Wikileaks is an enemy of the United States

[Tony]

I think this is awesome. I am of the opinion that governments should be permitted to keep as few secrets as possible. If a foreign country (in this case Saudi Arabia), is pressuring our government to spend our tax dollars and risk American lives for its security, we have a right to know.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think this is awesome. I am of the opinion that governments should be permitted to keep as few secrets as possible. If a foreign country (in this case Saudi Arabia), is pressuring our government to spend our tax dollars and risk American lives for its security, we have a right to know.

And so do the people of Saudi Arabia. Sounds like their king is full of opinions on what the US should do for him, while simultaneously failing to stop his people from giving all that money and support to al Qaeda. If I were Saudi, I'd be wondering if it's time for a revolution, with leadership like that.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

That's funny, I seem to recall hearing a lot of the anti-wikileaks arguments before. Where could it have been? Oh, that's right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

 

[A Laughing Baby]

My bad, looks like RoadToad made the same point last page. Sorry everyone

 

[Garrison0fMars]

who said anything about a legal right? The CIA does MANY things which are considered illegal by other nations, but perfectly justified by the U.S. Government.

Exactly, and that's what Wikileaks is bringing out into the open.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant after all

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'm torn. I think both sides have a good point

Sent from my Droid

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the idea that Wikileaks has been publishing documents willy-nilly with no regard for issues of security is contrary to the facts.

I think you are fully, 100% wrong in your thinking. The newest release, which evidently is nothing but a bunch of diplomatic cables and has nothing to do with any civil rights abuses or war crimes, is very clearly intended to do nothing but cause embarrassment and political damage to the US, whether successful in that regard or not.

Nothing you say here contradicts what I have said.

The cables were turned over by Wikileaks to the Guardian and the NY Times months ago. They vetted and checked through them before they were released.

They were not released willy-nilly with no concern for their effect on security. Where they will cause a chilling effect on government because of political embarrassment, I think a chilling effect is desirable.

At any rate, things ought not be kept secret because they might be politically embarrassing. That's not a security issue.

Wikileaks has not only been publishing documents willy-nilly with no regard for issues of security,

But again, this assertion is contrary to the facts.

it's been doing so with no regard even for the issues of "war crimes" and human rights Assange pretends to be doing all this for, because some 99% of the documents released so far have nothing to do with either.

So? If 1% of the documents do indeed refer to covered-up war crimes and human rights violations, then they do deserve an airing. I think the decision to release them all was based on being fair. The first batch (focussed on the war in Iraq) showed U.S.'s enemies to be bad actors as well. I think this most recent batch is damning to many actors--not just the U.S. government.

It's patently obvious that Assange merely received a bulk shipment of classified material and is releasing it all for the most part without knowing what's in it, pretty much just hoping there's something juicy in there somewhere.

It might be true that Assange released everything to the Guardian and NYT (and I think a few others) without knowing what all was in them, but it was with the agreement that those outlets would help with the vetting work (something Assange wasn't capable of) in exchange for having the first exclusive on the stories.

Assange and the news outlets did not release the documents in question for months until the vetting was done.

In fact, I just heard that the vast bulk of the most recent round of documents (the diplomatic cables not focussed on the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan) have NOT been posted on-line at Wikileaks. Only those documents that the NYT and Guardian have made public have been posted on-line.

In each case of these 3 rounds of documents (on focussed on the war in Iraq, one on the war in Afghanistan and the most recent focussed on diplomatic cables), they had the documents for something like half a year before making any of them public.

So again, it is contrary to reality to claim that Wikileaks is publishing these documents willy-nilly with no regard whatsoever to security.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Assuming it is a lawful order, disobeying an order does indeed make someone a criminal.

Yes? And assuming it was not a moral order, then disobeying it is not only justified but is the responsibility of any good citizen in that situation.

Believe it or not, there are ways to deal with abuses of classification. If someone runs across information that is classified solely to hide violations of the law, we have two intelligence legislative oversight committees that they can approach, each of which has members from the opposition party.

Yeah--and the military has done a great job of holding people responsible for acts of torture and murder. And they've been honest and accurate and open with the number of civilian deaths caused by our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Both parties have an interest in keeping their dirty laundry hidden. Even so, even if there were established effective means for dealing with these abuses, it doesn't follow that someone leaking these documents is a criminal or an enemy of the state. I have been pointing out that there are certainly legitimate legal and moral justifications for doing so.

By analogy, if my neighbor is making too much noise (violating the local noise ordinance) I could call the police or I could politely ask my neighbors to keep it down. Just because the first option exists doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the other option.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's a thought.

Perhaps the reason wikileaks is allowed to get away with these leaks is that wikileaks has some really dangerous information that they hold in reserve should governments try to close them down or go after them?

Hmmmmmm ....

