Wikileaks
- Thread starter Sage
- 511 comments
- 29,774 views
- 24,608
- Anoka, MN
I think some of the things they post are misleading, for instance their current heading.....
Mentions that 60% of the deaths are that of civilians but it fails to mention how much of that 60% is from suicide bombers that kill citizens. This could be taken as the U.S. Military has killed 66,081 civilians when the actual number of civilians killed by U.S. Military action is probably much lower.
Wasn't there also some video they released a few months back that was supposedly edited to support their point more?(the one with the helicopter shooting down some people who supposedly had guns).
Mentions that 60% of the deaths are that of civilians but it fails to mention how much of that 60% is from suicide bombers that kill citizens. This could be taken as the U.S. Military has killed 66,081 civilians when the actual number of civilians killed by U.S. Military action is probably much lower.
Wasn't there also some video they released a few months back that was supposedly edited to support their point more?(the one with the helicopter shooting down some people who supposedly had guns).
- 3,323
- GTP_Mark
- Mark T33
I'm all for national security but I can't help but feel intrigued when the seedy underbelly of government operations are revealed.
Talking of national security, if the government are so concerned about this information they need to concentrate on finding out how all these documents were leaked.
Talking of national security, if the government are so concerned about this information they need to concentrate on finding out how all these documents were leaked.
- 28,414
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Some reactions to the latest leaks:
• US Republican senator Peter King, chair of the House homeland security committee said Wikileaks should be treated as a terrorist organisation
• Senator Joseph Lieberman, chair of the Homeland Security Committe, said the leaks had put lives at risk
• The UN pointedly reminded the US that the UN is supposed to be treated as inviolable
• Downing Street said the leaks have damaged national security
• Australia has launched an investigation in WikiLeaks
• China has ordered local media not to report the revelations
• Iranian media has focussed on the suggestion of a US role in the post-election unrest last year
• Saudi Arabia has stayed quiet
• Silvio Berlusconi laughed
• US Republican senator Peter King, chair of the House homeland security committee said Wikileaks should be treated as a terrorist organisation
• Senator Joseph Lieberman, chair of the Homeland Security Committe, said the leaks had put lives at risk
• The UN pointedly reminded the US that the UN is supposed to be treated as inviolable
• Downing Street said the leaks have damaged national security
• Australia has launched an investigation in WikiLeaks
• China has ordered local media not to report the revelations
• Iranian media has focussed on the suggestion of a US role in the post-election unrest last year
• Saudi Arabia has stayed quiet
• Silvio Berlusconi laughed
- 38,684
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
I wonder why: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/saudi-king-urged-attack-iran/
All the countries in that article want Iran's programs to be stopped even at the cost of military invasion-- so long as they get the US to do the invading.
My opinion of Wikileaks is generally good. I think bigger media should be as investigative.
Justin, that was video of journalists being gunned down. The journalists were holding cameras. I think there was another group nearby that had a gun or something, so the army just up and killed everybody they could see in the area. The whole thing behind the leaking of that video is that reuters didn't know what happened to their people, and the Pentagon wouldn't give anybody any answers. I think we've already had a thread on this.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I don't know what to think about Wikileaks. I believe there are some things we are simply better off not knowing. I don't mean that war crimes should be covered up or whatever, but I think it is difficult to hold something up as a shining example of "truth" if it means lives are jeopardised. Even if it's only one life risked in exposing seventy thousand secret documents, it's difficult to say "Well, we did it because people deserve to know the truth". I mean, who reads what Wikileaks posts? I don't have the time to peruse their documents, and the few that I've seen are incomprehensible to me. Almost as if they've picked up a handful of pages from a larger source document. Wikileaks seems to thrive on the fact that it's so controversial, and they're certainly not posting these documents for altruistic means. The fact that they get so much media coverage for their actions is evidence that they are not some shining beacon of truth, no matter how much they might want to be. I think they're something of a publicity machine who have found a niche market - the ultra-liberals among us who believe the governments should put in park benchs and nothing else - and are really just preaching to the choir under the guise of doing something for the greater good.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,000
- Mile High City
I haven't heard of a document on wikileaks that posed a real threat to national security. Perhaps I'm wrong, but so far nothing I've seen has achieved that level. If it were something posing a threat to national security, it would be detailed schematics of military weapons or vehicles, troop locations, future troop movement, detailed explanations for how to bypass boarder security, or airport security, etc. etc.
All I've seen are politically damaging accusations that might stir up animosity. I can see why that gets labeled as "national security" by someone who doesn't want it to get leaked - but I think that's an abuse of the label. Facts that might embolden your opposition is not "national security", and shouldn't be classified as such.
