Does Wikileaks help the world?

[borrofburi]

Wikileaks have shown the American government to have been lying about the murder of civilians, in one case the government claimed they were killing combatants, but video evidence showed that they were shooting at unarmed civilians. Is this not something the public should know?

Did you actually watch the video? In the video I saw, the pilots were not wrong to be shooting; I know that in the same situation I would have shot. Or are you, as so many others seem to, reacting merely from the emotional factors of a video with the benefit of post-hoc frame by frame analysis and clean identifiers that say "this RPG looking thing is a CAMERA"?

Honestly that you would throw around the term "murderer" for the young adult pilots thousands of miles away from home having spent multiple months being trained to kill (and to like killing so they don't end up with PTSD, or at least don't end up with PTSD until *after* they've gone back home) making a decision that is not as poor as it looks, *especially* after you factor in the fact that their judgment was in real time without large annotations telling them how to process the visual information, lowers my opinion of you an awful lot. You appear to throw around the term "murderer" quite whimsically.

As far as I'm aware the US doesn't appear to have denied the validity of any of the documents. They have also arrested Bradly Manning. Presumably there has been a leak, or there wouldn't be anyone to arrest?

Not seen a single US official deny the legitimacy of the leaks, you'd think that'd be the first thing they'd do.

Did Rakomu murder and rape a girl in 1990? (err, this is a a reference to a meme about glenn beck).... In more clear words: there is neuroscience that indicates that if you deny something people will see it as more legitimate: I mean, after all, why would they bother to deny it unless it's true? See how easy that game is to play? If you don't deny then it's because it's true and you can't deny it; and if you do deny then it's indicative that it's true, after all why would you bother to deny it unless it's true?

 

[borrofburi]

The government does not want the world to know the crimes they committed, that is why it is being suppressed, that is why they DDoS their web servers,

Do you have any evidence that the us government DDOSed wikileaks? The only shred of evidence I saw was of a DoS attack on wikileaks by a single individual. But even that was rather paltry.

Tell me something as to why you doubt its legitimacy when the US government seem to accept that classified information has indeed been published for the world to see?

Honestly, I'm somewhat of a fan of the idea that the CIA leaked this on purpose.

People have every right to be angry because innocents have been slaughtered as a type of sport. I accept that innocents die in war, it is a direct consequence. However when you see footage of soldiers deliberately open fire on civilians for shits and giggles saying "Yeah! lit 'em up." this is not part of war, it is a genuine type of terrorism.

Your concept of war is quite naive. That you're surprised such a thing might happen when we train (using some techniques that verge on brainwashing) young men to be good at killing and to like killing seems to seriously misunderstand what boot camp is for. Moreover, while there may have been civilians present, I hardly see a group of people walking around with AKs as "innocent civilians". Furthermore, of course the children we taught to like killing are enjoying successful killing of what they perceived as enemy combatants.

 

[borrofburi]

Every headline that I have seen basically says "US appologizes and will try harder to keep these things from leaking in the future" which tells me they are sorry about the fact that this stuff leaked, not that they are apologetic about what they did/said.

Every analysis I've seen is "none of this is surprising at all, if you had actually paid attention to the news then you would know pretty much all of this, if in slightly more euphemistic words".

The problem is that documents are being classified in order to hide illegal activities. If the American government could be trusted not to do this then there wouldn't be a problem.

Really? Have any evidence for this conspiracy theory?

 

[Aught3]

Every analysis I've seen is "none of this is surprising at all, if you had actually paid attention to the news then you would know pretty much all of this, if in slightly more euphemistic words".

Agreed, this leak was fairly underwhelming. Wikileaks has done much more interesting work in opening up scandals in Australia and Peru (for example) but the leaks on the US get reported so much more.

 

[Andiferous]

People have every right to be angry because innocents have been slaughtered as a type of sport. I accept that innocents die in war, it is a direct consequence. However when you see footage of soldiers deliberately open fire on civilians for shits and giggles saying "Yeah! lit 'em up." this is not part of war, it is a genuine type of terrorism.