Take it to the Conspiracy Theory subforum.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Take it to the Conspiracy Theory subforum.

You're right, but at the same time, Wikileaks has essentially implied this very point as a matter of their own safety. They released a military-grade encrypted file named "insurance.ae256" which was very large. There has been no mention of it since, but most people took it as an implication that it was something big that they would keep quiet unless something happened to Assange et al.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're right, but at the same time, Wikileaks has essentially implied this very point as a matter of their own safety. They released a military-grade encrypted file named "insurance.ae256" which was very large. There has been no mention of it since, but most people took it as an implication that it was something big that they would keep quiet unless something happened to Assange et al.

I don't buy it. If they had something shocking or damning, they would release it. Remember too that the decisions about what is being released and what is being censored has been largely the decision of the journalists who have ALL of the documents.

I suspect the only kind of thing they've held back were things that have no public interest value that would in fact wrongly endanger someone.

In fact, I think the whole Wikileaks thing has popped a lot of CT bubbles. If there were documents that could be a slam dunk to put Bush or Cheney or Rummy or any of these guys in jail for planning or condoning or willfully allowing the 9/11 attacks, for example, or if they had documents that proved a government conspiracy to cover up space aliens or any other such nonsense--they definitely would have released them.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I don't buy it. If they had something shocking or damning, they would release it. Remember too that the decisions about what is being released and what is being censored has been largely the decision of the journalists who have ALL of the documents.

I suspect the only kind of thing they've held back were things that have no public interest value that would in fact wrongly endanger someone.

In fact, I think the whole Wikileaks thing has popped a lot of CT bubbles. If there were documents that could be a slam dunk to put Bush or Cheney or Rummy or any of these guys in jail for planning or condoning or willfully allowing the 9/11 attacks, for example, or if they had documents that proved a government conspiracy to cover up space aliens or any other such nonsense--they definitely would have released them.

Oh, I agree, but I do wonder what they have in that file. Personally, I'm hoping it's a wall-size picture of goatse. All I was saying is that while that seems like nonsense, it is in fact a line of thought that Wikileaks themselves are promoting, true or not, ostensibly for their own safety.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

In fact, I think the whole Wikileaks thing has popped a lot of CT bubbles. If there were documents that could be a slam dunk to put Bush or Cheney or Rummy or any of these guys in jail for planning or condoning or willfully allowing the 9/11 attacks, for example, or if they had documents that proved a government conspiracy to cover up space aliens or any other such nonsense--they definitely would have released them.

I think they've already responded by saying Wikileaks is a tool of the "government". That's what "Crypton" (a conspiracy theorist website) said...

 

[BeAChooser]

If they had something shocking or damning, they would release it.

Would they ... if it would get them killed?

 

[Virus]

I think this is awesome. I am of the opinion that governments should be permitted to keep as few secrets as possible. If a foreign country (in this case Saudi Arabia), is pressuring our government to spend our tax dollars and risk American lives for its security, we have a right to know.

People who follow the issue already did know that.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

There's already thousands if not millions of hawks and armchair strategists calling for the executions (covert or otherwise) of Assange and the rest of the Wikileaks staff. You don't need to look any farther than this thread for that. It's not really too much of a stretch in my opinion to assume that they already have released enough to potentially get them killed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

People who follow the issue already did know that.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. We shouldn't publish "sensitive documents" (that's what they called them on the radio just now--since many of this last round weren't actually classified) because people who already know about a particular issue already know?

But the release of these documents and the stories they generate surely make this knowledge much more general, right? I think that's a good thing. The argument that it wasn't technically ever a secret isn't a very strong one.

 

[Tony]

People who follow the issue already did know that.

So?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

People who follow the issue already did know that.

I think part of the aim is to make it known to the people who don't follow the issue already.

ETA: Take, for example, the Collateral Murder video. Basically everyone who followed the war knew we were killing civilians and had lax conduct in terms of IDing combatants, but actual hard proof of it brought it to the front of public discourse for a brief period. It was handwaved away, of course, but now it's widely known that it happened.

 

[Roadtoad]

Would they ... if it would get them killed?

Quite likely, if out of simple bitchiness.

In reading some of the revelations in these leaks, one thing that occurs to me is the sheer stupidity of some of these people. That individuals with graduate degrees and training as diplomats can't seem to figure out something as simple as confidentiality and plausible deniability is utterly depressing. These people had to know that if it were in someone's interest, regardless of whether it was in their better interest or not, they'd let it all hang out. Knowing this, they still put information into these messages that was better shared over a Martini and some bad local cuisine in some out of the way corner bistro in a rat-hole town far away from the capital.

Now, with these revelations, we not only look arrogant, but like a bunch of dummies, too. You have to wonder, sometimes, how some people get their jobs, or even how they keep them.