Do You Support Wikileaks ?
Offline 
This is a funny rap video here - www.wikileaks.truthispornography.com/Video.html 
Signature ? How ?
- Login to post comments
Offline And Gauche appears to be kicking Tapey's butt.
.
I reject your assertion and validate my self worth with smug superiority.
Btw your main problem with Wikileaks is the same as one of my main points. I can agree that its a waste of time trying to argue they have caused harm. I shall lower that to they are a danger. but then again I did just find this
Last year, early on Christmas Eve morning, representatives from the U.S., United Kingdom, Netherlands, and the European Union arrived for a meeting with Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. Appointed prime minister earlier that year as part of a power-sharing agreement after the fraud- and violence-ridden 2008 presidential election, Tsvangirai and his political party, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), are considered Zimbabwe's greatest hopes for unseating the country's long-time de facto dictator Robert Mugabe and bringing democratic reforms to the country.
The topic of the meeting was the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by a collection of western countries, including the U.S. and E.U. Tsvangirai told the western officials that, while there had been some progress in the last year, Mugabe and his supporters were dragging their feet on delivering political reforms. To overcome this, he said that the sanctions on Zimbabwe "must be kept in place" to induce Mugabe into giving up some political power. The prime minister openly admitted the incongruity between his private support for the sanctions and his public statements in opposition. If his political adversaries knew Tsvangirai secretly supported the sanctions, deeply unpopular with Zimbabweans, they would have a powerful weapon to attack and discredit the democratic reformer.
Later that day, the U.S. embassy in Zimbabwe dutifully reported the details of the meeting to Washington in a confidential U.S. State Department diplomatic cable. And slightly less than one year later, WikiLeaks released it to the world.
The reaction in Zimbabwe was swift. Zimbabwe's Mugabe-appointed attorney general announced he was investigating the Prime Minister on treason charges based exclusively on the contents of the leaked cable. While it's unlikely Tsvangirai could be convicted on the contents of the cable alone, the political damage has already been done. The cable provides Mugabe the opportunity to portray Tsvangirai as an agent of foreign governments working against the people of Zimbabwe. Furthermore, it could provide Mugabe with the pretense to abandon the coalition government that allowed Tsvangirai to become prime minister in 2009.
It's difficult to see this as anything but a major setback for democracy in Zimbabwe. Even if Tsvangirai is not charged with treason, the opponents to democratic reforms have won a significant victory. First, popular support for Tsvangirai and the MDC will suffer due to Mugabe's inevitable smear campaign, including the attorney general's "investigation." Second, the Prime Minister might be forced to take positions in opposition to the international community to avoid accusation of being a foreign collaborator. Third, Zimbabwe's fragile coalition government could collapse completely. Whatever happens, democratic reforms in Zimbabwe are far less likely now than before the leak.
To their supporters, WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange are heroes of the democratic cause. Assange himself has claimed that his organization promotes democracy by strengthening the media. But in Zimbabwe, Assange's pursuit of this noble goal has provided a tyrant with the ammunition to wound, and perhaps kill, any chance for multiparty democracy. Earlier this month, Assange claimed that "not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed" by Wikileaks' practices. This is no longer true, if it ever was.
Any damage to democratic reforms from WikiLeaks likely comes not from malice but naivety. Assange is probably not best described, as Vice President Joe Biden recently put it, a "high-tech terrorist." Rather, he, his organization, and their activist supporters believe that they can promote democracy by making an enemy of secrecy itself. What we're seeing in Zimbabwe, however, is that those methods won't necessarily be without significant collateral damage.
One could say Tsvangirai brought it on himself. That would be true. But wikileaks would be the cause of the trouble however not responsible for it. Put it this way, if wikileaks didn't release it then there would of been no/less trouble (there is always trouble in Zim). There are things better left unreleased.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:The reaction in Zimbabwe was swift. Zimbabwe's Mugabe-appointed attorney general announced he was investigating the Prime Minister on treason charges based exclusively on the contents of the leaked cable. While it's unlikely Tsvangirai could be convicted on the contents of the cable alone, the political damage has already been done. The cable provides Mugabe the opportunity to portray Tsvangirai as an agent of foreign governments working against the people of Zimbabwe. Furthermore, it could provide Mugabe with the pretense to abandon the coalition government that allowed Tsvangirai to become prime minister in 2009.
It's difficult to see this as anything but a major setback for democracy in Zimbabwe. Even if Tsvangirai is not charged with treason, the opponents to democratic reforms have won a significant victory. First, popular support for Tsvangirai and the MDC will suffer due to Mugabe's inevitable smear campaign, including the attorney general's "investigation." Second, the Prime Minister might be forced to take positions in opposition to the international community to avoid accusation of being a foreign collaborator. Third, Zimbabwe's fragile coalition government could collapse completely. Whatever happens, democratic reforms in Zimbabwe are far less likely now than before the leak.One could say Tsvangirai brought it on himself. That would be true. But wikileaks would be the cause of the trouble however not responsible for it. Put it this way, if wikileaks didn't release it then there would of been no/less trouble (there is always trouble in Zim). There are things better left unreleased.
Wait. I see lots of speculation of potential harm, and even presumption that such potential will become actual, but I see no evidence for *actual* harm.
And regardless, your argument appears to be similar to the anti-cartoonist argument re: Mohammed. Some people will react badly if you draw cartoons of Mohammed. Therefore you shouldn't draw cartoons of Mohammed.