All I've seen are politically damaging accusations that might stir up animosity. I can see why that gets labeled as "national security" by someone who doesn't want it to get leaked - but I think that's an abuse of the label. Facts that might embolden your opposition is not "national security", and shouldn't be classified as such.
- 140
- Dreamweaverx
I was very neutral towards the Iraq and Afghanistan revelations. While America said our "national security" was at risk it was not something I ever really bought. Like Danoff said above there were no schematics or details of troop movements. They were simply giving a more detailed look into a war with many rough edges.
The diplomatic cables however are a different story. Most of them came from the last 3 years, which means that they are touching on sensitive and potentially volatile issues between nations that may still currently be occurring. Also it is highly likely that the names of the people who sent the cables are still working for their governments. The effects are not just political in nature (ie one country being mad at another). Diplomats make deals all the time that their host nation's leaders may or may not be proud of. While the home government gets the benefits of the ends, the means are frequently glossed over. Unfortunately other countries don't simply throw people in jail for a few years until they are paroled for good behavior. This could mean the jobs and lives of diplomats abroad. Also it will be harder for deals to get done. What incentive would a diplomat have to work "for the betterment of the world" if their name will be plastered across CNN?
The diplomatic cables however are a different story. Most of them came from the last 3 years, which means that they are touching on sensitive and potentially volatile issues between nations that may still currently be occurring. Also it is highly likely that the names of the people who sent the cables are still working for their governments. The effects are not just political in nature (ie one country being mad at another). Diplomats make deals all the time that their host nation's leaders may or may not be proud of. While the home government gets the benefits of the ends, the means are frequently glossed over. Unfortunately other countries don't simply throw people in jail for a few years until they are paroled for good behavior. This could mean the jobs and lives of diplomats abroad. Also it will be harder for deals to get done. What incentive would a diplomat have to work "for the betterment of the world" if their name will be plastered across CNN?
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
My thoughts on Wikileaks go like this:
If you have something so secret that only one or two other people should know it, don't put it in a memo.
I am not shocked to find that government officials can't think through that logic.
If you have something so secret that only one or two other people should know it, don't put it in a memo.
I am not shocked to find that government officials can't think through that logic.
- 3,679
- Warwick Uni
- lbsf1 GTP_lbsf1
- obsmu (my brothers acount)
I think that if wikileaks got the information legally then I can't see anything wrong with them, no matter how sensitive the information is if it obtained legally then freedom of speech they can say it, its true so they can't stop them for spreading false information.
- 28,414
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
You know, I get that having something pop up on Wikileaks means you have a major security breach, which is likely a bigger danger than anything I have seen in these documents so far, and I get that for someone in your agency to give them to Wikileaks is a treasonous act, but I do not understand how officials can be stupid to this degree.
The best bet for keeping something secret is old school tactics. Late night meetings at the Lincoln Memorial, mobile meetings in vehicles, meeting in the plane at the airport, stuff like that. Text messages and emails are just begging to be picked off. Snail mail has a better chance of deniability. It is impossible to claim you don't remember an email sent from your account, from your computer, under your login.
The best bet for keeping something secret is old school tactics. Late night meetings at the Lincoln Memorial, mobile meetings in vehicles, meeting in the plane at the airport, stuff like that. Text messages and emails are just begging to be picked off. Snail mail has a better chance of deniability. It is impossible to claim you don't remember an email sent from your account, from your computer, under your login.
- 140
- Dreamweaverx
This is simply not true. I find it extremely hard to believe that obama's breakfast choices, the name's and histories of our senators, and walmart corporate earnings would become classified. "Everything" is a silly word.
Then how would you recommend that we communicate? Should we just make a phone call and hope that the recipient has a sound enough memory to recall everything that was said? What about extremely intricate and sensitive topics that require a great deal of explanation? It is unreasonable to simply say that no sensitive information should be written down. While this may work for your GTPlanet password, it would be hard for government agencies to remember off the top of their head every important piece of information. That is the point of having something "classified". So that government agencies can protect sensitive information while still efficiently running their operations.
Now should all things that are classified be classified? Of course not. Especially in America the term "on the basis of national security" has been overused and almost falls on deaf ears. This can even be said about some of the cables that were leaked. Does anyone really care that the aide to the undersecretary of a country in africa that most people have never heard of thinks that Hugo Chavez is retarded? Of course not, and its not those documents that governments across the world care about. They care the most about documents that contain names of informants collecting information abroad. They care about documents that douse gasoline on fires that are ready to ignite. These are true examples of items that are ment to be classified.
Now, all of this begs the question as to whether anything should ever be classified. Should the actions of governments be completely transparent at all times? If this were the case, I think it would surprise many people how much harder it would be for countries to work together. Embassies are already scrambling to shore up relations with other countries even before the documents were released.
