WikiLeaks

[Neo Duality]

Many of you may have heard about the recent controversy surrounding the internet whistleblower Wikileaks, and it's founder Julian Assange. For those of you who don't, WikiLeaks is/was a website that exposed valuable US intelligence documents freely online. WikiLeaks shot to infamy soon after, with controversy surrounding this revelation. Recently, it's founder Julian Assange was arrested on dubious charges.

What is your take on the WikiLeaks issue? Discuss and debate.

 

[BigLutz]

I believe it's horrible, and the website should be taken destroyed any way possible, and Assange needs to spend the rest of his life either in jail or facing the death penalty. The man put hundreds of millions of lives at risk, with his acts, and has shown little if any humanity for the human lives he has put at risk. The man is a danger to the world and should be treated as such.

 

[Neo Duality]

I believe it's horrible, and the website should be taken destroyed any way possible, and Assange needs to spend the rest of his life either in jail or facing the death penalty. The man put hundreds of millions of lives at risk, with his acts, and has shown little if any humanity for the human lives he has put at risk. The man is a danger to the world and should be treated as such.

Lives at risk? How exactly..?

 

[Dragoon952]

Lives at risk? How exactly..?

Things like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

 

[Fused]

The man put hundreds of millions of lives at risk, with his acts, and has shown little if any humanity for the human lives he has put at risk.

"...WikiLeaks would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm..."

"We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained US government classified materials..."

Sorry, but it seems that the US didn't help those innocent people, either.

The man is a danger to the world and should be treated as such.

Eh... I don't really know how I feel about all of this. I mean, on the one hand, its frightening how much information is kept secret. I'm not sure how our society is supposed to act cohesively when we keep half of our information secret. On the other hand, I can understand that the revelation of this material can compromise ongoing or planned operations, either covert or military.

But one thing I do know for sure is that, if this man is truly a danger to anything, he's a danger to secrecy and the reputations of diplomats. I mean, the way I see it, if the US didn't want this information known, then they shouldn't have said these things in the first place. If the contents of these secret documents could make you lose your job, then you don't deserve to keep that job.

I am ****ing horrified that all of these embarassed countries are calling for this man to be executed. Why? Because he read your diary and blogged about it? Everybody says that he's broken laws. Which ones? And which ones are worthy of execution? He revealed information, which, if that is against the law, then shouldn't everybody be dead by now, or at least in jail?

Like I said before, I completely grasp the fact that this information can compromise operations and the lives of people (even though, as of now, it hasn't), but I am honestly both disheartened and furious to see the people in power criticize honesty and openness.

 

[Tyrant Tar]

Everybody says that he's broken laws. Which ones?

Theft and privacy laws, I'd imagine. Not execution-worthy, but he certainly trampled upon other people's rights, which is usually regarded as a no-no.

 

[Aquadon]

Eh... I don't really know how I feel about all of this. I mean, on the one hand, its frightening how much information is kept secret. I'm not sure how our society is supposed to act cohesively when we keep half of our information secret. On the other hand, I can understand that the revelation of this material can compromise ongoing or planned operations, either covert or military.

But one thing I do know for sure is that, if this man is truly a danger to anything, he's a danger to secrecy and the reputations of diplomats. I mean, the way I see it, if the US didn't want this information known, then they shouldn't have said these things in the first place. If the contents of these secret documents could make you lose your job, then you don't deserve to keep that job.

I am ****ing horrified that all of these embarassed countries are calling for this man to be executed. Why? Because he read your diary and blogged about it? Everybody says that he's broken laws. Which ones? And which ones are worthy of execution? He revealed information, which, if that is against the law, then shouldn't everybody be dead by now, or at least in jail?

Like I said before, I completely grasp the fact that this information can compromise operations and the lives of people (even though, as of now, it hasn't), but I am honestly both disheartened and furious to see the people in power criticize honesty and openness.

I agree with this pretty much. The first time I heard about Wikileaks was long before this recent link, when my brother was practically hailing him as a hero. Supposedly one of the leaks he had was of a video taken in Iraq of some soldiers who opened fire on Reuter's reporters because they were talking to an Iraqi citizen. When the Reuter's van pulled up to save the reporter, they supposedly flipped a **** and were trying to get clearance to open fire on the van. They eventually fired, and one of the passengers was an Iraqi child. The US denied all claims of this, but Reuters knew it happened, and then the footage of it was leaked by Wikileaks. The US still denies it.

I say the government should have some secrets (secret bases, not unlike the Wikileaks base should be kept secret), but if Assange was leaking corruption in the government I feel we should know if there are some underhanded tactics that the politicians are using (if I'm not mistaken, there's something in that leak about Hillary Clinton that's pretty embarrassing).

