Am I the only one that thinks that some secret things should be kept... secret?
I agree that transparency is a key issue with governments and militaries these days, but some people are privvy to some very damaging and dangerous information that really isn't suited for dinner table conversation.
I'm particularly concerned about the identities of agents, informants, and sources being published, which really does put them in grave danger.
I just don't see what purpose most of this information will serve for most people?
That said, I'm interested to see what dirt they've dug up!
I believe that while information can doubtless be dangerous to specific people, or in specific circumstances, the more is known by the public at large the better off we are.
Secrets, by and large, are dangerous and usually cease being so when they are no longer secrets.
1.3 Why the media (and particularly Wiki leaks) is important
Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society's institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.
Scrutiny requires information. Historically, information has been costly in terms of human life, human rights and economics. As a result of technical advances particularly the internet and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered. In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.
We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their own government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government through the media.
In the years leading up to the founding of WikiLeaks, we observed the world's publishing media becoming less independent and far less willing to ask the hard questions of government, corporations and other institutions. We believed this needed to change.
WikiLeaks has provided a new model of journalism. Because we are not motivated by making a profit, we work cooperatively with other publishing and media organisations around the globe, instead of following the traditional model of competing with other media. We don't hoard our information; we make the original documents available with our news stories. Readers can verify the truth of what we have reported themselves. Like a wire service, WikiLeaks reports stories that are often picked up by other media outlets. We encourage this. We believe the world's media should work together as much as possible to bring stories to a broad international readership.
Basically this guy won't go after China or Russia because they would probably deal with him directly.
The American's have been weak on their response to this, I firmly believe that some things should be secured and secret.
If I remember right the U.S. government did catch the leaker, if thats true and he released classified documents then this guy is not some hero, he's a traitor who went against his own service oath. I hope he enjoys living out his life in a 6x8 cell, crappy food and a window the size of a postage stamp.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
1.3 Why the media (and particularly Wiki leaks) is important
Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society's institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.
Scrutiny requires information. Historically, information has been costly in terms of human life, human rights and economics. As a result of technical advances particularly the internet and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered. In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.
We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their own government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government through the media.
In the years leading up to the founding of WikiLeaks, we observed the world's publishing media becoming less independent and far less willing to ask the hard questions of government, corporations and other institutions. We believed this needed to change.
WikiLeaks has provided a new model of journalism. Because we are not motivated by making a profit, we work cooperatively with other publishing and media organisations around the globe, instead of following the traditional model of competing with other media. We don't hoard our information; we make the original documents available with our news stories. Readers can verify the truth of what we have reported themselves. Like a wire service, WikiLeaks reports stories that are often picked up by other media outlets. We encourage this. We believe the world's media should work together as much as possible to bring stories to a broad international readership.
Wow, what a load of BS.
News flash, the general public is not well informed or level headed enough to do anything important with this information. In the case of China's foreign policies and relations with other nations, your looking at a country that doesn't allow the average person to have free access to the internet, a country that has the largest poplulation of imprisoned journalists and 'cyber dissidents' in the world. They obviously did not release this information to the States willingly.
The most shocking to me is the fact that the US wants VISA numbers so thay can track forign diplomats and predict what venues and where they are gonna be so that can spy on them..
Really... so someone books a hotel with a creditcard and some agency can set up monitoring before hand to spy on them....
Does visa hand out that information to anyone who asks or just give it to the US under guise of national security?... IMO, that should enrage people more then most of the tabloid junk they're interested in..
Basically this guy won't go after China or Russia because they would probably deal with him directly.
The American's have been weak on their response to this, I firmly believe that some things should be secured and secret.
If I remember right the U.S. government did catch the leaker, if thats true and he released classified documents then this guy is not some hero, he's a traitor who went against his own service oath. I hope he enjoys living out his life in a 6x8 cell, crappy food and a window the size of a postage stamp.
Sure, I'd agree. If it puts people's lives at risk, yeah. But is this putting people's lives at risk? Some people in government have been saying it might, but so far, everything I've read that's been released, has been diplomatic chatter that might sting some diplomat's feelings and create some back-room pestering but nothing dangerous. It's stuff we've all known before, and WikiLeaks has already acknowledged they have nothing that is rated Top Secret. Do we just blindly believe this leak is a terrible, terrible thing without knowing or asking why it's supposed to be so? So the US is copying down VISA numbers. Oh no, the US spies on other countries. What a revelation.
After the original document release, the US was saying the same thing -- people will die, etc., etc., and then, after a couple of months, they came back out and said it wasn't as big a deal as they originally thought and nobody lost their lives over it. My question is why are some diplomatic cables that aren't rated Top Secret containing info we largely already know putting lives at risk? Putting egos at risk? Yeah, maybe.