Politicians less skilled than Tsvangirai have managed to recover from worse accusations than these. There is no inherently inevitable damage caused by revealing this cable.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline
But yes they are culpable as well, not for what is contained on the documents but for the result of releasing them, good or bad. If they don't deserve the blame for doing something bad why do they deserve credit if the result is good? Why would anyone support them if they didn't believe they were doing good in the world. The people know more about the government, I would say that is a good thing, and wikileaks deserves credit for that. But if 10 people died because of a release by the same token they deserve blame for causing the peoples death. But not being responsible for them dieing because they did not do whatever was written in the document. Hopefully I hope said that clearly, I get the impression you have misunderstood a few times when I said they are to blame.
Well, I'm just going to focus on this because it isnt important to me if they are manipulating public opinion and not knowing their motivations we could only speculate. The issue of whether they have the right to interfere or if it should even be considered interference is deviating too far from my original assertion that your hostility is misplaced or the question if they are somehow blameworthy. Even if they are interfering it really has no bearing on the other.
I think we can agree that we don't know of anything to accuse them of being blameworthy for at this point. I would go a step further and say that even if we did we would not be able to hold them culpable. If you examine their behavior and consider how blame is assessed, what they've done doesn't meet the criteria for even the lowest level of culpability which is negligence.
Negligence is creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm deviating from a standard to which a reasonable person would comform. One need not be conscious of the unreasonable risk as that would result in a higher level of culpability. Simply engaging in activity that can potentially cause harm isn't enough. Virtualy all activity involves risk. Risks only becomes negligent when they are substantial.
This is already problematic because there's no concensus on how great a risk must be to qualify as substantial, but even more so in your case because you have absolutely nothing to cite to establish that there is risk, much less substantial risk. If anyone had been killed. If anyone had been hurt. If anything had happened at all you could refer to that as evidence. As it stands you're coming into this debate with nothing except the assertion that outing informants obviously creates risk which even if true doesn't establish that risk as substantial. I could concede that and you'd really be no closer to proving your point. And I don't even concede that. You really have no way of determining the probability of harm or the likelihood of injury.
Even if you had scant evidence instead of none I could still point to various forms of non-negligent behavior like driving a car that may create more risk and is in many cases less justifiable than wikileaks' behavior to show that your standards for establshing culpability are inconsitent or dubious. And I would have lots of evidence. As it stands I don't even need to do that.
And if you think you're going to prove that no reasonable press organization would leak government secrets that's going to be an uphill battle to say the least. So I doubt you could establish even negligence and certainly no higher level of culpability.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline 
Yep,thank you for pointing that out,and as you say "regardless", exactly. This is a good link www.zcommunications.org/wikileaks-deserves-an-award-by-saul-landau "Congress shall make no law...abridging the Freedom of speech,or the press" 1st Amendment 
Give Wikileaks an Award !!!
Signature ? How ?
- Login to post comments
Offline Tapey wrote:
But yes they are culpable as well, not for what is contained on the documents but for the result of releasing them, good or bad. If they don't deserve the blame for doing something bad why do they deserve credit if the result is good? Why would anyone support them if they didn't believe they were doing good in the world. The people know more about the government, I would say that is a good thing, and wikileaks deserves credit for that. But if 10 people died because of a release by the same token they deserve blame for causing the peoples death. But not being responsible for them dieing because they did not do whatever was written in the document. Hopefully I hope said that clearly, I get the impression you have misunderstood a few times when I said they are to blame.
I think we can agree that we don't know of anything to accuse them of being blameworthy for at this point. I would go a step further and say that even if we did we would not be able to hold them culpable. If you examine their behavior and consider how blame is assessed, what they've done doesn't meet the criteria for even the lowest level of culpability which is negligence.
Negligence is creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm deviating from a standard to which a reasonable person would comform. One need not be conscious of the unreasonable risk as that would result in a higher level of culpability. Simply engaging in activity that can potentially cause harm isn't enough. Virtualy all activity involves risk. Risks only becomes negligent when they are substantial.
This is already problematic because there's no concensus on how great a risk must be to qualify as substantial, but even more so in your case because you have absolutely nothing to cite to establish that there is risk, much less substantial risk. If anyone had been killed. If anyone had been hurt. If anything had happened at all you could refer to that as evidence. As it stands you're coming into this debate with nothing except the assertion that outing informants obviously creates risk which even if true doesn't establish that risk as substantial. I could concede that and you'd really be no closer to proving your point. And I don't even concede that. You really have no way of determining the probability of harm or the likelihood of injury.
Even if you had scant evidence instead of none I could still point to various forms of non-negligent behavior like driving a car that may create more risk and is in many cases less justifiable than wikileaks' behavior to show that your standards for establshing culpability are inconsitent or dubious. And I would have lots of evidence. As it stands I don't even need to do that.
And if you think you're going to prove that no reasonable press organization would leak government secrets that's going to be an uphill battle to say the least. So I doubt you could establish even negligence and certainly no higher level of culpability.
I will agree to move the concentrate on this part, anything further on the other stuff would just be pointless.
If you are talking about a legal sense then I am in 100% agreement. I was using culpable in the non legal sense simply meaning deserving blame or censure; blameworthy. As you seemed to mean it when you asked and clarified that you meant "worthy of blame". There certainly isn't enough proven risk to put them in jail on any charge related to people getting hurt. But just because that condition isn't met doesn't mean they are not blameworthy, just not enough to convict.
