeLord]

Wikileaks crossed a line when they revealed classified installations regarding national security.

I'm all for power to the people and that we should know what our governments are up to. But there has to be a limit so we don't supply information to terrorists!

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

My view on the subject is based entirely on one critical piece of information: did Wikileaks solicit the information. If they did, then they are guilty of espionage. If they did not, then they are guilty of being bereft of good sense a crime all of us answer for at some point.

The party who gave the information is a traitor plain and simple. If the information was passed to wikileaks without solicitation, then wikileaks is more or less free to transmit the information. The penalties for revealing classified information only apply to those who are supposed to be working with it in the first place.

Traitor? We still use that word?

Yes. Treason is a capital crime in the United States. What the soldier did was in violation of US Federal Law and Military Law.

Fortunately, they're also not idiots. Nobody is going to go after Assange in anything but subtle terms, because for all the dirt one country might have dug from their own closets, they get a goldmine of international activity laid before them.

I hardly think you're that naive. Or do you really believe the rape charges were just coincidental and utterly unrelated?

 

[Labyrinth]

I saw a cartoon once. Julian Assange is up on the stand before an American court, being asked to take the Oath. The clerk says "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" to which Assange replies "Well, I tried that."

It's a frank and amusing representation of what happens to those who yank the tails of grumpy, powerful institutions. On a global scale, they're yanking the tale of say, Deathwing. Lawyers in his case are healer spec. It takes a lot of courage, and while I can't say I'm a fan of Assange's brand of narcissism, I do respect the fact that he continues to do this while being headhunted. People working for Wikileaks have allegedly been assassinated in the past, it's not like he has a lack of evidence to support paranoia.

And now we have people calling him and those who give him documents 'traitors'. I find it amusing, really. Assange would have difficulty being a traitor to any nation other than Australia, given his nationality, and for the others I would argue that in all the cases I have seen, getting the truth out has been an effort to reveal dishonest behaviour in politicians and corporations. Disloyal even, traitorous to those from whom they get the power to govern, or in the case of corporation their shareholders.

Most ironic that these assertions of absolute faith in a government come from the USA, a nation with a respectably traitorous (to the Crown, anyway) history that they seem to fail to live up to these days. Come on, America. You're the ones asserting that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. How better to know if the government is failing in its role than to have this level of disclosure and protection for whistle-blowers?

I'm not surprised that many governments and corporations are shitting themselves. They don't want skeletons and dirty laundry aired for the global audience. Serves them right for creating such things. If they consider their actions and policies defensible, let them make those defences and the public, the people will decide. If nothing else the governments and corporations have the benefit of more resources and more people they can draw on to spin things how they want.

 

[Akalistos]

I understand the strategic necessity for keeping some things secret, but...

Wikileaks didn't harm anyone who didn't have it coming through their own stupidity. Impact on things like American security is basically zero because Wikileaks thoughtfully edited out names in sensitive cases where certain people might have been put in danger by leaked documents.

Bolded is most important.

Because of that, I can't stand against WikiLeaks.

They don't censor the names of locations though. One document was literally a list of important locations in the Mid East that if were taken out or attacked could cripple the ability of US and NATO forces over there. It's a laundry list of "to hit" places.

Now it's nice that they do that for individuals but people live and work at those locations too.

That falls under strategic necessity; thank you for reading what I put.

Also, should we really give a flying f#@k about what one politician say about another person behind closed doors? People talk shit about other people, is the international political gossip really the best use of resources?

When people are talking shit about our allies, this is a problem for international relations.

*quick edit* The treason bit comes from stealing (ie downloading) documents from the government without permission to do so. Selling government documents technically falls under treason so I can see the charges easily.

Transparency is a major necessity in a democracy.

You disappoint me Naheal. You forgot that they don't sell document but make them public which is a big flaw in his reply.

Only a minor one, actually. If potentially damaging documents are made public, then anyone can get access to them.

Selling government documents technically falls under treason

No, i mean like this.
Naheal: Also, when did Wikileak started selling document? Are you sure you know what your talking about before posting this reply?

 

[Ultrajoe]

Traitor? We still use that word?

Yes. Treason is a capital crime in the United States. What the soldier did was in violation of US Federal Law and Military Law.

I just find the use of the word Traitor to be amusing, for everybody outside the Military it tends to drop out of serious vocabulary around age 12.