 

[Ethan]

I actually wouldn't have an issue with wikileaks, if the information being released didn't put other people in danger. The link the Dragoon gave was a prime example, to release that sort of intel really is morally apprehensible. Then, to hide under the guise that you're a supposed champion of free speech is even more ludicrous.

However;

I agree with this pretty much. The first time I heard about Wikileaks was long before this recent link, when my brother was practically hailing him as a hero. Supposedly one of the leaks he had was of a video taken in Iraq of some soldiers who opened fire on Reuter's reporters because they were talking to an Iraqi citizen. When the Reuter's van pulled up to save the reporter, they supposedly flipped a **** and were trying to get clearance to open fire on the van. They eventually fired, and one of the passengers was an Iraqi child. The US denied all claims of this, but Reuters knew it happened, and then the footage of it was leaked by Wikileaks. The US still denies it.

Information like this on the other hand should absolutely be made available to the public. I'm actually thankful that wikileaks was able to provide this. It may keep future events like it from happening.

 

[Tim the turtle]

I think this is probably the most balanced and agreeable piece I've seen on this whole issue. Further to that, I'm going to agree wholeheartedly with Ethan on this one. There are some things that do need to be made public, that people have a moral right to know. One such exampple listed in the article I provided is the CIA's kidnapping and torture of a German resident terror suspect.
But people do not have a moral right to know everything, and it's pieces like the "list of important U.S. facilities" that have been leaked by Wikileaks that really ought to be kept secret for the good of everyone.

 

[BigLutz]

Sorry, but it seems that the US didn't help those innocent people, either.

Which was more about Wikileaks covering its own *** and trying not to look like the disgusting human beings they are, than to save lives. Seeing how they did not agree to keep some documents out of circulation that were just as dangerous if not deadlier to both the war effort and the world as a whole.

But one thing I do know for sure is that, if this man is truly a danger to anything, he's a danger to secrecy and the reputations of diplomats. I mean, the way I see it, if the US didn't want this information known, then they shouldn't have said these things in the first place.

One of the key roles of diplomacy is secrecy, and being able to make sure countries can come to you in secret, and speak to you with out anyone else knowing. Wikileaks is trying to destroy that, to quote a ex British Diplomat when posing a question to Assange: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.

If the contents of these secret documents could make you lose your job, then you don't deserve to keep that job.

They can make you lose your job if you leak the contents of those documents.

I am ****ing horrified that all of these embarassed countries are calling for this man to be executed. Why? Because he read your diary and blogged about it? Everybody says that he's broken laws. Which ones? And which ones are worthy of execution? He revealed information, which, if that is against the law, then shouldn't everybody be dead by now, or at least in jail?

It is against the law to reveal classified information, it is against US law to reveal information that could damage the US military. In other words, what laws did he break? Lets start with the US Esponage Act of 1912 and move on from there? By the way the punishment for violating the act is execution.

but I am honestly both disheartened and furious to see the people in power criticize honesty and openness.

Because Wikileaks is not about openness and honesty? Assange's stated goal is to use Wikileaks to drive the U.S. deeper into secrecy, to make it harder for the Government to share valuable information between the needed branches, and for that to cause the U.S. to screw up. In other words, Assange is all about anarchy.

I agree with this pretty much. The first time I heard about Wikileaks was long before this recent link, when my brother was practically hailing him as a hero. Supposedly one of the leaks he had was of a video taken in Iraq of some soldiers who opened fire on Reuter's reporters because they were talking to an Iraqi citizen. When the Reuter's van pulled up to save the reporter, they supposedly flipped a **** and were trying to get clearance to open fire on the van. They eventually fired, and one of the passengers was an Iraqi child. The US denied all claims of this, but Reuters knew it happened, and then the footage of it was leaked by Wikileaks. The US still denies it.

You missed a few key facts.

A: The U.S. is not denying it currently.

B: Wikileaks originally edited the video

C: The "Citizen" the reporters were talking to, were actually a group of terrorists

D: The terrorists they were talking to were transporting weapons including AK-47s and RPGs.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/...kileaks-founder-over-collateral-murder-video/

The pilots and gunners considered the terrorists and their weapons a threat to American troops in the area, quite reasonably, and conducted their mission accordingly.

But hey lets not let a few pesky facts get in the way of America bashing!

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Wikileaks for Truth and Clarity?

B: Wikileaks originally edited the video

You know, I suspected that they might be doing that sort of thing ever since I heard it reported that he said something like he had "proof that would show the world that there were never any terrorists on 9/11" and that "Bush was the one who really called for the attacks." It reminded me of some people who supposedly found bigfoot when he said something like, "We don't even have to show the proof yet. We'll show it when we're good and ready." (Remember, these aren't exact quotes.)