Here is how I see it
Here is a timeline
Document created containing the identities of informants --> sent to the USA --> stolen and sent to wikileaks --> Published by wikileaks --> seen by the taliban --> 5 informants are killed
Who is to blame for there deaths or who is responsible if you prefer?
I think we both agree without anyone of these steps the 5 people do not die.
Does the USA government deserve blame for creating the document? No, they need to keep track of them and have no reason to expect the taliban to see them.
The person who stole them? It depends on whether he knew of the existance of this particular document and if he had the intention of stealing this document with the intent of having it published. I personly do not believe he had just cause to steal the document in the first place and that does not help his cause.
Wikileaks, what cause do they have for realsing the identities of informants? Even if I grant that wikileaks is a good thing, a document of this nature is of no use to the public. So there is no reward for the risk revealing informants carries. There is no justifacation for releasing it.
The Talban, guilty as sin.
Now I chose this example because as it turns out wikileaks did release the names of afghan informants and given that this kind of infomation was in the document
- a 2008 report that includes a detailed interview with a Taliban fighter considering defection and ends with "[t]he meeting ended with [named person] agreeing to meet intel personnel." Both his father's name and village are also included in the report;
- a report that read "[named person] said he would be killed if he got caught interacting with any coalition forces, which is why he hides when we go into [named location]".
It was highly inappropriate to release the document. It might even be negligant as you discribed above but I won't argue for that. Did wikileaks read over this before they released it? I don't know I even want to doubt they did. No known person has died because of this leak though.
So lets recap, no reason for releasing names of informants, the document itself states the risk of what will happen if he was found out. Despite that now one is known to have died i'm sure you can admit that had someone died that wikileaks would have been blame worthy for that death. I'm not going to argue that they would be culpable in a legal sense. All I wish to establish at this point is at this point is that
One - releasing that document was risky based on the contents of the documents.
Two - they had no reason to release this particular document.
Three - had people died based on the last two points people would be justified at being angry at wikileaks and that they would be blameworthy based on the risk.
Four - ignorance to the contents of the document does not absolve you of the blame (this I believe is even in the legal part of being culpable as long as the risk is great enough).
I don't see a way around this (except on the risk, i will deal with that now) so I will assume that you agree, if not just point out why.
Now the obvious flaw here is that no one died. so how do I establish substantial risk? here is how
The paper also found that a man killed by the Taliban two years ago after being suspected of spying for American forces was named in the logs and described as "highly pro-Government of Afghanistan and Coalition Forces. He should be taken seriously in his claims of insurgent knowledge." Another report gave the names, father's names, tribe, village and GPS co-ordinates for homes of individual villagers while stating that "[named person] wanted to help us as much as possible... [but] they were afraid that the people in the next village would see them talking to Americans."
This describes a man named in the released documents. So a man was killed for being a suspected informant admittedly this was before the release. This does not matter. It establishes within reasonable doubt that people want informants dead. Add to the fact that it is common knowledge that the taliban kills informants. I think it is safe to say there was substancial risk in releasing this particular document. Once again I'm not trying to prove they are culpable in a legal sense but I will attempt to get it as close to that level as I can as it is.
Here is yet more showing that there was in fact subsantial risk
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/07/30/2010-07-30_taliban_in_afghanistan_says_they_will_target_informants_outed_by_wikil...
Based on the fact that it is common knowledge that the taliban wants informants dead I don't feel the need to find a case before release of an informant being killed, but im sure I can if you really insist.
As far as i'm aware there doesn't have to be any harm to be found negligant even in a legal sense as long as certain conditions are met. Even if those conditions are not met in this case I really am not bothered because im not trying to prove they are legally culpable. But rather they are blameworthy for the result of their actions. In this case they would be culpable for the risk put on those afghan informants. Truely I could of said a lot less to get to this point but I had free time and well I want to show that they deserve blame for there actions as you asked. I did find it strange that you asked, I mean we are all responsible for the results of our actions after all and that includes being worthy of blame, its part of being responsible for our actions.
Now you will likely find this a bit luke warm. But as I originally said
But yes they are culpable as well, not for what is contained on the documents but for the result of releasing them, good or bad. If they don't deserve the blame for doing something bad why do they deserve credit if the result is good? Why would anyone support them if they didn't believe they were doing good in the world. The people know more about the government, I would say that is a good thing, and wikileaks deserves credit for that. But if 10 people died because of a release by the same token they deserve blame for causing the peoples death. But not being responsible for them dieing because they did not do whatever was written in the document.
I said they are culpable for the result of releasing the documents, good or bad. This does not mean only if there is physical harm. You are quite right I cannot point to a case where there has been physical harm, but I don't need to. I really cannot see how you can argue that they do not deserve blame for putting increased risk on the informants. But if you can feel free to point it out.
Now as to whether they are culpable in general for there actions. After all this is a rather one time affair and not representative of the things they release most of the time. Well as I see it this sets a president. Just because the harm may be less or even if there is some good achieved they are still culpable i guess responsible is a better word if good is achieved. This is how I established they were responsible
One - releasing that document was risky based on the contents of the documents.
Two - they had no reason to release this particular document.
Three - (result) based on the last two points people would be justified at being angry at wikileaks and that they would be blameworthy based on the risk.
