Is Wikileaks everything it says it hates?

[Travis]

We already know about them. For example, they did not release thousands of the "Iraq Diaries" files. And we know that they received 500000 cables but they're talking about publishing only about half of them. And they blacked out names in released information to make sure that no lives are at risk... There may be even more examples and the fact, that Assange told the press that they receive much more stuff than they're able to filter for relevance and importance...

That's what concerns me. There is no way for us to know by what criteria they are making these judgments.

It would be better for them, in keeping with the spirit of their movement, to just publish everything that is leaked to them.

Lot's of hidden "good acts?"

Let's assume the worst about the organization: hey only release information to smear the US government.

I haven't actually insinuated this.

So what? What's in the leaked material is in the leaked material.

If they got a hold of John Wayne Gacy's journal and sat on the information about his charity work, he still killed boys and buried them in his crawl space.

What if they sat on information about more bodies of his victims?

 

[TraneWreck]

What if they sat on information about more bodies of his victims?

Then that would be bad.

Of course, not as bad as generating the dead bodies in the first place then covering them up, and therein lies the asymmetry.

 

[gumboot]

And they blacked out names in released information to make sure that no lives are at risk...

Here's one of my big issues with the website. They talk about doing stuff like this, as if it means they're then the good guys, ensuring nothing bad happens to anyone as a result of their actions. But the fact is the people at Wikileaks are in no way qualified nor informed enough to know which information will or won't identify informents and other at risk people. If they think names are the only things people can use to identify a person, they're incredibly naive.

Then there's the diplomatic leaks. It's pretty clear the only intention behind leaking the diplomatic documents is to embarass the USA. All that talk of higher moral intentions goes right out the window the second you take a look at the information. It's not examples of corruption, or illegal activity. It's normal day-to-day diplomatic work. The kind of stuff that's kept under wraps, not because it's nefarious, but because diplomacy only works when both sides are able to pretend they like each other.

I mean, think on it. The USA calls Iran the Axis of Evil, and Iran calls the USA "The Great Satan". Yet they'll sit in a room together, pretending respect, and discuss nuclear weapons. Actual progress is made that way, instead of ever increasing tension that would one day lead to armed conflict.

Countries take insult at the most inane and minor things, which makes it impossible to be public with honest assessments. For a closer-to-home example, I only need to think back to the utterly insane example of the whole of India getting up in arms because a random TV personality here in NZ mocked the pronounciation of some Indian person's name. Our government had to officially apologise to their government just to settle the thing. That's the kind of insanity that happens when you have a climate of honesty, where true opinions aren't kept under wraps. "Freedom Fries" is another perfect example.

Diplomacy is only possible because all of the honest assessment happens behind closed doors. The moment that becomes public, diplomacy can't actually happen. And for those ignorant of history, it was precisely the lack of diplomacy between nations that led to WWI and WW2, because there was no mechanism by which nations could talk "politely". That's exactly why the UN was created, and why we haven't had any widespread wars since WW2 (the centuries prior to the creation of the UN are brimming over with global conflicts between great powers).

If Assange keeps this up he could undo sixty years of progress on global dialogue, and all just so he can embarass a foreign nation he doesn't happen to like.

The guy is an embarassment to the human race.

 

[tyr_13]

Can we get wikileaks internal communications please?

Note: For those who want to twist every criticism of wikileaks as a defense of the US or of keeping illegal doings secret, I'm not saying the US is all good and that everything it labels secret should be secret.

 

[lionking]

Ohh, ohh, someone is embarrassing the USA. How dastardly!

 

[Travis]

Then that would be bad.

Of course, not as bad as generating the dead bodies in the first place then covering them up, and therein lies the asymmetry.

But what if Wikileaks had information that proved Iran was behind Pan Am 103 but sat on it because they have an agenda to make Iran look good?

I'm not saying they do have that agenda be we certainly don't know for sure they don't. In fact we don't know what their agenda is. What countries they want to make look good and which ones they want to make look bad. Which companies they are content to undermine and which ones they will protect.