They don't have to present the proof now...unless they're interested in truth. All they have to do is wait until enough people will believe them uncritically. then they can present any lie they want and people will believe it is the truth.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Well you know, I'm going to go into serious mode here and say that I believe Mr. Assange got himself into something and he has to stick to it. I wouldn't say the man deserves to be executed, but as a global criminal, I wouldn't blame anyone at the moment for imprisoning him for life. I'm not entirely sure the man represents Wikileaks as a whole though; I was seeing things from Wikileaks long before he was publicized. There are certain things Wikileaks leaked that were important, other things that were questionable, such as the "Collateral Damage" video, and some that were downright dangerous to expose. Why did they have to expose the U.S. assets overseas? That's quite a big enough reason to just see Wikileaks as a threat to national security, and after it becomes so, that's it. There's enough reason to incriminate Wikileaks and Assange.

I think we have learned a few moral lessons here though; don't shoot the messenger, don't incriminate the messenger for the dirty secrets they expose, look at the secrets they are exposing and act on those. If Wikileaks released anything valuable, maybe it would be worth it.

TFP, when did Wikileaks say that there were no terrorists in 9/11? That sounds ridiculous, Wikileaks has been including Al Qaeda in its reports for some time now.

 

[WifiFX]

There are more behind WikiLeaks than just him, he even stated himself that he is just the "Lightning Rod" so to speak.. So I have a feeling things are going to continue until he is either released or they figure out a way to counter all of the "hacking" going on.

 

[Fused]

Which was more about Wikileaks covering its own *** and trying not to look like the disgusting human beings they are, than to save lives. Seeing how they did not agree to keep some documents out of circulation that were just as dangerous if not deadlier to both the war effort and the world as a whole.

Except they made the offer before the cables were leaked and before they were called disgusting human beings? And except the fact that we are talking about individual people and you are shifting the subject to a general war plan, not individual lives?

One of the key roles of diplomacy is secrecy, and being able to make sure countries can come to you in secret, and speak to you with out anyone else knowing.

Which, I agree, there are times when leaders need to have a haven that they can speak freely without persecution. I also agree that, really, any military operation works best when done in secrecy. But when does this availability to secrecy run out? Will there be a point when world leaders do everything in secret? Why should leaders risk controversial ideas when they could just execute them in secrecy? See my point? I'm not trying to say secrecy is bad - but without moderation, it can be dangerous.

They can make you lose your job if you leak the contents of those documents.

That wasn't my point at all. If you are committing an act that can get you fired, you shouldn't be doing that act then, should you? If smoking weed while working the drive-thru window can get you fired, then obviously you shouldn't smoke weed while working the window, now should you?

Lets start with the US Esponage Act of 1912 and move on from there? By the way the punishment for violating the act is execution.

The Act only applies to cases in which the information was revealed with the intent to damage the efforts of the US. That's going to be hard to prove since the leaks contain loads of information regarding other countries as well, which suggests that WikiLeaks isn't an anti-American terrorist group, which may explain why, so far, the US hasn't taken any official action against Assange or WikiLeaks, especially using this Act.

Because Wikileaks is not about openness and honesty? Assange's stated goal is to use Wikileaks to drive the U.S. deeper into secrecy, to make it harder for the Government to share valuable information between the needed branches, and for that to cause the U.S. to screw up. In other words, Assange is all about anarchy.

I don't think his goal is limited to the US.

"...the more secretive or unjust an organisation is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. ... Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance."

And nowhere does he indicate that he values anarchy or whatever else you're babbling about.

B: Wikileaks originally edited the video

"A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the video and audio were authentic."

You really just sort of contradicted yourself here.

B: Wikileaks originally edited the video

that

A: The U.S. is not denying it currently.

Care to explain why the US would not deny an edited video?

 

[Aquadon]

But hey lets not let a few pesky facts get in the way of America bashing!

Hold the phone guy: Not what I was getting at. I'm all about the US; it's just that if there's some sort of corruption going down, someone should be the whistle-blower in this situation. If that was what Wiki-leaks is about, I'd be OK with it; and they're partially doing that. The compromising of military troops though is never good, and if what you're saying is true about Assange being an anarchist, I guess that wouldn't be a good idea.

 

[BigLutz]

Except they made the offer before the cables were leaked and before they were called disgusting human beings? And except the fact that we are talking about individual people and you are shifting the subject to a general war plan, not individual lives?

Except the leaks will effect individual lives as it will cause us to have to shift our war plan, there was one leak in particular that the US was acting secretly in Yemen with the okay of the Yemenese Government to take down al Qaeda, while the Yemen Government told the people that the attacks on al Qaeda were their doing. With that lie, it will only force us to stop attacks on a hot bed where al Qaeda is rapidly growing, but also give al Qaeda a massive recruiting tool to gain suicide bombers.