Four - ignorance to the contents of the document does not absolve you of the blame
True 99% of their documents just don't make sense in this context. But I don't need to show that they are culpable for every single document ever released. This works for anything bad that occurs as a result. For anything good i would say
One - releasing the document was not risky
Two - There was reason to release the document
Three - based on the last two point "good resulted" and they are worthy of praise for making the public aware of this knowledge
Four - Ignorance lessens the praise you deserve (you really are not worth of praise if you don't know what you are releasing, well not as worthy)
I'm sure you are not as concerned or concerned at all about whether or not wikileaks deserves praise in the same way you are about whether they are blameworthy for the purpose of your post. But the two must go hand in hand.
Based on this I feel i'm justified in saying they are culpable for the results of releasing documents. Not in any legal sense (as that is not my position) but I have tried to get as close to what you were looking for while sticking to what I think.
Sorry I cannot help this but just to your original point
"if you don't like it your hostility towards wikileaks would be misplaced. Instead you should be angry at the US government for being incompetent when it comes to keeping their dirty secrets secret."
I wouldn't say i'm hostile to them, I just do not support them dispite recognising they do do some good things. As to if people in generals anger is misplaced, totally depends on who they are. Obama's anger is no doubt not misplaced for his situation 
and I'm not going to argue about this point.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
Offline Tapey wrote:Quote:The reaction in Zimbabwe was swift. Zimbabwe's Mugabe-appointed attorney general announced he was investigating the Prime Minister on treason charges based exclusively on the contents of the leaked cable. While it's unlikely Tsvangirai could be convicted on the contents of the cable alone, the political damage has already been done. The cable provides Mugabe the opportunity to portray Tsvangirai as an agent of foreign governments working against the people of Zimbabwe. Furthermore, it could provide Mugabe with the pretense to abandon the coalition government that allowed Tsvangirai to become prime minister in 2009.
It's difficult to see this as anything but a major setback for democracy in Zimbabwe. Even if Tsvangirai is not charged with treason, the opponents to democratic reforms have won a significant victory. First, popular support for Tsvangirai and the MDC will suffer due to Mugabe's inevitable smear campaign, including the attorney general's "investigation." Second, the Prime Minister might be forced to take positions in opposition to the international community to avoid accusation of being a foreign collaborator. Third, Zimbabwe's fragile coalition government could collapse completely. Whatever happens, democratic reforms in Zimbabwe are far less likely now than before the leak.One could say Tsvangirai brought it on himself. That would be true. But wikileaks would be the cause of the trouble however not responsible for it. Put it this way, if wikileaks didn't release it then there would of been no/less trouble (there is always trouble in Zim). There are things better left unreleased.
Wait. I see lots of speculation of potential harm, and even presumption that such potential will become actual, but I see no evidence for *actual* harm.
And regardless, your argument appears to be similar to the anti-cartoonist argument re: Mohammed. Some people will react badly if you draw cartoons of Mohammed. Therefore you shouldn't draw cartoons of Mohammed.
Politicians less skilled than Tsvangirai have managed to recover from worse accusations than these. There is no inherently inevitable damage caused by revealing this cable.
Should we not be concerned about potential harm then? Should we not be concerned when wikileaks names and gives the locations of afghan informants. The fact that none of them are know to have been killed as a result is almost irrelevant to me. Besides everything else I might of said releasing these documents like the one detailed by my previous quote, revealing afghan informants is just not the right thing to do. If they are not doing the right thing all the time now, what makes you think they will do the right thing when they actually have something major.
The differance is there was reason for the draw mohhammed rubbish. It was childish and I don't support it based on better courses of action but I don't oppose it. I mean it was a poor way to go about trying to get them to be more tolerant about it, a pretty good way to show them you just don't care about offending them if it defends free speech. But there was a point behind it all, a justifacation defending free speech. I have no problem with the releases that do not put people at risk hell i can understand if there is justification. But ones like the Zim one and the one revealing afghan informants are without reason, I don't think you can say oh its to defend free speech or media freedom, but you are free to argue that the media has the right to tell the world who is informing by there own choice and under the condition of it being a secret, i'l admit less so with the Zim case but even so aiding dictators is really not an enviable thing even if you do think you are defending media freedom by releasing that document. But I really don't think you have a case. The same goes for free speech. I really cannot think of any justification for realeasing these kind of documents.
The fact that others have recovered from worse is not a reason wikileaks is ok for releasing them. I'm going to tell that guy you slept with his girlfriend but its ok because less skilled men have avoided being punched in the face.
Just because I cannot point to people getting hurt does not somehow justify wikileaks actions. They are irresponsible.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
Offline 
That link is not working,it's missing ? NY daily news. 
- Login to post comments
Offline
I said they are culpable for the result of releasing the documents, good or bad. This does not mean only if there is physical harm. You are quite right I cannot point to a case where there has been physical harm, but I don't need to. I really cannot see how you can argue that they do not deserve blame for putting increased risk on the informants. But if you can feel free to point it out.
The documents that you're talking about were submitted to the Pentagon for review by wikileaks. I already talked about that. I said they redacted hundreds of names. Those were the Pentagon's redactions. Then the information was printed in the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel.
The Pentagon has been engaged in a balancing act claiming that everyone is in danger now, but at the same time they can't admit that anyone has been hurt because they're responsible for the redactions not wikileaks. I assure you they will milk that until it sounds stupid. To me it already sounds stupid because too much time has passed. All these people are in grave peril their murderers are just really slow.
Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell:"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents,"
Defense Secretary Robert Gates:“the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure.”
