Am I alone in thinking wikileaks is a GOOD thing?

[SFC Ollie]

I know I don't. Which is why I advocate that the government not do things that would lead to an erosion of trust.

So you advocate the abolishment of the CIA?

If their intelligence,methods and agents used to gether it were revealed would that not lead to an erosion of trust? Or do you think the CIA only has spooks in unfreindly countries? Cause if you do you are not very bright.

Spook village is a place where all players sort of know the game. This is not a big deal to the players.

Really, and you know all about this, how?

What worries me the most is that if the idiots in this thread is a small sample of what Mr average America believes then we are in big fucking trouble.

 

[MikeK]

How indignant the self-appointed guardians of federal secrecy are about Wikileaks audacious revelations in spite of the fact that nothing other than embarrassing revelations have thus far been cited and we've heard about nothing truly damaging. But few of them had anything at all to say about Cheney and Rove's deliberate, malicious and treacherously damaging exposure of a covert CIA operative and the subsequent destruction of a valuable intelligence asset.

Typical.

 

[JWBooth]

Do you think it is a good thing to erode the trust of the USA here and abroad?

There would have to be something to base trust on. Anyone with even a smidgen of good sense knows better to trust a government, anybody's government, at any time.

 

[Trajan]

How indignant the self-appointed guardians of federal secrecy are about Wikileaks audacious revelations in spite of the fact that nothing other than embarrassing revelations have thus far been cited and we've heard about nothing truly damaging. But few of them had anything at all to say about Cheney and Rove's deliberate, malicious and treacherously damaging exposure of a covert CIA operative and the subsequent destruction of a valuable intelligence asset.

Typical.

last I checked that was richard armitage, I don't know what the heck you're referring to.

and what was the "valuable Intel asset" that was lost?

 

[Trajan]

as a general note, it seems to me people were a lot more upset when climategate went down and those emails were outted, but then again, that was an embarrassment and damaging for the lefts fav. global death scenario. any embarrassment or damage now is being fluffed off as; ' ahhhh tis but a scratch'...what a riot.

 

[Synthaholic]

It already has. Idiot.

It is not about the actual information, it is about the leaking of information. If we cannot be trusted to keep other countries secrets, they are not gonna tell us those secrets. Common sense.... unfortunately, you can't buy it on ebay.

Ah my little nazi princess..

If you knew what you were talking about..it might be worth the time to explain why it will not erode trust.

But you don't.

So I won't.

You fuckers just cannot stay away from that word can you?

You are a myophic oaf with a smattering of douchebaggishness thrown in for good measure.

California Girl is a proven defender of Nazi lovers.

 

[jillian]

She shouldn't have ordered the spying in the first place...shrug.....

why? that's what all governments do. it's kind of an unwritten law. but i think larry sanger, the creator of wikipedia, said it best:

Diplomatic communiqués are secret precisely because they contain information that it would be dangerous, or stupid, to make public. They disclose names and quotations that, for reasons either obvious or quite impossible for us to know, might get people killed. They also contain reports of actions that might lead to serious repercussions. They might even pinpoint locations of secret installations that might come under attack. They recount discussions of important plans and personalities—information that, if known to the wrong people, might lead to various military excursions, including war.

Does that sound acceptable to you? Let's put it this way. Wikileaks' actions, by releasing so much consequential, incendiary information, could easily lead to the deaths of people all around the world, and not just Americans. It could destabilize foreign relations that it benefits no one to have destabilized. It could—probably will not, but given that these are secret diplomatic communiqués in a very complex world, could—lead to war.

I find it incomprehensible that Wikileaks and its defenders are not given pause by such obvious considerations. I find it sad that so many people are not able to grasp such arguments intuitively. Perhaps they ignore them, or perhaps they only pretend that such considerations do not exist.

A comment on Wikileaks - LarrySanger.org

 

[Jeremy]

Ah my little nazi princess..

If you knew what you were talking about..it might be worth the time to explain why it will not erode trust.

But you don't.

So I won't.

You fuckers just cannot stay away from that word can you?

You are a myophic oaf with a smattering of douchebaggishness thrown in for good measure.

California Girl is a proven defender of Nazi lovers.

And you have just redefined idiocy.

 

[Sallow]

It already has. Idiot.

It is not about the actual information, it is about the leaking of information. If we cannot be trusted to keep other countries secrets, they are not gonna tell us those secrets. Common sense.... unfortunately, you can't buy it on ebay.

Ah my little nazi princess..

If you knew what you were talking about..it might be worth the time to explain why it will not erode trust.

But you don't.

So I won't.

Why dont you explain it to me ?

What exactly do you want explained to you? Seriously?

How diplomacy works?

How diplomats function?

You may first try and understand how diplomats are able to do their job.

And one of the skills sets is not being thrown off balance by this sort of stuff.

 

[Trajan]

You fuckers just cannot stay away from that word can you?

You are a myophic oaf with a smattering of douchebaggishness thrown in for good measure.

California Girl is a proven defender of Nazi lovers.

And you have just redefined idiocy.

its the re-enactors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Run..Run for your life!!!!

 

[jillian]

its the re-enactors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Run..Run for your life!!!!

you're not really going to try to defend the nazi fetishist, are you?

 

[Trajan]

its the re-enactors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Run..Run for your life!!!!

you're not really going to try to defend the nazi fetishist, are you?

you mean the hobbyists who run around the woods in uniforms etc.?