I'm not one to necessarily buy into the simplistic notion they are just about getting the USA but I'd bet you anything they do have some agenda that guides their motives behind what they do and don't release.

 

[JJM 777]

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 changing the way how officials communicate with each other.

Corrected it for you.

 

[gumboot]

Ohh, ohh, someone is embarrassing the USA. How dastardly!

I think you're missing the point. I have no problem with someone embarassing the USA. Heck I enjoy doing it myself on a regular basis.

But how valuable and how important is embarassing the USA? Is it worth compromising the diplomatic process? I don't think it is. Not remotely.

 

[gumboot]

An important point was made when I was discussing this matter with a friend just now. Most of these diplomatic cables consist of officials offering analysis to those further up the chain, to advise them on courses of action. It's up to these other higher officials to decide which analysis and advice to actually listen to, and what they want to do, but it's crucial that officials know their advice is given in confidence.

A very probable result of this sort of pointless wholesale release of diplomatic cables (which, incidentally, is a fundamental violation of the oldest principle in international diplomacy) is that the lower level officials will begin to be more careful about what kind of advice they give. Or to put it another way, they'll stop being so honest. And the end result of that is the people in positions of power, who actually have to make the decision, won't have an accurate picture of what's actually going on. They'll be acting off faulty intelligence. And I think we all know what happens when governments start acting on faulty intelligence...

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's assume the worst about the organization: hey only release information to smear the US government.

So what? What's in the leaked material is in the leaked material.

Winston Churchill said that in war, the truth was so precious it had to be protected with a bodyguard of lies (the operation to deceive Germany about the location of D-Day was called "operation bodyguard" in honor of that statement). But the opposite can also be true: a lie can be so precious that it is surrounded by the truth.

In other words, you aren't assuming the worst, because you're assuming that Wikileaks is only leaking real information. If you want to assume the worst, then assume that somewhere in that leaked material is information which isn't real, which Wikileaks (or their sources) planted, and which is intended to have major impact. Are they doing that? I've got no evidence to that effect. But I've got know way to know that they aren't, either.

Among the many ways your comparison breaks down, Wikileaks isn't producing the material.

How can you be sure of that?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Here's one of my big issues with the website. They talk about doing stuff like this, as if it means they're then the good guys, ensuring nothing bad happens to anyone as a result of their actions. But the fact is the people at Wikileaks are in no way qualified nor informed enough to know which information will or won't identify informents and other at risk people. If they think names are the only things people can use to identify a person, they're incredibly naive.

That or they think that it's okay to take some risks with innocent people's lives in pursuit of larger political goals. In an ideal world only elected officials would do that, perhaps, but Wikileaks has proven time and time again that elected officials cannot be trusted to do so.

Then there's the diplomatic leaks. It's pretty clear the only intention behind leaking the diplomatic documents is to embarass the USA.

Oh for pity's sake... don't buy the spin from US partisans that it's all about them. They try to turn everything into a pro-US/anti-US dichotomy because two ideas is already pushing the limits of their brains.

The fact that Saudi Arabia was pushing for the USA to attack Iran, while the USA was not keen on the idea, is far more problematic for Saudi Arabia and Iran's governments than anyone else, for example.

The diplomatic leaks came from the USA but they reveal all sorts of interesting things about what other nations get up to.

All that talk of higher moral intentions goes right out the window the second you take a look at the information. It's not examples of corruption, or illegal activity. It's normal day-to-day diplomatic work. The kind of stuff that's kept under wraps, not because it's nefarious, but because diplomacy only works when both sides are able to pretend they like each other.

There's this crazy idea that diplomacy might work even better if politicians couldn't lie about what they were doing to the people who elect them. That wars might be prevented, not caused, if the world's population were privy to the truth of what was going on, or if warmongering like that carried on by Saudi Arabia could not be carried out in private without the world finding out about it.