So how are you going to establish that wikileaks created a substantial risk that no reasonable person would when it's the US government that named those people and the major newspapers that broke the story? You can't establish any degree of culpability at all, legal, moral, or otherwise.
Beyond that it needs to be unjustified, but they had very good reasons for releasing those documents. In those documents was revealed that coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline
Tapey wrote:I said they are culpable for the result of releasing the documents, good or bad. This does not mean only if there is physical harm. You are quite right I cannot point to a case where there has been physical harm, but I don't need to. I really cannot see how you can argue that they do not deserve blame for putting increased risk on the informants. But if you can feel free to point it out.The documents that you're talking about were submitted to the Pentagon for review by wikileaks. I already talked about that. I said they redacted hundreds of names. Those were the Pentagon's redactions. Then the information was printed in the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel.
The Pentagon has been engaged in a balancing act claiming that everyone is in danger now, but at the same time they can't admit that anyone has been hurt because they're responsible for the redactions not wikileaks. I assure you they will milk that until it sounds stupid. To me it already sounds stupid because too much time has passed. All these people are in grave peril their murderers are just really slow.
Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell:"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents,"
Defense Secretary Robert Gates:“the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure.”
So how are you going to establish that wikileaks created a substantial risk that no reasonable person would when it's the US government that named those people and the major newspapers that broke the story? You can't establish any degree of culpability at all, legal, moral, or otherwise.
Beyond that it needs to be unjustified, but they had very good reasons for releasing those documents. In those documents was revealed that coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents.
I'm not going to argue
All i'm going to ask is this then, do wikileaks deserve credit for the any good releasing documents has caused?
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm not going to argue
All i'm going to ask is this then, do wikileaks deserve credit for the any good releasing documents has caused?
Well, then do they deserve credit for proving that there are extrajudicial executions in Kenya? That companies have spilled millions of gallons of nasty chemicals all over the world?
Seriously, some perspective is clearly in order on this. Wikileaks has told the world about a whole crap load of stuff that is pretty bad. Sure, they made a big splash with the Afghan war logs. After that, they drew heat from the US govt and the diplomatic cables did not much help matters. Here I will go with BobSpence1's idea that people who pretty much don't even try to hide the stuff that they don't want going public need to rethink how they operate.
Do I support them? Well provisionally yes. However, they are a kind of shadowy organization. We don't even know who most of them are or what the agenda really is. That is pretty creepy in my book. But consider, what if some government does lock up Julian Assange? Will that stop wikileaks from operating as normal?
Remember that there are other unknown people behind this and they have a few dozen mirror servers scattered around the world. All of them are running code such that they update from each other so that killing one server only tells them to put up two more. Somewhere, there is probably a secret network of master servers from which the list of the public servers can be updated as need be.
What if the core group is found and shut down? Will that stop matters? Probably not. There are over 1,000 servers mirroring the thing and maintained by anonymous. Granted, anonymous does not have a strong track record of maintaining efforts over the long haul but these are servers we are talking about. As long as there are people who do not act specifically to stop what they are doing, then the servers will remain live.
If the wikileak servers are properly coded, then the volunteer mirrors will be contacting them for updates and they are also being listed by the backup network such that it is improbable for wikileaks to go away even if all of the main systems are found and nuked. Speaking of nukes, supposedly, some of the servers are actually located in what used to be clod war era facilities, now sold off as surplus, so even actual nukes might not get to them.
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."
=
- Login to post comments
Offline I just watched the video. I thought I'd embed it because it was really good.
- Login to post comments
Offline ...and just as relevant as ever during election year.
20:20 hindsight conveys that this leak amounted (as Beyond has conveyed) to be little more than embarrassing political info about how federal gov behaves itself in the international arena. I can't say I personally approve of what any of the involved parties have done, in this case, and I don't have to pick one-or-the-other, either. At that, I can't precisely tally up the biiiiggg public service Jules has done for the world except convey numerous international activities that have been hijacked from fighting a "War on Terror" back to Nixon's original "War on Drugs" to yet just another excuse to babysit the entire world. TSA, Patriot Act, FBI, DEA and various other espionage-, intel-, and law enforcement-related entities have had their original missions hijacked to the point they are beyond recognition when compared to (at least, what I currently perceive to be) their original intents. J Edgar Hoover is doing back-flips in his grave over what is being done in the name of "national security".
Ladies and gentlemen, "national security" has become a single-issue vote topic which is now a joke that has come at mountainous taxpayer's expense. It's ironic to me, because in the past, if I suggest on some of the more right-wing oriented portions of the web that we have bigger fish to fry than some radical militants scattered across the globe that couldn't even shoot spitballs at us (meaning civilians on domestic soil) if they wanted, much less bombs or bullets, I'm public enemy #1. There's also the issue of how many of us Americans will vote for someone simply because of their public displays of devout Christian faith, but I'll save that for a different thread.
So (like the beginning of last year) file me under a clear-and-cut ambivalent. What have the leaks told anyone not involved in partisan US politics that wasn't already known or suspected in general terms? Not much, I imagine.
Well, then do they deserve credit for proving that there are extrajudicial executions in Kenya? That companies have spilled millions of gallons of nasty chemicals all over the world?