Your concept of war is quite naive. That you're surprised such a thing might happen when we train (using some techniques that verge on brainwashing) young men to be good at killing and to like killing seems to seriously misunderstand what boot camp is for. Moreover, while there may have been civilians present, I hardly see a group of people walking around with AKs as "innocent civilians". Furthermore, of course the children we taught to like killing are enjoying successful killing of what they perceived as enemy combatants.

Matthew does have a point in reference to this sort of scandal. It is unfortunate that the bad example of a few can taint the whole picture.

I'm not entirely sure about what the connection of this point is to WikiLeaks, though.

 

[televator]

The problem is that documents are being classified in order to hide illegal activities. If the American government could be trusted not to do this then there wouldn't be a problem.

A nicely written conspiracy.

Okay well lets suppose that documents weren't classified to hide illegal activities by the gov and Wikileaks is just making up BS stories...What then? How has Wikileaks deserved so much more attention than say another conspiracy nut like Jesse Ventura?

Honestly I think dismissing the validity of of the Wikileaks info outright is the more egregious assumption. There is evidence that supports that Wikileaks has and still does have legitimate informants who leak info to them. Like the American soldier from the Pentagon who got caught and actually corroborated the classified info he leaked to Wikileaks. People are being jailed and government officials are coming down hard. It would seem a bit much for phony baloney stories comparable to fluoride scares and 9-11 conspiracies -- as you seem to equate them. No one is throwing the words "slander" around so much as the word "treason".

 

[lrkun]

Okay well lets suppose that documents weren't classified to hide illegal activities by the gov and Wikileaks is just making up BS stories...What then? How has Wikileaks deserved so much more attention than say another conspiracy nut like Jesse Ventura?

Honestly I think dismissing the validity of of the Wikileaks info outright is the more egregious assumption. There is evidence that supports that Wikileaks has and still does have legitimate informants who leak info to them. Like the American soldier from the Pentagon who got caught and actually corroborated the classified info he leaked to Wikileaks. People are being jailed and government officials are coming down hard. It would seem a bit much for phony baloney stories comparable to fluoride scares and 9-11 conspiracies -- as you seem to equate them. No one is throwing the words "slander" around so much as the word "treason".

I call it a conspiracy because people assume without having ascertained with accuracy if the facts stated or the things mentioned are facts.

It's like saying because it is raining, therefore god wants to drown the earth for the second time. You see, the person to whom I was replying already made his mind.

 

[borrofburi]

I'm not entirely sure about what the connection of this point is to WikiLeaks, though.

From my understanding he was referencing the video that wikileaks leaked where some journalists died (though the journalists were walking with men with AK-47s).

 

[televator]

I'm not entirely sure about what the connection of this point is to WikiLeaks, though.

From my understanding he was referencing the video that wikileaks leaked where some journalists died (though the journalists were walking with men with AK-47s).

To add a little more context, it wasn't just journalists who died. There was also a civilian van, near the end of the event, that was picking up the bodies. Also, the azimuth on the gun sights was off, but it wasn't a concern despite that they opened fire in a residential area where the "targets" were in very close proximity to homes...

I call it a conspiracy because people assume without having ascertained with accuracy if the facts stated or the things mentioned are facts.

It's like saying because it is raining, therefore god wants to drown the earth for the second time. You see, the person to whom I was replying already made his mind.

Well as I think I've demonstrated, there is some basis for it, but if your objection is to people making up their minds preemptively without the basis, I guess it can be said that it's not something I'd encourage.

 

[quantumfireball2099]

Can you provide a link to one such headline?

To answer your question; http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53222020101129

(Reuters) - The White House ordered tighter security on Monday to prevent leaks like the release of more than 250,000 State Department cables that have embarrassed the U.S. government and some of its allies.

The White House, which harshly condemned the release and said the disclosures may endanger U.S. informants abroad, ordered government agencies to tighten procedures for handling classified information.

The new procedures would ensure "that users do not have broader access than is necessary to do their jobs effectively," and would put restrictions on the handling of classified material, according to a directive from the White House Office of Management and Budget released on Monday.

Like I said, it was just the way I was seeing it at the time. I am a US citizen also, and I do love this country, but it's not perfect, not by a long shot.