Presenting your own amateur tract about how the world will end without diplomatic secrecy is no more persuasive than Ayn Rand presenting her tracts about economics.

 

[Toontown]

My prediction is that Wikileaks comes to a bad end, but I can't predict the details. One thing seems certain: some leakers are going down. And they'll be going down hard. The statements I've heard from Gates and others indicate a high level of outrage. They know, if nothing else, that we the people do not pay our government operatives to let foreigners rummage around in our secret and confidential national stuff. That's like having our balls fondled by a wierd little man in a checkout line or an airport. We don't like that.

And other governments are thinking along similar lines. The Russians may well be thinking along more sinister lines, should the creep distribute their stuff as promised. Russians aren't above poisoning rival national leaders or suddenly invading small countries without forewarning. What they might do to lover-boy if he pisses them off is anybody's guess.

That boy has a testosterone problem. Which is not conducive to rational thought.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

My prediction is that Wikileaks comes to a bad end, but I can't predict the details. One thing seems certain: some leakers are going down. And they'll be going down hard. The statements I've heard from Gates and others indicate a high level of outrage. They know, if nothing else, that we the people do not pay our government operatives to let foreigners rummage around in our secret and confidential national stuff. That's like having our balls fondled by a wierd little man in a checkout line or an airport. We don't like that.

I think the real outrage is not that these things got outside the US government sandbox - none of them were top secret or especially secure in the first place. I very much doubt Russia or China learned anything new from those leaks.

The outrage is that the unwashed masses are finding out about it, in full, with no opportunity for the US government to cut a deal with the media owners to keep the public in ignorance of specific issues.

And other governments are thinking along similar lines. The Russians may well be thinking along more sinister lines, should the creep distribute their stuff as promised. Russians aren't above poisoning rival national leaders or suddenly invading small countries without forewarning. What they might do to lover-boy if he pisses them off is anybody's guess.

That boy has a testosterone problem. Which is not conducive to rational thought.

I'm getting a pretty serious whiff of testosterone from the authoritarian partisans loudly hoping that the Russians or someone else will kill Assange for them. Along with an equally serious whiff of irrationality.

Like I said earlier, chill out. You'll get over it. The USA will still be the world's sole superpower next week despite these leaks. You're just going to have a tiny bit more cognitive dissonance when you mindlessly chant the pro-USA talking points of the moment as if the leaks never happened, and what's a tiny bit more of that to the keyboard commandos?

 

[Darat]

Folks watch out - the exchanges are heating up and starting to get a tad personalised. Remember attack the arguments not the person, thanks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Toontown]

That or they think that it's okay to take some risks with innocent people's lives in pursuit of larger political goals.

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.

In an ideal world only elected officials would do that, perhaps, but Wikileaks has proven time and time again that elected officials cannot be trusted to do so.

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.

The fact that Saudi Arabia was pushing for the USA to attack Iran, while the USA was not keen on the idea, is far more problematic for Saudi Arabia and Iran's governments than anyone else, for example.

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 would have preferred that Wikileaks had forgone doing us that great service, considering the damage it might have done to the diplomatic process.

The diplomatic leaks came from the USA but they reveal all sorts of interesting things about what other nations get up to.

Things you should have already known. I've yet to hear of a great revelation coming out of the leaks. It's mostly common knowledge I've been able to glean from news reports and discussions widely available on the boob tube.

Whut? China is weary of North Korea's insane antics, and tired of propping the atrocity up? Rrreally? That's amazing!

There's this crazy idea that diplomacy might work even better if politicians couldn't lie about what they were doing to the people who elect them.

That is a crazy idea. There is an empirical limit on how much politikers can lie to us, because we can actually see the outcomes of their machinations. So we pretty much know what they've been up to. So they have to consider the fact that it is impossible to be inconsistent with reality.

That wars might be prevented, not caused, if the world's population were privy to the truth of what was going on, or if warmongering like that carried on by Saudi Arabia could not be carried out in private without the world finding out about it.