Also lets not forget that this is their third leak, not the first one, Wikileaks released it's first set of documents with out redaction, and was rightfully called disgusting human beings for it. So with the second set of documents they redacted with out any prompting from anyone else to save face.

Which, I agree, there are times when leaders need to have a haven that they can speak freely without persecution. I also agree that, really, any military operation works best when done in secrecy. But when does this availability to secrecy run out? Will there be a point when world leaders do everything in secret? Why should leaders risk controversial ideas when they could just execute them in secrecy? See my point? I'm not trying to say secrecy is bad - but without moderation, it can be dangerous.

So far we are doing pretty well and have no reason to worry about such a massive tip toward secrecy.

That wasn't my point at all. If you are committing an act that can get you fired, you shouldn't be doing that act then, should you? If smoking weed while working the drive-thru window can get you fired, then obviously you shouldn't smoke weed while working the window, now should you?

No of course not, and sorry for misunderstanding I was writing this post with very little sleep.

The Act only applies to cases in which the information was revealed with the intent to damage the efforts of the US. That's going to be hard to prove since the leaks contain loads of information regarding other countries as well, which suggests that WikiLeaks isn't an anti-American terrorist group, which may explain why, so far, the US hasn't taken any official action against Assange or WikiLeaks, especially using this Act.

Doesn't matter Assange has shown a intent with causing the U.S. to end the war, so it doesn't matter if one leak was toward the war effort, and everything else was diplomatic chatter, he was still violating the act by releasing that one piece.

I don't think his goal is limited to the US.

"...the more secretive or unjust an organisation is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. ... Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance."

And nowhere does he indicate that he values anarchy or whatever else you're babbling about.

In 2006, Mr. Assange wrote a pair of essays, "State and Terrorist Conspiracies" and "Conspiracy as Governance." He sees the U.S. as an authoritarian conspiracy. "To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed," he writes. "Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate," he writes, and "pass it around the conspirators and then act on the result."

His central plan is that leaks will restrict the flow of information among officials—"conspirators" in his view—making government less effective. Or, as Mr. Assange puts it, "We can marginalize a conspiracy's ability to act by decreasing total conspiratorial power until it is no longer able to understand, and hence respond effectively to its environment. . . . An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently cannot act to preserve itself."

Berkeley blogger Aaron Bady last week posted a useful translation of these essays. He explains Mr. Assange's view this way: "While an organization structured by direct and open lines of communication will be much more vulnerable to outside penetration, the more opaque it becomes to itself (as a defense against the outside gaze), the less able it will be to 'think' as a system, to communicate with itself." Mr. Assange's idea is that with enough leaks, "the security state will then try to shrink its computational network in response, thereby making itself dumber and slower and smaller."

Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society." If leaks cause U.S. officials to "lock down internally and to balkanize," they will "cease to be as efficient as they were."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75653113548361870.html?m od=rss_opinion_main

"A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the video and audio were authentic."

You really just sort of contradicted yourself here.

You do realize by editing I am saying that he was taking out parts of the video. Something that even Assange admitted they did.

Care to explain why the US would not deny an edited video?

There is a difference of not denying the event happened, and not denying the video is edited to make the U.S. look worse.

 

[Profesco]

I'm all about the US; it's just that if there's some sort of corruption going down, someone should be the whistle-blower in this situation.

I'll go with Aquadon here. This is really the reason I'm sympathetic to Assange and the site. All people and institutions, governments included, must be responsible for their words and actions; that means they should always guide their behavior in a way that they could defend it with honor in any circumstance. If they're doing something subversive or unconscionable, let them bear the burden they've earned.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

My Mistake

TFP, when did Wikileaks say that there were no terrorists in 9/11? That sounds ridiculous, Wikileaks has been including Al Qaeda in its reports for some time now.

You know, perhaps it wasn't enough just to say "these aren't exact quotes," because...I got them from my dad...who's got a less-than-stellar track record with passing on information from news.

I can't seem to recall a good example of something he passed on incorrectly, but, oh well. It is enough that I probably should have known better than to pass on those non-quotes.

 

[.TraX.]

Oh noes, anything but knowing what the government does in my name *sticks fingers in ears and jumps up and down*.

That's pretty much you, BigLutz.

 

[7 tyranitars]

well technicly he is free to do so because of the freedom of speech and I do have some respect for the guy for showing the truth, but it isn't the smartest thing to do it basicly kicking yourself in the balls. with that said I would like to say something to biglutz, you live in america right? isn't america supposed to be a great supporter of freedom of speech? why do you want to give a person the death penalty for doing the thing the USA stands for? that is something Iran, N korea would do and other places like that.