Edit: I also want to add, to adress your accusation that WikiLeaks doesn't "go after" Russia or China, that they have released documents pertaining to a number of different countries, not just the States. In fact, this recent batch corresponds to a very large number of countries. A few of the Arab countries have already been spoken of, so here's one about China that confirms their attack on Google servers in '09:
The hacking against Google was said to have been launched after a senior member of China’s Politburo typed his own name into the search engine and discovered postings that were critical of him.
And here's some info about the Russian implications in the leaked cables:
"Many high-ranking officials don't recognize (Medvedev) as a leader," Aliyev was quoted as saying in a cable published by Britain's Guardian newspaper. Aliyev said he had seen Medvedev taking decisions that needed further approval and that some were stymied by others, presumably in the prime ministerial office.
Quote:
Medvedev's spokeswoman Natalya Timakova said "the Kremlin has found nothing interesting or worth comment" in the cables, and, referring to the Batman and Robin allusion, she said that "fictional Hollywood heroes hardly deserve official comment."
And there is plenty more of it if you want to search for yourself, or I could get more for you. I don't think Russia will be hunting Wikileaks members down Cold War-style anytime soon.
Point is, your accusation that they never go after "China or Russia," and your insinuation that they are targeting the US only, is baseless. Document leakers go to WikiLeaks, not the other way round.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Last edited by HPLovecraft; 11-29-2010 at 08:37 AM.
Reason: Added link.
How so? Assuming you were talking specifically about Julian Assange, I looked up Australia's definition of treason and can't seem to find how what he's done would be considered treasonous. Please explain how's he's killed the prime minister or has invaded Australia or something.
Here are some interesting comments by leaders and representatives following the leaks of these documents:
Quote:
After WikiLeaks' unauthorized release of a quarter of a million State Department documents Sunday, Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) called for the Swedish website to be designated a "foreign terrorist organization" and its founder Julian Assange to be charged as a spy.
I am beginning to think the word "terrorist" has lost its original meaning.
Quote:
Paris: The slow release of thousands of US diplomatic documents by WikiLeaks is a “threat to democratic authority”, French government spokesman Francois Baroin told Europe 1 radio on Monday.
“The protection of states is something serious, it’s about the protection of men, of women, of citizens,” Baroin said, adding: “I’ve always thought that a transparent society is a totalitarian society.”
Wow. Don't even know what to say about those comments from the French. They're actually kind of frightening.
Quote:
Mr Ahmadinejad shrugged off the leaks at a televised news conference on Monday, saying no-one should waste time reviewing the information.
"We don't think this information was leaked," he said. "We think it was organised to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals."
Well, couldn't expect much more from Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Quote:
The documents relating to Russia released on Monday by the WikiLeaks whistle blowing website do not merit comment, the Russian president's press secretary Natalia Timakova said on Monday.
"There is nothing interesting or worth commenting on in the publications released on the WikiLeaks website and in the papers," Timakova said.
Personally... I think there are some things worth leaking and some things not... If a company or government did something bad, say like covered up civilian casualties, broke some laws or something... that's worth leaking. This... just seems like it was leaked to damage US's image. Then again, the US is using really dirty tactics to try to prosecute Assange or whatever the wikileaks guy's name is.
Personally... I think there are some things worth leaking and some things not... If a company or government did something bad, say like covered up civilian casualties, broke some laws or something... that's worth leaking. This... just seems like it was leaked to damage US's image. Then again, the US is using really dirty tactics to try to prosecute Assange or whatever the wikileaks guy's name is.
That link doesn't really contain everything -- definitely not a summary of all the things in the latest release. There's over 250,000 documents, remember. It mentions some things that have already been mentioned elsewhere, but it doesn't touch on the releases pertaining to other countries, except, maybe, the one Saudi Arabia mention.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Personally... I think there are some things worth leaking and some things not... If a company or government did something bad, say like covered up civilian casualties, broke some laws or something... that's worth leaking. This... just seems like it was leaked to damage US's image. Then again, the US is using really dirty tactics to try to prosecute Assange or whatever the wikileaks guy's name is.
Well, that's kinda that point - what's interesting and worthwhile to one person isn't seen as appropriate to be leaked by another and vice versa. Get everything out there and let people decide for themselves.
I wonder how many people who disagree with the leaks are the same ones that check them out?