I don't know about the world's population, but I've had indications that the Saudis were pushing for strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, just from news stories. Didn't need any stolen diplomatic cables. I could probably link you up to some old forum discussions about it.

And if it comes down to Israel doing the strikes, do not be surprised if they launch the strikes from Saudi airfields. And don't be surprised if they are accompanied by Saudi aircraft. The Arab-Israeli conflict is over. Big bad Persian dog is in the yard.

And come out from under that rock. The world is not stuck in a perpetual groundhog day. Things change. The Arab governments do not want to be forced to develop nuclear arsenals to counter Iran. Those things are a major pain in the ass, especially if you have to worry about radical loons trying to seize them.

Or radical loon Arab leaders deciding to use them. Here's what some Iraqis had to say on a forum about Arab countries possessing nukes:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2008/05/do-iraqis-want-arab-nuclear-bomb.html

Smart Arabs don't want Arabs to have nukes. And they are positively appalled at the prospect of a nuclear Persia. And rightfully so, in both cases.

Presenting your own amateur tract about how the world will end without diplomatic secrecy is no more persuasive than Ayn Rand presenting her tracts about economics.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Atlas could shrug. I wouldn't put it past him. Especially now that billions of monkeys are screeching in his ear and defecating on his head.

 

[Sabrina]

It would appear that Mr. Assange is not revered by all in the cyber world...

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2010/12/ju...st-one-from-an-unexpected-place-the-comp.html

Basic synopsis: there's a hacker called The Jester (or th3 j35t3r if you prever the "l33t" version) who, using a program he calls Xerxes, has successfully performed DOS attacks on Wikileaks on more than one occasion with minimal effects on the surrounding internet infrastructure.

While I'm not too keen on using illegal methods to do it, I am glad that someone out there is seeing Mr. Assange for what he is (i.e. a cyber-bully) and is attempting to do something about it. (note: that is merely my opinion of Mr. Assange, not established fact.)

I will be frank; while I do feel that Mr. Assange is correct in feeling that there is a bit too much secrecy in government operations, I cannot condone what he is doing. Having had nine years or so of working with various forms of government, I can honestly say that what he is doing is not helping his cause in the least. There is a mentality in government of "when in doubt, classify it" that does need to be adjusted, but the fact of the matter is that it is impossible for a government to operate with the kind of transparency that Mr. Assange seems to think should be happening. There will always be things that must be kept secret in order to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", to quote the Constitution. I find it interesting that Mr. Assange appears to be concentrating his efforts on the United States, when it is an open secret that there are other governments in the world that perform much worse atrocities and maintain even more secrecy than the United States does; one would think that, if he's so interested in transparency, that he would go for the worst offenders. Why not get and release documents that prove North Korea is developing nuclear weapons? Or Iran? Why not get documents and release them that prove the government of China is repressing the human rights of the people of Tibet? Or that prove that the Russian government willingly commits murder by radiation poisoning in order to cow its people into submission? I've seen claims that Wikileaks has such documents in their possession; why not release them? Quite frankly; and trust me when I say I'm not trying to make this a U.S.-centric issue here, I'm just reporting my own perceptions of the matter; it seems to me that Mr. Assange has some sort of issue with the United States outside of his stated motives that he is not sharing with anyone, and until that issue comes to light, I rather doubt that, even if the United States changed to suit his stated motives, Mr. Assange would cease his efforts to cause embarrassment to the U.S. Government.

It seems to me that only people who are discontented with government in general seem to view Mr. Assange as some sort of messiah who can do no wrong because he's exposing the misdoings of the "ebil guvmint", and don't take into account that, as I said above, there must be some secrecy or it simply won't work. Quite frankly, they're wrong; he is nothing more than a bully who is trying to force everyone into operating the way he thinks they should operate. There's a word for that; dictator. I'm all for the idea of minimizing the amount of classifying the government does so long as it doesn't subsequently create more issues than it solves. But Mr. Assange's actions do more to harm his cause than promote it.

