• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wikileaks is an enemy of the United States

Since we're answering questions with questions. . .
WildCat said:
You do know we have spies, don't you? Are you against having spies, or do you think spies do everything nice and legal?
Click to expand...
So are you against the rule of law?

Are you against holding signatory countries to the terms of the treaties and agreements they sign and ratify?

FWIW, in the Time article I cited, Assange is alleging a specific kind of espionage that is forbidden by international law.
 
Eh, they are anarchists. I'd be a little disappointed if they loved us.

I have two concerns about them. One is that they are not really advocates of transparency - transparency would include transcripts from other countries so we could see what they were thinking too.

Also, as time goes on the likelyhood of wikileaks becoming one more tool of misinformation increases. I'd predict that very soon, (if we are already not seeing it) - misinformation in some of the cables.

I could see the guy that leaked this being shot as a traitor though. Do we still do that? Or maybe we could just release him in Saudia Arabia...
 
dudalb said:
And Wikileaks knew damn well they would refuse.
It is apparent the Hard Left has found a new saint in Wikileaks......
Click to expand...

Why would they refuse? If lives were at stake, as we are continuously being told, then why would they not pinpoint which cables contained information that would endanger someone's safety?

Unless the answer is that nobody was ever in any danger, and they knew it.
 
WildCat said:
You do know we have spies, don't you? Are you against having spies, or do you think spies do everything nice and legal?
Click to expand...

I'm all in favour of spies, when you're spying on enemies. Spying on the UN isn't ok, but i'd be interested to hear why you think it is.
 
Wildy said:
You're assuming that I think Assange is a prick though.
Click to expand...

If you go by what his lawyer says then he was involved with two women, telling each that they were exculsive, so cheating on someone, yeah, that fits the definition of a prick in my book. Of course that's assuming that his lawyer is the one telling the truth, the fact he's gone into hiding rather than facing up and telling his side to the police isn't exactly a boone for his side of things.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Did I say you said that?
Click to expand...
You quoted me and then said that Wikileaks is not a country. Either you thought I believed that Wikileaks was a country, or you have an unfortunate habit of quoting people and then not responding to that which you quoted. Either way, it is making it very difficult to understand what you are trying to communicate.
Or maybe what he meant by "in essence". I find it hard to believe that anyone really thinks no information should be secret.
Click to expand...
Then you should ask him about it. I'm taking him at his word.
Even Wikileaks (with help from the newspapers they're working with) has been redacting portions of the documents that they think are best kept secret.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. Is this one of those times where you quote me but the words following the quote are not actually in response to anything I've written?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Or maybe what he meant by "in essence". I find it hard to believe that anyone really thinks no information should be secret.
Click to expand...

Eh, you still sometimes come across an aging cyberpunk who has a too fundamental take on the "Information wants to be free" slogan. Asking them for their credit card number (or, usually more effective, their root password) tend to get the point across, though.
 
marksman said:
Yes, I know. Is this one of those times where you quote me but the words following the quote are not actually in response to anything I've written?
Click to expand...

Chill.

The topic of this thread is "Wikileaks is an enemy of the United States". If I quote you, it is still on this topic.

Or are you saying that the sentences of your posts that I quoted were off topic or irrelevant?
 
Leif Roar said:
Eh, you still sometimes come across an aging cyberpunk who has a too fundamental take on the "Information wants to be free" slogan. Asking them for their credit card number (or, usually more effective, their root password) tend to get the point across, though.
Click to expand...

OK, then I concede that Marksman is right on this point. However, the few people who hold that position are not typical of those arguing against the OP here. It's not even the position Wikileaks holds. So I consider it a bit of a straw man, or a least a distraction from the topic at hand.

I suspect even Thaiboxerken meant that things should be closer to there being no government secrets. I don't think we're realistically approaching anything like a government that is too transparent.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Ah--the Nixon defense.
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...

OK. I guess the Nixon defense was, "If the president does it, it's not a crime." How about I call the "everyone is doing it" defense, the G. Gordon Liddy defense? I heard him say exactly that in a lecture once in defense of the Watergate break-ins.

He kept saying that diplomacy (in particular Cold War diplomacy) was like playing poker. You had to know what cards your opponents are holding and keep your cards hidden.

I always thought a better analogy would have been just sitting down at a table and not killing each other.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
are you saying that the sentences of your posts that I quoted were off topic or irrelevant?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that you have a habit of quoting me and then writing something that has nothing to do with the quotation. That is confusing because when most people write something after a quote, it's in response to the quote. (You'll notice I didn't use the words "off-topic or irrelevant". I would call it a "non sequitur".)
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
Since when did being a democracy entitle people to leak military information to our enemies? Besides, you don't even think America is a democracy. You're always going on about how it's a fascist dictatorship and stuff.
Click to expand...

Wikileaks doesn't leak anything. Other people leak, it just publishes, like a news organisation. If they leaks had been to any other media company, they would have published a selection of them too.
 
dudalb said:
I think Assigne's claim he has no political agenda is pretty much blown to hell by his saying he will be leaking information about a Bank next.
I would not be suprised if the bank is a LOT more active about suing Assingne then the US government is.
Click to expand...

How does that blow the "no political agenda" claim to hell?
 
a_unique_person said:
Wikileaks doesn't leak anything. Other people leak, it just publishes, like a news organisation.
Click to expand...

News organizations and journalists offer analysis and context, Wikileaks just dumps information for every Dick and Jane to see. There's a difference.
 
Pardalis said:
News organizations and journalists offer analysis and context, Wikileaks just dumps information for every Dick and Jane to see. There's a difference.
Click to expand...

Though I now realize the futility of such effort, I will once again post an in depth-discussion of Assange's philosophy and purpose:

http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/201...iracy-“to-destroy-this-invisible-government”/

Having posted that in two different threads and referred to it multiple times, no one has remotely tried to deal with the actual goals of Wikileaks. Whether right or wrong, he is not just dumping information. I strongly disagree with a number of his premises, but it's worth trying to understand what's happening.

All these pages go by and no one is attempting to deal with Assange's stated mission. It's bizarre to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom