Is Wikileaks everything it says it hates?

[Checkmite]

From the about 250,000 cables, only 1,000 thus far have been published. In this pace, it takes years to have them all published. The pipeline is very real.

And the 500,000 Iraq war documents it released all at once - have they had those for "years" as well?

No, they had them for a couple of months. There's nothing to suggest that the pace at which Wikileaks is publishing these cables, which were ostensibly part of the same "leak", is anything other than arbitrary. It's a tactic to keep Wikileaks and the documents hot news, not because they need time to decide what cables to release. Considering the latest cables released by them, to vocally participate in the pretense that Assange is concerned at all for the safety of lives and property is to reject common sense. That particular cable can only be harmful to American interests while exposing nothing, blowing no whistles, and supporting nobody's human rights. If there's anything, any cable from the State department that deserves to be "secret", it's that one.

Perhaps a lot of people have forgotten; but Assange originally claimed, with the release of the Afghanistan war documents, that his aim was to expose "war crimes". When none happened to turn up in the reams of documents he released, he released more and more; and when none turned up still, only then he changed his story to this nonsense about wanting the US to "reform its use of secrecy", wherever on Earth that came from. Every interview the guy gives paints him as someone who wants people to consider him an important force in international politics while not really knowing anything about international politics. Or information-handling for that matter; as someone else posted, when an interviewer suggested to Assange the mindlessly-obvious solution of government agencies simply changing the ways people can access secret information, the best Assange could come up with was "well....but that will make them inefficient. You can either have no secrets or be inefficient; that's how it works!" Please.

 

[Dragonrock]

They're going through all of them, in conjunction with Wikileaks, to make sure potentially deadly information is redacted.

No, they aren't because they have no clue what is potentially deadly. There is an intelligence tool (in Tom Clancy novels it's called the "Canary Trap") in which a group of potential leaks are given a main story with a few small detains different for each individual. Then by looking at what version of the information the other side obtains they know where the information originated.

This is just one of dozens of similar tools in common use by intelligence services around the world and the canary trap could be hidden in any innocuous detail anywhere.

Assange is acting like a man who is against guns and to show how bad they are he stole one from his neighbor and started shooting it off around the neighborhood. The fact that he is very careful to aim where people aren't does not mean what he is doing isn't dangerous.

 

[TraneWreck]

No, they aren't because they have no clue what is potentially deadly. There is an intelligence tool (in Tom Clancy novels it's called the "Canary Trap") in which a group of potential leaks are given a main story with a few small detains different for each individual. Then by looking at what version of the information the other side obtains they know where the information originated.

This is just one of dozens of similar tools in common use by intelligence services around the world and the canary trap could be hidden in any innocuous detail anywhere.

Assange is acting like a man who is against guns and to show how bad they are he stole one from his neighbor and started shooting it off around the neighborhood. The fact that he is very careful to aim where people aren't does not mean what he is doing isn't dangerous.

Yes, this is a realistic worry. No doubt the Taliban and the random assortment of thugs that make up the Iraqi insurgents are busy setting up canary traps as we speak.

There's a reason why you'll find Clancy books under the "fiction" section.

And, recall, the Pentagon has acknowledged that the leaks did not cause any deaths.

 

[brenn]

Actually, that is one of their goals. By revealing secret communications between officials, they hope to cause officials to act as if their conversations may be made public at any point, thus improving things.

A businessman may want to give a bribe to a Senator, and the Senator may be willing to accept that bribe, but if the Senator believes his conversations can be made public at any time, he will not accept the bribe. Rather than exposing corruption, the goal is to prevent corruption from happening in the first place.

The fault with that is that people rarely record things they believe amount to corruption and crime - Wikileaks exists to expose things that are kept secret in order to win wars, save lives, preserve diplomacy, etc. Only a tiny portion of that is likely to even involve corruption.

 

[lionking]

And, recall, the Pentagon has acknowledged that the leaks did not cause any deaths.

And this is a key point.

Wikileaks has embarrassed the US (and Australia, and the UK) and for this "crime" it must be shut down. As others have pointed out, the newspapers working with Wikileaks should also be shut down, using the same logic.

 

[brenn]

Yes, this is a realistic worry. No doubt the Taliban and the random assortment of thugs that make up the Iraqi insurgents are busy setting up canary traps as we speak.

There's a reason why you'll find Clancy books under the "fiction" section.

And, recall, the Pentagon has acknowledged that the leaks did not cause any deaths.

I think the point would be that WE use that technique and, therefore, we catch those who leak to Wikileaks.