I saw this morning on the news that he has been arrested in Great Britain on the warrant issued from Sweden. So I assume that means they will be releasing the passcode for the "insurance" document posted on the website. I for one will be interested to know if, as I suspect, it was nothing more than a bluff on Mr. Assange's part in order to blackmail every government in the world to continue to allow him to bully the people he has such a grudge against. I'm prohibited by direct order of the US Army from accessing anything on that website, so I won't look at it myself, but if anyone here decides to, I hope you let us know exactly what Mr. Assange held back.

 

[Debaser]

...I find it interesting that Mr. Assange appears to be concentrating his efforts on the United States, when it is an open secret that there are other governments in the world that perform much worse atrocities and maintain even more secrecy than the United States does; one would think that, if he's so interested in transparency, that he would go for the worst offenders. Why not get and release documents that prove North Korea is developing nuclear weapons? Or Iran? Why not get documents and release them that prove the government of China is repressing the human rights of the people of Tibet? Or that prove that the Russian government willingly commits murder by radiation poisoning in order to cow its people into submission?

Er... because that would require people with access to such material within those (mostly totalitarian) countries essentially taking their life in their hands to copy it and get it out of the place. Is the US soldier who is under suspicion likely to get the death sentence if he is found guilty?

...Quite frankly; and trust me when I say I'm not trying to make this a U.S.-centric issue here, I'm just reporting my own perceptions of the matter; it seems to me that Mr. Assange has some sort of issue with the United States outside of his stated motives that he is not sharing with anyone, and until that issue comes to light, I rather doubt that, even if the United States changed to suit his stated motives, Mr. Assange would cease his efforts to cause embarrassment to the U.S. Government.

This does seem to be the internal US view. Fom outside it appears to a lot of us that it just comes down to the fact that the US is a more open/easy target than others*. (Is a secret still a secret if in the region of 3 million persons can theoretically access it?)




*This is probably the greatest irony of the whole episode.

 

[TraneWreck]

But what if Wikileaks had information that proved Iran was behind Pan Am 103 but sat on it because they have an agenda to make Iran look good?

I'm not saying they do have that agenda be we certainly don't know for sure they don't. In fact we don't know what their agenda is. What countries they want to make look good and which ones they want to make look bad. Which companies they are content to undermine and which ones they will protect.

I'm not one to necessarily buy into the simplistic notion they are just about getting the USA but I'd bet you anything they do have some agenda that guides their motives behind what they do and don't release.

Ah, so they have information on Ted Bundy, too, but only release the stuff about Gacy.

I guess that means Gacy didn't kill anyone.

 

[Sabrina]

Er... because that would require people with access to such material within those (mostly totalitarian) countries essentially taking their life in their hands to copy it and get it out of the place. Is the US soldier who is under suspicion likely to get the death sentence if he is found guilty?

The charge of espionage, in a time of war (which we are technically still in) does carry a maximum penalty of death. The difference is, we are unlikely to lean toward that penalty as a first choice, unlike several other countries (such as North Korea). And I did point out that Wikileaks claims to have such documents from China or Russia (or both) in their possession; so why have they not released them? Why concentrate so much on embarrassing the US?

This does seem to be the internal US view. Fom outside it appears to a lot of us that it just comes down to the fact that the US is a more open/easy target than others*. (Is a secret still a secret if in the region of 3 million persons can theoretically access it?)




*This is probably the greatest irony of the whole episode.

I would agree; Mr. Assange's stated motives are that he thinks there should be more transparency in government. Ironic then that the country he seems to target the most is actually one of the more open governments, isn't it? Sort of supports my theory that he has some sort of gripe with the US outside of his stated motives.

 

[tyr_13]

What she said.

That's why I want to see Wikileaks internal correspondences. There could be some great incite we could gain into the actual goals and intent of the group if just there was some transparency. Of course it's entirely possible that they don't use any recorded correspondence because they don't want their own tactics used against them.