Proving? Environmentally harmful stuff dumped into the ocean and spewed into the atmosphere is actually pretty easy to detect, just not from where specifically. Governments killing people in sub-Saharan Africa? I'm *SHOCKED*! SHOCKED, I tell you! I don't know what you are referring to exactly in either case, but I feel it's a fairly safe bet that it wasn't a pioneering or a particularly noteworthy move on wikileak's behalf. Wikileaks is not, IMO, an irreplaceable organization. There are zillions of political entities scattered around the globe that are equally if not more so anti-US government than Wikileaks. No group of significance is going to miss wikileaks or Assange should they up and disappear, one day. 5 years later in such a hypothetical, my guess is that another organization fills their niche. 10 years later... "Julian who?". Jules was pretty lucky to have Manning contact him and not some other yellow press group.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline 
Well.., of course Wikileaks can be replaced, but it is ignorant to say that Wikileaks didn't change History, after all it was a story released by Wikileaks that started the Tunisa Revolution, which in turn set the Middle East of fire, which then spread to the Occupy Movement.
Signature ? How ?
- Login to post comments
Im just going to answer the question in the title.
No
Yes, with some slight reservations.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Yes... But with some major reservations.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
YEs
I guess there are a few things which I can agree with them on, its not like I see them as pure evil or the people who support them as crazy. I agree the public has a right to know some of the things that get released by them (please note im not talking about those cables, that is just petty nonsense for the most part). That said i feel they go about it in the wrong way. There goals are murky at best, all I can gather is that they are anti secrecy.
The thing is they are just like who they criticize. They want transparency yet there own organisation is anything but transparent. From the funders to the people in it to there plans. I realise this is somewhat out of necessity but the fact remains. They take it on themselves to decide what the public has a right to know just like those they criticize. They are exactly what they fight.
If they brought some measure of transparency to there own organisation and didn't play god with the secret they get a hold of I might support them. There are legitimate reasons for having things classfied. Most classified things are needlessly so and should be made public but there are those that should remain a secret for a reason.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I'm more with Rich Wood at post #3 and Tapey at post #5.
They managed to get thousands of secrete documents direct from a war zone; to say that infomation can cost lives with irresponsible release is an UNDERSTATMENT!!
The people responsible for writing those documents, are accountable to their elected bosses. The elected bosses will be held to account on the next election date. Who the fuck elected that Australian asshole to anything? How would you like to be in a frontline post, a foxhole, with Assange and his brown-noseing sychophants in control of info that can get you killed.
Its over 10,000 documents, from a war zone don't tell me it is all ' just innocuous E mails' . We can appeal to his humanity and decency to be responsible, but I don't think Crazy Juli has any.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Just a small point - wars can also start, costly mistakes can be made, due to lack of information leading to incorrect assumptions, so more openness can work both ways.
My main worry is that it seems reasonable that some preliminary discussion of how to a conduct sensitive diplomatic activity needs to be sorted out in private, without the worry of who might get to hear it.
Anyone transmitting military operation plans on a less than maximum security link would be the problem in other cases that have been raised. If some group like Wikileaks could get to them, its their problem, and Wikileaks is doing everyone a service by forcing them to realize they need to tighten up.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Sure, it's a public service but even if you don't like it your hostility towards wikileaks would be misplaced. Instead you should be angry at the US government for being incompetent when it comes to keeping their dirty secrets secret. Also Assange made surfraw which I really like so I don't want to say anything bad about him.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
So if a criminal breaks into your house I should blame you and not the criminal or the guy who sells the stolen goods? Granted its not a direct comparasion as wikileaks don't steal them it's self rather others do that and have them sent to them.
Let me ask you this. I have stolen some documents that if released could potentially cause the death of several people and I gave these documents to you and said do what you want with them. Are you not also at least partially responsible if you release these documents knowing that people might die?
Not that I know of any deaths because of releases but the concept is the same. Just because the USA government should keep them under a bigger lock doesn't remove responsibility from wikileaks. Wikileaks is well aware of what it is releasing, they share the responsibility of any damage it causes. Beyond this, they enable and actively promote the crime (stealing classified documents in this case) by enabling distrabution. The same way a fence for stolen goods enables thieves. No matter how you look at it lumping all the blame on the USA government is just not sound.
So sure be angry at te USA government all you want but that doesn't absolve wikileaks of its responsibility.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
To your first point, granted. But sadly irrelevant to the point of the post.
oh naturally lies to get into wars, no question. But it is irrelevant. Its doesn't absolve wikileaks of responsibility of whatever it has caused by releasing documents. Neither will it make the government more open. It's more likely to make the USA government more determined to hide certain things. Anyone who truely cares about this might get mad about that. It is just the wrong way to go about the problem.
I have already agreed that infomation that is in the public benefit to be pulbic should be made public. My only concern in this area is that wikileaks has no discresion in this area. They have appionted themselves worthy of deciding what the public needs to know the same way governments have except they are private individuals that are not under mandate of the voting public. They chose themselves and are not representative of the publics will because once again they have decided for themselves what the public needs to know. At least with the government you have recourse to correct the problem with wikileaks you personally have none and governments have very little. If you want to make the government more open you make a stink about it and eventualy a candidate will pick up on it and promise it in the next election. it's how things change, democracy is there for a reason. An outside group playing god is not the solution while there is still recourse to the situation within the system.
I cannot support a group like that. While I wouldn't say i'm mad at wikileaks i'm no more mad at the USA government.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Since according to you wikileak should be held responsible for "whatever it has caused by releasing documents" and since you don't know of a single death or any actual negative consequence at all the only thing you can hold them responsible for at this point is apparently trying to prevent deaths.
Criminals will always attempt to hide their crimes and there is really nothing that can be done about that so it's beside the point.