Fortunately, they're also not idiots. Nobody is going to go after Assange in anything but subtle terms, because for all the dirt one country might have dug from their own closets, they get a goldmine of international activity laid before them.

I hardly think you're that naive. Or do you really believe the rape charges were just coincidental and utterly unrelated?

Note where I said 'anything but subtle terms', it rather handily answers your own question. Thankfully I don't think those will stick.

 

[Naheal]

I understand the strategic necessity for keeping some things secret, but...

Wikileaks didn't harm anyone who didn't have it coming through their own stupidity. Impact on things like American security is basically zero because Wikileaks thoughtfully edited out names in sensitive cases where certain people might have been put in danger by leaked documents.

Bolded is most important.

Because of that, I can't stand against WikiLeaks.

They don't censor the names of locations though. One document was literally a list of important locations in the Mid East that if were taken out or attacked could cripple the ability of US and NATO forces over there. It's a laundry list of "to hit" places.

Now it's nice that they do that for individuals but people live and work at those locations too.

That falls under strategic necessity; thank you for reading what I put.

Also, should we really give a flying f#@k about what one politician say about another person behind closed doors? People talk shit about other people, is the international political gossip really the best use of resources?

When people are talking shit about our allies, this is a problem for international relations.

*quick edit* The treason bit comes from stealing (ie downloading) documents from the government without permission to do so. Selling government documents technically falls under treason so I can see the charges easily.

Transparency is a major necessity in a democracy.

You disappoint me Naheal. You forgot that they don't sell document but make them public which is a big flaw in his reply.

Only a minor one, actually. If potentially damaging documents are made public, then anyone can get access to them.

Selling government documents technically falls under treason

No, i mean like this.
Naheal: Also, when did Wikileak started selling document? Are you sure you know what your talking about before posting this reply?

Not my style. Although, a confused look pic might have worked...

 

[Naheal]

I saw a cartoon once. Julian Assange is up on the stand before an American court, being asked to take the Oath. The clerk says "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" to which Assange replies "Well, I tried that."

It's a frank and amusing representation of what happens to those who yank the tails of grumpy, powerful institutions. On a global scale, they're yanking the tale of say, Deathwing. Lawyers in his case are healer spec. It takes a lot of courage, and while I can't say I'm a fan of Assange's brand of narcissism, I do respect the fact that he continues to do this while being headhunted. People working for Wikileaks have allegedly been assassinated in the past, it's not like he has a lack of evidence to support paranoia.

And now we have people calling him and those who give him documents 'traitors'. I find it amusing, really. Assange would have difficulty being a traitor to any nation other than Australia, given his nationality, and for the others I would argue that in all the cases I have seen, getting the truth out has been an effort to reveal dishonest behaviour in politicians and corporations. Disloyal even, traitorous to those from whom they get the power to govern, or in the case of corporation their shareholders.

Most ironic that these assertions of absolute faith in a government come from the USA, a nation with a respectably traitorous (to the Crown, anyway) history that they seem to fail to live up to these days. Come on, America. You're the ones asserting that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. How better to know if the government is failing in its role than to have this level of disclosure and protection for whistle-blowers?

I'm not surprised that many governments and corporations are shitting themselves. They don't want skeletons and dirty laundry aired for the global audience. Serves them right for creating such things. If they consider their actions and policies defensible, let them make those defences and the public, the people will decide. If nothing else the governments and corporations have the benefit of more resources and more people they can draw on to spin things how they want.

He is what we refer to as a tank.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Traitor? We still use that word?

Yes. Treason is a capital crime in the United States. What the soldier did was in violation of US Federal Law and Military Law.

I just find the use of the word Traitor to be amusing, for everybody outside the Military it tends to drop out of serious vocabulary around age 12.

This is generally because there are few people not in federal service in a position to commit treason without really going out of their way.

Note where I said 'anything but subtle terms', it rather handily answers your own question. Thankfully I don't think those will stick.

And do you really think he will simply move on with his life without further troubles as a direct result?

I'm not implying that the CIA is going to murder him (as an example). I just think he is going to spend the rest of his professional life fighting off such things as a direct result of his actions.

While such things may be subtle, there is plenty of malice there nonetheless. This was my only point.

Personally, after much thought, I came to realize that I cannot hate the guy for what he did as his actions were exactly as evil as Woodward and Bernstein's and they were eventually hailed as heroes. This isn't to say that I would hail the man as a hero, just that he does not count as a villain in my book.

 

[ZephrC]

I think it's funny how people are all up in arms about leaking some of our overseas locations. Like the people we're fighting don't already know. Durr... where are there a bunch of white guys in camouflage that weren't there before... I can't figure that shit out, it's too comp-li-cateed. Seriously, if there's a location that still has people at it after it's had time to be leaked, the enemy already knew about it. We're in their country after all. That's like saying China could set up a military installation in Idaho without anybody noticing. It just doesn't make sense.

Anyway, obviously I think Wikileaks is nothing but good. The people are supposed to be the ones in charge of this country, we should damn well know how it's being run. I understand the need to keep things like current operations and operatives a secret, but Wikileaks hasn't leaked anything of that nature. Other than that, the more damning something is the more badly it's in need of being leaked. Anyone that can't see that is a short-sighted fool. I just hope we don't have to learn that lesson the hard way. Again.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I think it's funny how people are all up in arms about leaking some of our overseas locations. Like the people we're fighting don't already know. Durr... where are there a bunch of white guys in camouflage that weren't there before... I can't figure that shit out, it's too comp-li-cateed. Seriously, if there's a location that still has people at it after it's had time to be leaked, the enemy already knew about it. We're in their country after all. That's like saying China could set up a military installation in Idaho without anybody noticing. It just doesn't make sense.

Why, you cracked the code! Obviously all those enterprises around the world dedicated to finding secrets and interpreting them in order to predict the future are just stupid wastes of time! Clearly they have no purpose when you can just look and see a group of white guys hiding in a bush. I mean, it isn't like they could be in one of millions of bushes or anything.

 

[ZephrC]

I think it's funny how people are all up in arms about leaking some of our overseas locations. Like the people we're fighting don't already know. Durr... where are there a bunch of white guys in camouflage that weren't there before... I can't figure that shit out, it's too comp-li-cateed. Seriously, if there's a location that still has people at it after it's had time to be leaked, the enemy already knew about it. We're in their country after all. That's like saying China could set up a military installation in Idaho without anybody noticing. It just doesn't make sense.

Why, you cracked the code! Obviously all those enterprises around the world dedicated to finding secrets and interpreting them in order to predict the future are just stupid wastes of time! Clearly they have no purpose when you can just look and see a group of white guys hiding in a bush. I mean, it isn't like they could be in one of millions of bushes or anything.

Yeah! Because obviously all those things are looking for permanent installations. Places that have great big guard towers sticking up so they can see all over the area. Not, say for instance, actually secret things or anything like that. Silly me.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'd just say this whole thing reflects on world governments pretty poorly, as I, along with many people, before having done too much research, come down on Assange's side, and the whole rape charges thing sounded dodgy immediately.

I'd also say, he's fairly safe now, few people are going to believe anything reported about him any more. In fact , Julian, if you ever wanted a career in serial killing, now is the time to start

I don't agree so much with releasing details of conversations behind closed doors however:

I still think it was unfair for Gordon Brown to have been slammed so heavily when, in his car, not knowing his mic was still on, having just had to deal with a bigoted woman harassing him with such intellectual queries as 'Where are all these eastern europeans coming from?', he then escapes to his car and says 'what a bigoted woman'.

He then has to go back and apologise publicly. We all say crap behind people's back, at the store where I used to work, we had an emergency thing where if you hit the intercom buzzer three times, someone would come and take over on the checkout so you could go and back and scream and generally call the customer a lot of names in safety.

Recently Vince Cable just got exposed that he was biased against Rupert Murdoch's move to take over more of the british media. I'm assuming it's because he's either met him, read about him or seen a picture or heard of him. He didn't make it public, but reporters asked him privately without stating they were reporters, I think if we want transparenct, it has to be on both sides.

I'm al for the important information being free, but one politician calling another one a dick behind closed doors, we all do it, and none of us want to be called on it.

 

[Kris015]

I believe secrets should be revealed as long as they don't hurt a lot of people.

 

[Aesir23]

I'm rather split on this. Things like locations of troops and other important things such as bio labs should certainly not be revealed because it would endanger the lives of others. However, things like soldier conduct in Afghanistan and Iraq should definitely be revealed to the public.