Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Torx, Nov 22, 2010.
It's pointless to argue this. Honestly answer #1 and #2 above and this debate is over.
Honestly, I am enjoying this whole thing with a bag of popcorn. Its like something out of a movie. Here is this guy and an organization that can have so much power over the most powerful nation in the world. Hes constantly moving around, changing names/aliases. It is all really just fantastic and I want to see more of it.
I really liked this tweet from their twitter page today:
It's definitely juicy and interesting, I'm sure it'll be made into a movie eventually. I just hope the part where he's torn apart by SWAT dogs and gunfire isn't toned down at all.
Wikileaks isn't perfect, but imo it's better than nothing.
As I stated and posted (link) earlier: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40449714/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
This would appear to answer #1 and #2 above. Embassy and consular personel's boss= Hilary Clinton....is she lying by saying this won't hurt diplomacy? hmmmmm perhaps it's the one's claiming all the national distruction that're lying. someone's lying to us. I'd expect that from an adversarial country, but not our own elected officials. besides, we're not talking national secrets here as in nuclear secrets. we're talking dirty games and bullshit that diplomacy encompasses; the deciept and dishonesty that returns to bite us in the ass with added interest and penalties later down the road. Remember that "diplomacy" that put the shaw of iran in power, or sadam or the taliban? Yeah those are the types of national secrets we need all right.
It was my understanding they redacted this type of info as well, thus my use of "identifying info" rather than simply "names".
The guy is a fucking egotist. Half the reason he is doing this is for the attention/perception
I think this leak is pretty stupid and didn't really expose too much. The middle east opinions maybe are good because they put a better perspective on things. I will say though from a historial standpoint its really interesting to see some of the trivial shit going on behind closed doors
I'm curious, for those that are asking for this guy to be "executed", did you have the same outrage and have the same desired outcome when Valerie Plame was outed?
I haven't read all the threads so I don't even know if someone has made the recommendation that he be executed.
The Wikileaks TWEEEESSSSTTT
Doherty's not being too serious here, but it's interesting to say the least.
I mean those politicians who are claiming this is the end of the world. They're taking things out of proportion and you seem to be falling for their narrative, MSP. Heck, mistawiskas posted a link that takes care of your argument.
Most of the stuff that was leaked is trivial gossip, like tex said. Here, check it out yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Contents_by_region
As for what I'm trying to explain....
I agree with tex about Assange; he seems to be a megalomaniac. I also agree with smirnoff; despite Wikileaks being irresponsible, it's better to have them so we can find out the truth, no matter how ugly it may be.
By the way....
If I were to "classify" anything on a scale of 1-10, even '1' would be concidered a clasification. These memos (and that's all most were) were classified as "sensitive" and not "secret", or "top secret" anyhow.
I've read through that link, and I don't see any answers to either of my questions. I gotta be honest, I think anyone who doesn't think that a federal government needs secrecy is retarded and/or crazy.
Libby's ass should've been hammered even worse than what it was for that. It was a totally petty bullshit thing to do.
They may need that privilege, but they end up abusing it, which is arguably worse than not have given them that privilege in the first place.
MSP, why do you and Tacdriver resort to belittling people when you disagree with them? There's no need to call anybody retarded or crazy just because they have a different opinion than you.
Who should keep governments in check when they abuse their powers? You answer me that.
In the case of these memos, we're not talking about compromised military bases, weapons, or operations. We're talking about the reputations of ambassadors being tarnished by their own slip of the tongue. If Hillary Clinton, who's in charge or foreign affairs, said the leaks are no big deal, and other foreign dignataries agree and have assured strategic alliances with the US will not be affected, then what's the big deal?
It's a privilege, not a right.
The government. What happens when the government abuses that power?
Wikileaks didn't steal this information; it was provided to them. Be pissed at Bradley Manning, not Julian Assange, for being irresponsible.
Robert Gates also doesn't think the leaks are that big a deal: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/30/gates-wikileaks-isnt-game-changer/
In a case like this it's just not a matter of opinion, it's cold hard fact. And when people argue against cold hard facts I can come to no other conclusion than they're fucking with me, are stupid, or are crazy. When the sky is blue you don't have to like it, but don't argue with me about the color or I'm going to call you a retard.
OK, now this can be debated or interpreted. I personally don't think Wikileaks has the right to release this information, but I understand where you're coming from and can see your point of view. But my short answer to the "who's keeping things in check?" is the other branches of government as set out in the Constitution. Unfortunately as we both know those checks and balances aren't working too hot right now, but that's something we need to pressure our representatives to achieve. Frankly I don't have a lot of hope, a bloody revolution is probably going to be required.
What's the cold hard fact that, according to you, I'm not acknowledging?
Not you necessarily, just everybody who doesn't believe that federal governments have a right and need for secrecy.
This is true. I think what all of you are arguing is to what extent and who decides what should be secret.
Personally I think this leak was retarded. Like was previously mentioned, there was no major secrets or anything damning, this was wikileaks going "ooooh look at what we have" and probably fucking up some personal relationships between diplomats.
I think governments do need secrecy, the question is, where is the line drawn on what should be secret or not? Do illegal activities get to be classified as state secrets?
I don't ever recall anyone saying that governments shouldn't keep secrets. As mentioned, the tendency to abuse any lattitude given them for personal and political gains are what
are objectionable. Not one person posting in this thread has said the government shouldn't have any secrets at all. Not one!
Is this another of a long list of things discussed on here that if there isn't 100% agreeing on a subject then it falls into a "with us or against us" thing?
Wikileaks is just a place that whistleblowers go to post stuff they have to the internet. Holding the founder responsible would be akin to the guv holding Dan responsible for what we post. If it weren't WL it'd be some other avenue of exposure that would be utilized. Even though Assange may look like a douche it's not he that is exposing the dirt. i don't for one minute think that even he would be dumb enough to post up really secret arms specs or designs or even any of the material deemed top secret. To posess 'top secret' or 'secret' material without the correct security level and authorization is a felony punishable by 3-10 years. The shit that hit the WWW was 'restricted', three bumps down from TS and 2 notches bellow secret. It's just embarracing communications that took place between dipshits diplomats.
Frankly, in certain circumstances I think yes. But my point has always been that the line exists, and it's existence or location isn't up to Wikileaks or any third party to determine. As they are finding out the hard way right now.
In this thread and the one before most folks have danced around it. To admit that secrets are needed and that Wikileaks doesn't have the right to release them is pretty much is the crux of what I've been saying, and absolutely true. That's all, I've never defended government fraud, crime, waste, etc. This just isn't the right way to root it out.
EDIT: OK, I've got to narrow in on this comment:
You don't see any value in diplomacy, or those that do the work? I mean, they don't make the policy, they're just instruments of it.
But if it weren't for WL the newsgroups or forums such as this would take up the cause. At least with wikileaks, we have a goofy looking Ausie guy we can poke fun at.
My issue isn't even with classified exposures. It's with the way our government operates. Like was brought up, the tendency to use any and all oportunities to further a political career rather than serve the nation wreaks havoc on ethics. This whole thing is like one of those conspiracy movies like "the net" or something. all so that the guvy-mucky-mucks can keep using what has become a tool for thier own self advancement. Doesn't do any good to have an oversight commitee because look who'd be the OS committee. Congress.
Edit to add:
is congress trying to save face with the constituency? yesterday this was dubbed dead:
or this token bone (what took so frigging long? why now?):