No matter how many deaths are caused, as far as that goes, we will not publicly acknowlegde them, because it verifies the acccuracy of the leaked secrets. Do you think the Iranian smugglers who helped the U.S. citizen escape to Turkey, in one of the leaked embassy documents, are still alive? If so, it is only because they became aware the Iranians had way too much information about them and smuglled themselves out.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think the point would be that WE use that technique and, therefore, we catch those who leak to Wikileaks.

No matter how many deaths are caused, as far as that goes, we will not publicly acknowlegde them, because it verifies the acccuracy of the leaked secrets. Do you think the Iranian smugglers who helped the U.S. citizen escape to Turkey, in one of the leaked embassy documents, are still alive? If so, it is only because they became aware the Iranians had way too much information about them and smuglled themselves out.

And down the rabbit hole we go...

 

[Ziggurat]

You have no evidence that Wikileaks has released anything but legitimate documents.

That's correct, I don't. I stated so explicitly several posts ago.

Multiple sources have confirmed the authenticity of the documents

No. Multiple sources have confirmed the authenticity of some of the documents. Nobody has confirmed the authenticity of all the documents, and chances are nobody ever will. The distinction matters.

If they go wrong, they go wrong, but you're gnashing your teeth over the possibility that some day they'll tell a lie

Well, no, I'm not gnashing my teeth. I'm doing two things, the first is I'm not trusting them (is not trusting anonymous sources really paranoia?), and the second is pointing out that your statement about assuming the worst was not, in fact, assuming the worst. In that post I first responded to, you assumed that they would only tell the truth.

 

[TraneWreck]

No. Multiple sources have confirmed the authenticity of some of the documents. Nobody has confirmed the authenticity of all the documents, and chances are nobody ever will. The distinction matters.

And those haven't been released.

Well, no, I'm not gnashing my teeth. I'm doing two things, the first is I'm not trusting them (is not trusting anonymous sources really paranoia?), and the second is pointing out that your statement about assuming the worst was not, in fact, assuming the worst. In that post I first responded to, you assumed that they would only tell the truth.

Uh, no.

And Wikileaks doesn't "tell" anything. They release documents that have been leaked, but only after authenticating them in conjunction with newspapers around the world.

 

[Dragonrock]

No doubt the Taliban and the random assortment of thugs that make up the Iraqi insurgents are busy setting up canary traps as we speak.

Save your sarcasm for things you have a clue about. Do you honestly think that the all of US intelligence is aimed at a single group in one middle eastern country? I think we can safely say that the US has people in China and Cuba and more than a few other places as well.

There's a reason why you'll find Clancy books under the "fiction" section.

This is irrelevant, I mentioned Tom Clancy simply because it was the only place I knew that had given a name to this intelligence tool which exists not only in the world of Jack Ryan.

And, recall, the Pentagon has acknowledged that the leaks did not cause any deaths.

The number of deaths is not the only measure of damage. Sometimes intelligence agencies use known leaks to send misleading information. Leaked information can compromise these sources undoing years of work.

 

[Ziggurat]

And Wikileaks doesn't "tell" anything. They release documents that have been leaked, but only after authenticating them in conjunction with newspapers around the world.

You are still assuming that they are only releasing documents that were leaked to them. You have not done what you claimed to do: assume the worst.

As for newspapers authenticating them, well, you'll have to pardon me if I don't take that as proof of authenticity.

 

[TraneWreck]

Save your sarcasm for things you have a clue about. Do you honestly think that the all of US intelligence is aimed at a single group in one middle eastern country? I think we can safely say that the US has people in China and Cuba and more than a few other places as well.

You used the word "deadly." You have evidence that the Chinese are engaged in the practice of killing Americans?

Or are all these spies getting slaughtered but the Pentagon and all other American institutions are unaware except for the one Inspector Gadget works for?

This is a lot of fantasy mumbo-jumbo.

This is irrelevant, I mentioned Tom Clancy simply because it was the only place I knew that had given a name to this intelligence tool which exists not only in the world of Jack Ryan.

I'm sure it's the sort of thing that happens on a daily basis.

The number of deaths is not the only measure of damage. Sometimes intelligence agencies use known leaks to send misleading information. Leaked information can compromise these sources undoing years of work.

Yep. That's the potential cost. Of course, no one has an example of this happening, unlike the Valerie Plame outing.

The benefit is learning that our leaders have been lying to us about costly wars. Do you think the government should be able to mislead citizens and tax payers about war?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I would prefer that anarchists who fancy themselves journalists not take risks with peoples' lives in pursuit of their idea of larger political goals, using stolen US property. I trust their larger political goals considerably less than I trust our elected politikers.