 

[Dr Grump]

She shouldn't have ordered the spying in the first place...shrug.....

why? that's what all governments do. it's kind of an unwritten law. but i think larry sanger, the creator of wikipedia, said it best:

Diplomatic communiqués are secret precisely because they contain information that it would be dangerous, or stupid, to make public. They disclose names and quotations that, for reasons either obvious or quite impossible for us to know, might get people killed. They also contain reports of actions that might lead to serious repercussions. They might even pinpoint locations of secret installations that might come under attack. They recount discussions of important plans and personalities—information that, if known to the wrong people, might lead to various military excursions, including war.

Does that sound acceptable to you? Let's put it this way. Wikileaks' actions, by releasing so much consequential, incendiary information, could easily lead to the deaths of people all around the world, and not just Americans. It could destabilize foreign relations that it benefits no one to have destabilized. It could—probably will not, but given that these are secret diplomatic communiqués in a very complex world, could—lead to war.

I find it incomprehensible that Wikileaks and its defenders are not given pause by such obvious considerations. I find it sad that so many people are not able to grasp such arguments intuitively. Perhaps they ignore them, or perhaps they only pretend that such considerations do not exist.

A comment on Wikileaks - LarrySanger.org

it is against the UN charter. The US is a signatory to the charter.

So let me get this straight - as long as a Yank doesn't break an American law, everything is hunky dory? It's ok to illegally spy, but not to illegally release secret info?

This is half the reason Assange does what he does. Lack of transparency by those in power...

 

[jillian]

it is against the UN charter. The US is a signatory to the charter.

So let me get this straight - as long as a Yank doesn't break an American law, everything is hunky dory? It's ok to illegally spy, but not to illegally release secret info?

This is half the reason Assange does what he does. Lack of transparency by those in power...

his objection isn't the illegality. its the same as when he was hacking people's computers. he a little anarchist brat. self-aggrandizing, nothing more. he's basically saying "look what i can do to maniupulate everyone else".

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You fuckers just cannot stay away from that word can you?

You are a myophic oaf with a smattering of douchebaggishness thrown in for good measure.

California Girl is a proven defender of Nazi lovers.

And you have just redefined idiocy.

Not really, He just lives up to it.

 

[Dr Grump]

it is against the UN charter. The US is a signatory to the charter.

So let me get this straight - as long as a Yank doesn't break an American law, everything is hunky dory? It's ok to illegally spy, but not to illegally release secret info?

This is half the reason Assange does what he does. Lack of transparency by those in power...

his objection isn't the illegality. its the same as when he was hacking people's computers. he a little anarchist brat. self-aggrandizing, nothing more. he's basically saying "look what i can do to maniupulate everyone else".

Other than reading his bio on wikipedia, you have no idea what his motivations are, or why he does it...

 

[JWBooth]

My Christmas wish is that Mr. Assange gets the opportunity to take Ecuador up on their offer.
​

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Ah my little nazi princess..

If you knew what you were talking about..it might be worth the time to explain why it will not erode trust.

But you don't.

So I won't.

Why dont you explain it to me ?

What exactly do you want explained to you? Seriously?

How diplomacy works?

How diplomats function?

You may first try and understand how diplomats are able to do their job.

And one of the skills sets is not being thrown off balance by this sort of stuff.

So the release of diplomats assessments of world leaders and other diplomats embarrassing personal problems and idiosyncrasies that is forcing the state department to offer round the clock apologies will have no effect on trust or diplomacy ?
Ok well Im glad you think so .
What do you think the point of the release is ?

 

[jillian]

it is against the UN charter. The US is a signatory to the charter.

So let me get this straight - as long as a Yank doesn't break an American law, everything is hunky dory? It's ok to illegally spy, but not to illegally release secret info?

This is half the reason Assange does what he does. Lack of transparency by those in power...

his objection isn't the illegality. its the same as when he was hacking people's computers. he a little anarchist brat. self-aggrandizing, nothing more. he's basically saying "look what i can do to maniupulate everyone else".

Other than reading his bio on wikipedia, you have no idea what his motivations are, or why he does it...

we know he was a hacker. and we know what he himself has said. given that no possible good can come from any of this, then his motivation is to hurt and embarrass the U.S.... which, again, does not a bit of good.

it achieves nothing but assange's 15 minutes of fame.

 

[SFC Ollie]

She shouldn't have ordered the spying in the first place...shrug.....

why? that's what all governments do. it's kind of an unwritten law. but i think larry sanger, the creator of wikipedia, said it best:

Diplomatic communiqués are secret precisely because they contain information that it would be dangerous, or stupid, to make public. They disclose names and quotations that, for reasons either obvious or quite impossible for us to know, might get people killed. They also contain reports of actions that might lead to serious repercussions. They might even pinpoint locations of secret installations that might come under attack. They recount discussions of important plans and personalities—information that, if known to the wrong people, might lead to various military excursions, including war.

Does that sound acceptable to you? Let's put it this way. Wikileaks' actions, by releasing so much consequential, incendiary information, could easily lead to the deaths of people all around the world, and not just Americans. It could destabilize foreign relations that it benefits no one to have destabilized. It could—probably will not, but given that these are secret diplomatic communiqués in a very complex world, could—lead to war.

I find it incomprehensible that Wikileaks and its defenders are not given pause by such obvious considerations. I find it sad that so many people are not able to grasp such arguments intuitively. Perhaps they ignore them, or perhaps they only pretend that such considerations do not exist.

A comment on Wikileaks - LarrySanger.org

it is against the UN charter. The US is a signatory to the charter.

So let me get this straight - as long as a Yank doesn't break an American law, everything is hunky dory? It's ok to illegally spy, but not to illegally release secret info?

This is half the reason Assange does what he does. Lack of transparency by those in power...

Perhaps you could possibly point out that Chapter or article which says this. I glanced through the charter and didn't see anything about spying.