WikiLeaks.

[TheVoiceless]

The guy isn't even a "journalist". He never studied it, and never worked for any news organisation.

He was a computer hacker in his youth.

He gets called a journalist because a few organisations put him up (and he won) some journalism awards.


I can post news on the interwebs too but does that make me a journalist?

You don't have to work for Nasa to build a space ship, nor do you have to go to school to write in a news format. The only thing between a Journalist and someone writing on the internet is a piece of paper. Its up to the readers and the public to decide how credible a source can be. And based on what I see on my local and nation wide news, are their any Journalists left? The soft news and opinion commentators that dominate our news formats only feeds into the importance of having an 3rd party news format. Hopefully this will carry over to the US political system and we can have a strong independent party.

 

[TheVoiceless]

I'm with you ADbassman, 100 percent. I always find it puzzling that many Americans can criticize our US government (freely and safely) and not appreciate the basic freedom our military provides for them to do so. I know the scene in a Few Good Men about Sleeping under the blanket of security they (Marines) provide , but can't remember it word for word; but anyone who has seen the film will remember and get the point.

Anything that puts our soldiers at risk WHILE THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR US is wrong- Wikileaks is harmful for those brave soldiers; it puts them in harm's way.

If the world was run by Barney the purple dinosaur then maybe we wouldn't need the military, but (unfortunately ) it is not and I don't need to know every little secret about countries 4,000 miles away.

I truly support your intent, I hate to think that innocent lives are being put in harms way. But one can argue that those serving don't need an outside source to increase their lack of safety. Poorly planned wars and bad decision making can be just as damaging. I am not saying things are being done on purpose to harm the troops, but even people with the best intent don't always see the big picture. I think the bigger issue is how much credibility WikiLeaks has been given. People will always distrust their governing figures, but its up to those governing powers to earn the trust of those they serve by being open. I said it somewhere else, but I may be wrong but from what I know that this information is being provided and not stolen. There is the biggest issue.

 

[mkandolf]

Can someone please tell me I was dreaming last night when the news showed a video from Wikileaks about their outfit showing some of their server network was in what looked like an underground cave? Seriously? I mean who is that paranoid to put their stuff in caves?

Oh, yeah, right. Terrorists.

What did the Wikileaks founder do before surrendering to authorities? Threaten that if anything happend to him, more sensitive documents that he had would be released, causing more harm, power grids could be brought down, etc...

Who is this bunch working for anyhow?

I'm just a guy with a son serving in Afghanistan on a serious mission with some classified equipment that would like a 30 minute cage match with the Wikileaks founder right about now.

 

[Doctor J]

Terrorists.

If only everything was so black and white.

 

[R. Laevinus]

I have a question I've been meaning to ask about WikiLeaks; maybe some of you guys, who clearly know more about it than I do, can answer me.

Question: WikiLEAKS, right?

As in, somebody on the inside leaks information to the external entity, right?

Somebody with security clearance, and who is trusted by his employers/superiors/nation to not leak things?


So, all question and debate about right and wrong aside... aren't these people who supply this information committing a crime in so doing? Could this crime not be considered treason?

Again, I'm not concerned with whether or not they're doing the right thing - what I'm curious to know, is why these people haven't yet been hunted down and locked up. Because either I'm wrong, and releasing confidential information that has been entrusted to you in good faith is okay; or I'm right, and the people in charge are turning a blind eye to these leaks in the interests of furthering their own goals...

...what do you think?

 

[Jonyak]

you are all trying to shoot the messenger.

 

[TheVoiceless]

Can someone please tell me I was dreaming last night when the news showed a video from Wikileaks about their outfit showing some of their server network was in what looked like an underground cave? Seriously? I mean who is that paranoid to put their stuff in caves?

Oh, yeah, right. Terrorists.

What did the Wikileaks founder do before surrendering to authorities? Threaten that if anything happend to him, more sensitive documents that he had would be released, causing more harm, power grids could be brought down, etc...