Lets say my friend's father works for the Department of Defense. He goes into work and legally sees a classified document in order to fulfill whatever job he is doing for the day. This document could seem harmless or unimportant, but nevertheless classified. If he goes home and tells his wife or 10 year old son what was in the document, then he has broken the law. He would have disclosed classified material to an unauthorized source. He does not have the freedom to talk about classified material with whoever he wants just because he first saw the material legally.
The same can be said for Wikileaks. They received these documents from a source who undoubtedly had legal access to them. However this source broke the law by transmitting them to Wikileaks. Therefore them acquiring the diplomatic cables (and the Iraq/Afghanistan papers for that matter) is illegal. This is also why the leader of Wikileaks has been on the run for some time, and cannot stay in one place for long. He essentially is a proprietor of stolen property.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
If true, this could be an important observation. Presumably our Departments of Defense and State had access to encryption. But is was foiled by an inside leak.
It is also an open question as to whether the world is better off with full transparency. I would hope so, but gee whiz, what if it became known the Saudi King conspired with Israel to hit Iran, then his family dethroned him and cut us off from oil? That doesn't sound so sweet when you consider it's we who are addicted to his oil.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
- 28,414
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Now there's a mental image I could have lived without
Seriously? If so, I'm sorry. I thought I was speaking in a colorful manner which our members would appreciate.
- 28,414
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
No, not seriously!
I just got an image of Hillary with her pants round her ankles, and now I can't finish my dinner.Anyway, back on topic, I believe Mr. Ahmedinejad in Iran has said that he believes the leaks were released by the US government on purpose. I doubt it, but atleast I can understand the (albeit paranoid) logic behind such a statement.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,000
- Mile High City
What if someone decided to poison that breakfast cereal in hopes of killing the president. People's lives would be in danger. Walmart's earnings might cause their stock to go down, and stock brokers might commit suicide - again, lives in danger. Histories of senators potentially puts their families (and the people who live around them) at risk.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Assange did not get his leaks merely from one stoned Army Private outside Baghdad. The huge additional release on Afghanistan and now the global State Department memo dump shows he has some powerful and sophisticated system at work. He is like an information pirate, but not demanding payment. His agenda seems to be no less than manipulating world history. Virtually every world leader from Ahmadenijad to Obama is hopping mad. One frail little Frenchie with a lot of hidden help is temporarily derailing their well-wrought delusions of power.
The rumor is his next release will be on a bank. He is like some character out of a Batman story.
Is he good? Is he evil? or is he, God save us all, an anarchist!?
The rumor is his next release will be on a bank. He is like some character out of a Batman story.
Is he good? Is he evil? or is he, God save us all, an anarchist!?
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
What WikiLeaks is doing, at least in my mind, is a pretty important service. While their information gathering is at best questionable, I think the information that has been shared has been important enough. Seeing as we have a media that is entirely incapable of doing any kind of investigative reporting to recover the same level of information, someone has to do it.
The idea that leaders in the government are attempting to classify WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization should scare the hell out of people.
The idea that leaders in the government are attempting to classify WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization should scare the hell out of people.
- 140
- Dreamweaverx
The President being poisoned wasn't the corn flakes' fault, it was the security around the preparation of the food. Therefore your first example doesn't apply because the breakfast option itself wouldn't become classified. They would simply make the location of the white house corn flakes boxes, along with the suppliers of the white house corn flakes classified. Oh wait, it already is
. We would still know our Presidents breakfast choices, while safeguarding against his assasination.Walmart's earnings have no direct effect on stock brokers. While they do make their living around the buying and selling of stock (potentially walmart's) you would be hard pressed to find a broker who put every single penny of his companies assets into walmart stock. Even if our unfortunately dense stock broker did make such an ill informed decision and ended his life we would have to analyze the exact reasons why he did such a thing. Many stock brokers deal with other peoples money, and not their own. Therefore if he caused the entire investment firm to go bankrupt because of his decision his worst punishment would be needing to find a job as an insurance salesman or a security guard for president obama's corn flakes. If he decides that other professions aren't for him and he was ment to be a stock broker, and subsequently ended his life, then his death would be the result of his poor decision making and not the earnings of walmart.
The histories of US Senators example would not apply for similar reasons to the Obama example. I know the name of my senator (Joe Manchin), and with little searching could find out everything there is to know about him. Where he grew up, where he went to school, his previous jobs before becoming a politician, and since he was previously the governor of West Virginia I would even have his address
. However these details mean nothing. His life isn't in danger nor is his family's. He has security details that protect him and keep him safe. If someone were to assasinate him it would not be the fault of knowing his name or his hometown, but would belong to those who were charged with protecting him. How does this apply? It means that everything would not be classified. Only the things that are necessary in order to protect the lives of people in the public eye. Sure enough, thats how it is now. Or was anyway, before Wikileaks decided that we should all know everything.