After reviewing through the first leaks, which I never did complete there were some things that were basically the equivalent to toilet paper orders. There were some that I think were scumbag releases that gave either enough information, or direct names of confidential informants that still lived in the areas that put them into danger, and there were some that I thought gave away too much information on the capabilities and strenghts of allies in country and I thought that was dangerous.
In terms of this one, this is just Aussage or whatever his name is taking a free shot.
There is a reason why diplomatic cables are classified.
Its equivalant in business to releasing internal information on board room meetings during negotiations being released to the public by a disgruntled secretary. We all know that during these negotiations some unpleasant things are said about the other side and releasing that information has the capability to destroy that deal or that working relationship.
If that happened the disgruntled secretary would be fired and probably prosecuted and sued for releasing confidential corporate information.
People need to understand that diplomats are part diplomat and part intelligence gathering arm of the state department, and because of that we're seeing their opinions on the people that we're dealing with. I'm sure that the diplomatic back and forth with the state department was really interesting in the days when Mao was running china considering the guy was a pedophile and if that had been released to the public we would have pushed off reproachment with China by decades.
The Wikileaks has a real possibility of destabilizing governments in the middle east because of their duel stances on Iran, and in Yemon when they publically stated that bombs dropped on terrorists were their own and not American's even though that was true.
They could also damage a already shakey relationship with Pakistan.
On the other hand, average Joe dirt is reading these like its a tom clancy novel and has no idea how to put them into perspective, and that these cables where nastiness about foreign governments is discussed is common practice to give the U.S. government perspective on who they're dealing with.
But I go back that the soldier that leaked these documents is a traitor and needs to be treated like a traitor.
When I got my security clearances which were fairly high, I basically signed documents informating me of what would happen if I disclosed those documents or briefings that went past me. These stuff right now thats extremely out of date that I won't talk about because its nobody's damn business outside of the loop of need to know.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Well, that's kinda that point - what's interesting and worthwhile to one person isn't seen as appropriate to be leaked by another and vice versa. Get everything out there and let people decide for themselves.
Completely disagree, there are secrets that the government has to keep. Thats why theres a classification system and a date release system when that classified information can no longer do harm.
Plus letting Betty Joe Crocker conspiracy theory trying to interpret stuff beyond her intelligence is outright useless and a wasted excercise.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I'm interested to see if there is any docs related to Alberta and the oil and gas industry. Anyone heard anything on that front?
They did mention that there were 2000 cables out of the various embassies and consulates in Canada, those should be interesting, and the majority will probably be based around Afghanistan and the opinions of the ambassadors on key Canadian public figures. CTV figures that we'll be seeing those this week.
We'll know soon if Harper and Obama's relationship is really that strong or sincere.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
After reviewing through the first leaks, which I never did complete there were some things that were basically the equivalent to toilet paper orders. There were some that I think were scumbag releases that gave either enough information, or direct names of confidential informants that still lived in the areas that put them into danger, and there were some that I thought gave away too much information on the capabilities and strenghts of allies in country and I thought that was dangerous.
In terms of this one, this is just Aussage or whatever his name is taking a free shot.
There is a reason why diplomatic cables are classified.
Its equivalant in business to releasing internal information on board room meetings during negotiations being released to the public by a disgruntled secretary. We all know that during these negotiations some unpleasant things are said about the other side and releasing that information has the capability to destroy that deal or that working relationship.
If that happened the disgruntled secretary would be fired and probably prosecuted and sued for releasing confidential corporate information.
People need to understand that diplomats are part diplomat and part intelligence gathering arm of the state department, and because of that we're seeing their opinions on the people that we're dealing with. I'm sure that the diplomatic back and forth with the state department was really interesting in the days when Mao was running china considering the guy was a pedophile and if that had been released to the public we would have pushed off reproachment with China by decades.
The Wikileaks has a real possibility of destabilizing governments in the middle east because of their duel stances on Iran, and in Yemon when they publically stated that bombs dropped on terrorists were their own and not American's even though that was true.
They could also damage a already shakey relationship with Pakistan.
On the other hand, average Joe dirt is reading these like its a tom clancy novel and has no idea how to put them into perspective, and that these cables where nastiness about foreign governments is discussed is common practice to give the U.S. government perspective on who they're dealing with.
But I go back that the soldier that leaked these documents is a traitor and needs to be treated like a traitor.
When I got my security clearances which were fairly high, I basically signed documents informating me of what would happen if I disclosed those documents or briefings that went past me. These stuff right now thats extremely out of date that I won't talk about because its nobody's damn business outside of the loop of need to know.
This coming from the guy that believes WikiLeaks mentioning Russia or China would mean them hunting them down and "dealing with them directly."
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