Who is this bunch working for anyhow?

I'm just a guy with a son serving in Afghanistan on a serious mission with some classified equipment that would like a 30 minute cage match with the Wikileaks founder right about now.

I applaud you and your son for your commitment to your country.

 

[BlacksHole]

Wikileaks tries to claim it is unbiased and just publishing information they have. I say this is BS and a smokescreen. If they are truly for free speech etc., then why are U.S. interests being targeted specifically? Sure, it contains some unfavorable information from other gov'ts, but it's focus is on the U.S.

Those who had access to the information and leaked it to Wikileaks should be tried for treason and/or espionage IMHO. Wikileaks personnel are complicit in this act and should be held accountable. They have received stolen goods and conspired to cause harm to the U.S. Their self-righteous indignation is sickening from my perspective.

Meanwhile some of the info. may seem interesting to the casual reader, but just knowing the author and the recipient may be essential information to others and that is not obvious when looking at this data. The reasons certain information is classified or confidential is often not obvious to the general public. I certainly do not see how the leaking of this information could possibly make the World a better place. I suspect it may have the opposite effect.

 

[Relic]

Wikileaks tries to claim it is unbiased and just publishing information they have. I say this is BS and a smokescreen. If they are truly for free speech etc., then why are U.S. interests being targeted specifically? Sure, it contains some unfavorable information from other gov'ts, but it's focus is on the U.S.

and therein lies my whole issue with it.
Then again had he done this to China or Russia, there would be no Assange left to do much of anything.
I would LOVE for this guy to target all of the major players - UK, France, Japan, Russia, China, rather than JUST the US. If that were done, then maybe we'd be leveling the playing field to the point where this is beneficial to all, rather than just embarrassing and damaging.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

and therein lies my whole issue with it.
Then again had he done this to China or Russia, there would be no Assange left to do much of anything.
I would LOVE for this guy to target all of the major players - UK, France, Japan, Russia, China, rather than JUST the US. If that were done, then maybe we'd be leveling the playing field to the point where this is beneficial to all, rather than just embarrassing and damaging.

That has more to do with the people leaking things to Assange than your post might indicate.

Also, for those of you who don't know, Pfc. Bradley Manning (the guy who allegedly leaked the footage for what Wikileaks called Collateral Murder) is already in custody...

... and has Congressmen calling for his execution.:scowl:

 

[Relic]

That has more to do with the people leaking things to Assange than your post might indicate.

Also, for those of you who don't know, Pfc. Bradley Manning (the guy who allegedly leaked the footage for what Wikileaks called Collateral Murder) is already in custody...

... and has Congressmen calling for his execution.:scowl:

For sure, but I'm not really claiming that Assange is deliberately and specifically targeting the US. His sources are his sources. I'm sure that if he got some juicy stuff from Japan, he'd be all over that as well.
I was just thinking about people like Viktor Yushenko and such - not that it's directly relevant to Assange, that's a whole different story, but my point is that the Russians don't play around.
In regards to journalists and such - there have been more than a few journalists, critical of the Russian gov't who have ended up dead.
This is why I would LOVE for someone to start leaking info from the Russian gov't as well as the Chinese gov't. It may be even more enlightening than the material we've been getting from the US leaks.

 

[Doctor J]

It wouldn't be as attention grabbing. If we're honest, I'd imagine each one of us generally expects this kind of thing from China and Russia and they've repeatedly never claimed to be land of the free to my knowledge.

This whole "everyone who questions my authoritaaah is a terrorist" thing is akin to pointing at a stranger and shouting "WIIIIIIIIIIIIITCH!" in the middle ages.