That's an outlandish accusation, no press organization is elected. Whistleblowers in government thought that citizens should know about wrongdoing and wikileaks in an attempt to ensure freedom to hold opinions without interference did impart the information to others. It's called free press.
How do you think democracy will function without free press and whistleblowers exposing corruption? You can't have recourse to correct problems with your government that you don't know about. I mean you are aware that governments may claim transparency but it may not actually be true?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
from the point of view of local and federal government corruption.
I don't support the release of documents that might compromise military personnel. Tho' I tend not to support the current war, either.
Many of the leaks are just opinions of countries about other countries. I am ambivalent to these 'leaks'.
I guess if journalism was true rather than a business there's be less need for leaks.
The public has a right to know if it's being lied to or being manipulated - manipulated into a war on 'WMDs' for instance.
Politics is such a vile morass it's hard not to feel that any glimmer of truth we can get through the smoke is a bonus.
Politicians have shown over and over again that they are not to be trusted. In matter of domestic management, fuck them. Expose everything.
In matters military - protect frontline personnel.
In all cases and in the case of all nations expose legitimate abuses - including by the military.
And hide your fucking servers, Julian.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Yes, for the most part.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Once again I'm not trying to claim USA governments innocence. If people got hurt by releasing those documents wikileaks is responsible. If good came from releasing them then they are responsible for that as well. Can you point me towards any corruption wikileaks has exposed, I won't claim it doesn't exist but I must ask if corruption is illegal where is the outcry to get people arrested? If what they did was inside the law, where is the outcry to get the law changed? I see plenty of tea parties but nothing much as a result of wikileaks. The thing is even if wikileaks found a document saying we invaded iraq only for oil and because Bush wanted to follow in daddies foot steps and because they wanted to be dicks. Whatever, basically what everyone suspects. It would cost lives if released, not save lives. It would make people want to pull out even sooner, likely before the country was able to stand on its own 2 feet again and would collapse. Regardless of the lies told to get there now there there is only one course of action which is acceptable, stay the course.As to stop future lies to prevent wars, sorry thats just not going to happen. As you put it "Criminals will always attempt to hide their crimes and there is really nothing that can be done about that so it's beside the point." Only creating change from within the system will prevent future needless wars. All that wikileaks does is reveal what is happening in the current system, it cannot change it.
yes they will, and thats exactly why wikileaks is the wrong way to go about dealing with the problem
Oh so nothing should ever be classified? lets release all the names of everyone around the world helpnig the USA government. Lets release infomation that if released will get people killed. They do not have the right to release that kind of infomation. I have already said most of the stuff is 100% fine, its in the public good and that is not my concern. The reason im concerned about not being elected is because of there lack of discretion. They are not accountable for there actions. I support a free press but there has to be some sort of ombudsman. As long as there is that it is not a concern about lack of election.
I refer you to the lack of an ombudsman. I am well aware governments claim transparency and are often not. But the issue is not government being in the wrong, but wikileaks also being in the wrong as im not trying to defend the USA government. The fact that they are trying to correct government behaviour is irrelevant to this fact. They go about it in the wrong way.
Let me use these released cables a an example. Wikileaks obviously wants that sort of thing made public all the time. This is not in the public good. If they were it would prevent honest comunications or at least watered down infomation from embasises. As this infomation would be readily avaliable to the countries them selves and backlash from the public who may be biased to certain countries would endanger there jobs of the people who write up these reports. People who support countries in the the Middle east may object to calling someone there incompitant, irrelvent to the truth of the statement. This limits the governments knowledge of what is going on in these countries makeing informed decision impossible. Without an ombudsman wikileaks is free to do this. The truth is governments need the facts not watered down public opinion to make decisions. As much as the public wants to know these things it is against there own interest. Yes wikileaks has realesed things the public should know as well but this is the inconsistancy you get from an organistion that is not accountable for its actions. If you are going to do something do it right. To do it right you need accountablity or everyone is just at there mercy.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Those people are already in harms way because of the corruption of others and that's relevant. As I said there's a difference between revealing secrets to help enemies and doing it to expose government lies. You blame the well-intentioned for the harm cause by those with ill intent.
The leaks came from within the system from whistleblowers.
An ombudsman is appointed and they may be derelict in their duties or corrupt themselves. No one can be elected to decide what facts you can know about the world or mold your perception of reality. That's a basic human right of each individual.
Wikileaks redacted names of people they thought might be in danger, and again you can't cite a single case of anyone being killed or harmed in any way.
There's no ombudsman in the US and even if there was it wouldn't alleviate personal responsibility to expose corruption or the need for a free press. People in a democracy have a right to a participatory role in their government and for that they must be informed.
You seem to have a very warped view of the purpose of government, as if it is a mediator between the citizen and reality or a ruler of some kind instead of a servant.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Oh yes we all have the potential to harm others but my potential to cause harm and wikileaks potential are not the same. If if do something that causes harm I am accountable, wikileaks has no accountability as they are an outside force.