 

[australopithecus]

Wikileaks strikes me a lot like /b/. It does provide somewhat of a service but then it also seems to be leaking dox just because it can. This is the sum total of attention of I paid to this whole thing.

 

[Andiferous]

Wikileaks strikes me a lot like /b/. It does provide somewhat of a service but then it also seems to be leaking dox just because it can. This is the sum total of attention of I paid to this whole thing.

Actually, I don't find the leaks themselves overly interesting. What I really do find fascinating, though, is response to the leaks. Watching popular and well respected organisations apparently take sides, watching Swiss banks shut down bank accounts :roll: , watching him be charged, again, on rape charges from two ex-lovers who had previously dropped the case. There is something terribly sinister and rather telling about what's happening.

A group in Vancouver has initiated a police investigation into a professor/politician in Canada who made a glib statement on television about assassinating Assange. The actual statement was tongue-in-cheek and the speaker a bit of an idiot, but stuff like that makes me a bit rebellious happy.

Edit: Oh, incidentally , certain journalistic standards in the States have just made an executive decision to stop referring to wikileaks as a whistleblowing site as it is believed that places too much of a positive spin on it. So in conjunctions with articles there is an agreement not to use forms of the word whistleblowing. Holy ravioli. That's insane.

 

[Prolescum]

http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/

Read and refresh.

 

[Mapp]

As a historian, I find Wikileaks to be absolutely fascinating. For one thing, we have never been able to read state department cables from current events. The current declassification of these cables is highly limited and stops in the 1970s. Reading these is, in many ways, akin to being able to interview the subjects as things are happening. You're getting unvarnished opinion. Just that alone gives me an idea for all kinds of projects. Comparitive oral history interviews years from now, compared to these documents for instance. A qualitative study to understand the social psychology of the State Department, an understanding of the current State Department's view of the United States' role within the world.

Even more interesting though, is what the effect of the leaking will be politically. This kind of leak is unprecedented, it makes the Pentagon Papers seem like small potatoes. This also raises interesting issues for historians. How will these releases effect global policy? What is the significance of Assange himself? What does it mean that activists can now, through the help of the internet, rapidly disseminate information to harm large institutions that they have beef with? What will this mean for security? Every time I leave the Library of Congress or the Archives, my bag is searched, but nobody ever searches my thumb drive. Yet clearly the thumb drive is far more dangerous.

I haven't been this excited since the Russians started declassifying the KGB archives.

 

[Andiferous]

So, he's arrested. Paypal, Visa and Mastercard have withdrawn their services which makes donations ridiculously impossible, and his Swiss assets including defense fund have been frozen. I don't think he's going to make bail. Oh wait, they refused him bail. Charming.

 

[RichardMNixon]

The kind of "please attack them" crap in the embassy cables reminds me of how we got into WW1, so I'm somewhat glad it's public, it shouldn't have been going on in the first place.

This is stepping over the line though: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40526224/ns/us_news-security/
How does that help anyone?

 

[borrofburi]

Edit: Oh, incidentally , certain journalistic standards in the States have just made an executive decision to stop referring to wikileaks as a whistleblowing site as it is believed that places too much of a positive spin on it. So in conjunctions with articles there is an agreement not to use forms of the word whistleblowing. Holy ravioli. That's insane.

Do you have a source for that? Not that I don't believe you, just that I already used up my alotted politics searching/reading time for the day, and figured you might have a better idea of how to find it...

 

[televator]

So, he's arrested. Paypal, Visa and Mastercard have withdrawn their services which makes donations ridiculously impossible, and his Swiss assets including defense fund have been frozen. I don't think he's going to make bail. Oh wait, they refused him bail. Charming.

So that's it I'm assuming? The powers that be have smothered it from existence?

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Do you have a source for that? Not that I don't believe you, just that I already used up my alotted politics searching/reading time for the day, and figured you might have a better idea of how to find it...

Here you go:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101206/ts_yblog_thecutline/some-news-outlets-stop-dubbing-wikileaks-a-whistleblower

 

[Andiferous]

"Ramping up his rhetoric on Fox News just now, Senator Joe Lieberman, the head of the Senate's homeland security committee, suggests that the New York Times and other news organisations using the WikiLeaks cables may also be investigated for breaking the US's espionage laws."