It's good to ask questions. People should ask questions more. Being able to ask questions is real freedom, being scared to or conditioned not to clearly is not, just ask anyone who lived under a communist regime in Eastern Europe.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

This whole "everyone who questions my authoritaaah is a terrorist" thing is akin to pointing at a stranger and shouting "WIIIIIIIIIIIIITCH!" in the middle ages.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Also, I'm curious as to what the TB stance is on, say, The Nixon tapes being released into the historic record, or memoirs that reveal juicy tidbits of information, or news that comes to light decades later. Is it just the timeliness of the WikiLeaks that rubs you the wrong way?

Reagan's battle with Alzheimer's stands out to me--here's a guy who sat on THE BUTTON! for eight years, and he couldn't even remember whether or not he'd given the go-ahead on the Iran-Contra affair. Is it better or worse that we know about it now, instead of then?

 

[coolrunner989]

It wouldn't be as attention grabbing. If we're honest, I'd imagine each one of us generally expects this kind of thing from China and Russia and they've repeatedly never claimed to be land of the free to my knowledge.

This whole "everyone who questions my authoritaaah is a terrorist" thing is akin to pointing at a stranger and shouting "WIIIIIIIIIIIIITCH!" in the middle ages.

It's good to ask questions. People should ask questions more. Being able to ask questions is real freedom, being scared to or conditioned not to clearly is not, just ask anyone who lived under a communist regime in Eastern Europe.

BIG +1 to this. Freedom means having the right to question authority, demand transparency and openness. If it somehow degrades a military or poilitical situation, then the military needs to rethink it's position there that is so dangerous, and the politicians need to grow up and realize that candy-coating the truth and hiding what we all think of each other isn't going to work forever. I think that this has the opportunity to put a new light on all of our political relationships with countries for the better. Sadly, the gov't just wants to dismiss it, say it's all over, and move on like nothing happened.

 

[L-A]

... If it somehow degrades a military or poilitical situation, then the military needs to rethink it's position there that is so dangerous, and the politicians need to grow up and realize that candy-coating the truth and hiding what we all think of each other isn't going to work forever. I think that this has the opportunity to put a new light on all of our political relationships with countries for the better. Sadly, the gov't just wants to dismiss it, say it's all over, and move on like nothing happened.

Agreed, especially considering that "international relations" isn't limited to cross-government political relations.

 

[Infidelity]

*goto wikileaks.com*

*after a minute*

*TL;DR*

*talkbass.com*

 

[BlacksHole]

Part of the problem here is that we now have people who have only part of the story drawing conclusions on partial evidence. As an example: I write an email to George stating that John is being a real a-hole about something. The email gets leaked and now John, a very sensitive fellow, believes that I think he is an a-hole. But this is not the case (we all act like a-holes at some points) and my friendship with John is irreparably damaged.

Now when it comes to countries and diplomats, the results are more severe. We could have an Egyptian diplomat, who needs aid for his particular area and wants to make sure that his American counterpart continues with the aid, stating that nuking Iraq is a good idea, as he believes this is the American diplomat's feelings. Once leaked, it looks like Egypt wants the U.S. to nuke Iraq. And its even worse, we have so-called journalists needed to make a name for themselves interpreting the data and making misleading headlines.

This reminds me a bit of the global warming email fiasco, but in fact it could be more dire. Publishing secret or sensitive information like this is merely stirring the pot to make a name and money for oneself while condemning others. This goes beyond freedom of the press just as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater goes beyond free speech (IMHO).

 

[coolrunner989]

Also, only about 1,000 of the cables have been released so far. Even downloading them and looking through them all isn't a big pain and doesn't take that long, they are pretty short usually.

 

[coolrunner989]

@blackshole: I don't see how yelling "fire" in a theater was ever deemed illeagal. Just because somebody tells you something you automatically believe it without seeing yourself? In a theater all that takes is 2 seconds to look for smoke or flame, no big deal. Same here, and my comment about people growing up. If there are "damaging" cables being released along the lines of your example let's say, then the relationships between those diplomats and countries was a pathetic excuse for a relationship and everything should be able to be cleared up by discussion. If it is truely shocking new news for anybody, well then that's all good by my book.