Wikileaks think they have the right don't they? So because an ombudsman might be corrupt the solution is to have none? Wikileaks might be corrupt, solution they shouldn't be one. The government might be corrupt, they shouldn't exist
That little fact explains a whole lot about american media, it's a mess. Yes you have a right to participate, what don't you know that limits that ability? well since you cannot state what you don't know because you don't know what you don't know. What has wikileaks released that was previously limiting your ability to participate in government? Btw you have a free press regardless of wikileaks. Whatever responsibility to fight corruption you feel you have does not give you the right to go outside of the law to fight it. What wikileaks is doing is interfereing with the running of a sovereign nation with a government elected by the people, a government with the will of the people behind it. If the people have a problem with how the government is run then they must challenge the government. The government is meant to "serve" them right? People a have a responsibility to keep there government in check or fight corruption as you say. The government does not serve wikileaks, they are an outside force and have no place interfereing as long as the USA government is still backed by the people. There have been many polls about number of Americans that support wikileaks and it seems most are against them. This alone makes wikileaks interfereing wrong. They are not even citizens and they decide for an entire nation. Granted a poll isn't proof most Americans are against wikileaks but its the best we have.
The purpose of a government is to protect it's citizens. That is its primary purpose and sometimes that goes against the publics wishes. Speed camera's are a nice example. Any other answer is unacceptable. Saying they are meant to be servants is over simpifying the purpose of the government. Yes the government is meant to serve the people but it's not as simple as letting everyone do what they want.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
When you say "accountable" and "responsible" I take that to mean culpable as in deserving of blame and if that's your point I'd prefer to focus on that because I don't believe they are culpable.
In my opinion there should be governments and mediators that never fail but that isn't what exists in reality. I don't think wikileaks is molding anyone's perception of reality but it depends on how you look at it. As I see it if someone tells you the truth about a situation then the truth is just what it is. I wouldn't necessarily call that manipulation.
You throw out a lot of unrelated points and I'm not going to address them all and there was some confusing language in there that I didn't really undertand. There were many things revealed in those leaks that concern the US electorate. One example is the now evidenced long term results of using certain types of munitions. Not only does that effect ones ability to participate in government ie. petitioning government to ban use of those munitions, it also effects their ability to continue living as military personnel are exposed and they are tested in proving grounds in the US.
Even if people in the US do not support wikileaks, which remains to be seen, there are still other people in the world. The US as a nation has no special right to cause harm even with the approval of its citizens.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I'm not really a huge supporter of them but neither am I on the warpath against them. And no one can point to any deaths caused by wikileaks because none have been caused by them. They basically got a hold of a bunch of embarrassing information but apparently do not have any truly important information (such as troop locations, names of spies etc.) Yes, it is the governments job to keep secret information secret but I think it is very healthy to have an active media that works hard to get that "secret" information. It is always concerning when the government lies to us and it is good for the government to believe that all information will become public eventually. So if wikileaks releases continue to simply be embarrassments for our government I have no problem. If wikileaks is getting it, no doubt every major spy agency in the world can as well and we might as well know about it too. If they start getting really important information such as technology secrets, troop locations and such than it becomes a very different story.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I support Wikileaks in principle, and so far it has acted reasonably. But the main problem is that they don't have a sufficient self-government to protect the public from abuses of power *within* Wikileaks itself.
It's the classic Benevolent Dictator problem. Sure, it's nice when there's a benevolent dictator who does all the right things and makes everything work for the greater good, but what happens when the dictator turns nasty, or quits, or abdicates, or dies? What guarantee is there that the next dictator is going to be benevolent?
There is obvious public benefit to having available an organization which responsibly provides third-party accountability via exposing corruption and incompetence in gov'ts, corporations, and other institutions. So, there is obviously a benefit that Wikileaks has the potential to provide. However, they desperately need to develop a self-regulating internal organization that does not depend on any small number of particular individuals to maintain.
And Gauche appears to be kicking Tapey's butt.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
no I mean accountable in this case. They answer to themsleves. I have to face the law If I do wrong. If wikileaks does wrong then who do they answer to? They police themselves.
But yes they are culpable as well, not for what is contained on the documents but for the result of releasing them, good or bad. If they don't deserve the blame for doing something bad why do they deserve credit if the result is good? Why would anyone support them if they didn't believe they were doing good in the world. The people know more about the government, I would say that is a good thing, and wikileaks deserves credit for that. But if 10 people died because of a release by the same token they deserve blame for causing the peoples death. But not being responsible for them dieing because they did not do whatever was written in the document. Hopefully I hope said that clearly, I get the impression you have misunderstood a few times when I said they are to blame.
by so far only going after USA secrets they are molding peoples perception in a certain way. By releasing mainly negative things they are molding peoples perception. By realeasing everything they have which probably not the entire picture they are molding peoples perception in a certain way. I do think they are trying to lower public opinion of the USA the war and other things. This is molding people perceptions. You can manipulate people with the truth, infact that is the best way to do it, you just don't tell people the entire truth, just bits of it. Whether wikileaks is manipulating people or not I don't know let alone if they realise they may be doing it. But you cannot argue against them molding peoples perceptions. Anyone with a cause is trying to mold peoples perception to agree with them.
But the main point I want to make here is this. Wikileaks while telling the truth does not tell the entire truth, this probably is out of not being able to get a hold of everything involved. But this does change how people see something. Is that manipulation? im hesitant to call it that.
I shall grant then that there are things the USA government should be telling its citizens, which I think I have said in every post thus far.
Not that this gives wikileaks the right to interfere. The fact that the USA causes harm around the world does not give wikileaks the right to interfere. Do I have the right to interfere with pakistan because I don't think they should have nuclear weapons?. Private individuals deciding for a nation is not a good thing. People should have a right to chose what they want. If you do not respect the rights of sovereign nations then it is clear why you support wikileaks. We have international organisations like the UN to manage the international community. A private organisation like wikileaks is not the answer.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.