BTW, who elected wikileaks? I must have missed it.

Last time I checked they were people following their own conscience. Sometimes people, including journalists, do that without being elected.

Wikileaks has proven nothing with it's cherry-picked leaks. But even if it had done so, it would hardly qualify a small group of self-absorbed anarchists to risk lives for political goals in the elected officials stead.

Yeah, that was quite a revelation. If you've been living under a rock for the past 5 years. The leaked conversation does verify the repeated reports I've heard on the TV that the Arab states are not at all happy about Iran's military buildup, specifically it's ill-concealed quest for nuclear weapons.

I think there's a self-contradictory element in trying to spin these leaks as simultaneously trivial and terrible. Trying to downplay everything Wikileaks has done that embarrasses "bad people", and catastrophise everything Wikileaks has done that embarrasses the great and glorious USA, seems to me to be indicative of a politically motivated double standard.

 

[TraneWreck]

You are still assuming that they are only releasing documents that were leaked to them. You have not done what you claimed to do: assume the worst.

As for newspapers authenticating them, well, you'll have to pardon me if I don't take that as proof of authenticity.

Sure. Evaluate them on a case by case basis.

The point is that these documents do not rely solely on Wikileaks' credibility, as it appears some think, and there is actual work done to authenticate and redact sensitive information.

The process is fine, so unless you have some evidence of an error or lie being perpetrated, there's no grounds for dismissing the leaked information.

 

[tyr_13]

And this is a key point.

Wikileaks has embarrassed the US (and Australia, and the UK) and for this "crime" it must be shut down. As others have pointed out, the newspapers working with Wikileaks should also be shut down, using the same logic.

I've criticized Wikileaks for being irresponsible and doing potential damage, but to be perfectly clear I'm not calling for it to be shut down. I've called Assange an arrogant asshat, but that doesn't mean I want him arrested.

I'm sure someone has suggested it be shut down, but let's not conflate people's arguments.

 

[Dragonrock]

You used the word "deadly." You have evidence that the Chinese are engaged in the practice of killing Americans?

Or are all these spies getting slaughtered but the Pentagon and all other American institutions are unaware except for the one Inspector Gadget works for?

This is a lot of fantasy mumbo-jumbo.

You seem to focus on one word. You are aware that there were several more words in my post and my use of the word "deadly" in no way indicated that the only type of danger was that of life and limb.

I'm sure it's the sort of thing that happens on a daily basis.

Me too.

Yep. That's the potential cost. Of course, no one has an example of this happening, unlike the Valerie Plame outing.

In many cases intelligence leaks are not mentioned since we don't want them to know that we know that they know.

The benefit is learning that our leaders have been lying to us about costly wars. Do you think the government should be able to mislead citizens and tax payers about war?

No, they shouldn't. But I have a problem with people thinking that everything should be out in the open. A government must be able to do some things in secret or the only time we could act would be after a Pearl Harbor/911 event. Events which would be all the more common if the enemy knew we had no way to know if they were coming.

 

[Travis]

And those haven't been released.




Uh, no.

And Wikileaks doesn't "tell" anything. They release documents that have been leaked, but only after authenticating them in conjunction with newspapers around the world.

For some reason you continue to believe this and I can't figure out why. Did Wikileaks get you laid or something?

You have no reason to trust anything they do or say but you do. Why? What makes them above criticism and scrutiny?

 

[lionking]

For some reason you continue to believe this and I can't figure out why. Did Wikileaks get you laid or something?

You have no reason to trust anything they do or say but you do. Why? What makes them above criticism and scrutiny?

Wikileaks is a media outlet. I find it utterly amazing that so many Americans who think that China's and North Korea's censoring of the Internet is so evil are crying out for censorship of Wikileaks. Why is that?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You have no reason to trust anything they do or say but you do. Why?

Because there are reasons to trust them... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Leaks

 

[TraneWreck]

For some reason you continue to believe this and I can't figure out why. Did Wikileaks get you laid or something?

You have no reason to trust anything they do or say but you do. Why? What makes them above criticism and scrutiny?

So the other newspapers working with Wikileaks are lying as well? Or Wikileaks has elaborately forged 500,000 documents and given newspapers full discretion to read, review, and authenticate these forgeries?

There is absolutely no basis for your suspicion. If a forged, fraudulent, or otherwise salacious bit of info is revealed, I will change my stance to reflect the new information.

As of now, of the hundreds of thousands of documents involving just about every country on planet earth, not a single forgery (by Wikileaks) has been revealed. That's a pretty good percentage.