|
I see myself as a very liberal person politically and I think that fox news would probably label me as a socialist or a communist and certainly a baby murderer but I think this new leak is absolute bullshit. It serves no purpose, it hasnt saved any lives or uncovered abuses like the last leak, it does nothing to make the world a better place but infact destabalizes it.
I get that it is a crappy system and it would be great to look at this from a liberal point of view and see this as morally right but it isnt how the world works. We live in a realist world and secret agreements, diplomacy, special relationships with morally corrupt governments; are all part of the international system. This was how the Cold War was kept cold and is just the cost of doing business in a realist system. The desire of certain arab countries to bomb Iran will be on Al Jazzera and will be presented or construed as collusion which undermines the regimes of friendly governments and potentially affects the stability of these countries. Any gain made by democratic elements particualarly in Saudi Arabia is potentially disastrous.
The international community relies on the confidentiality of discussion and a certain amount of goodwill with the diplomatic core. Nothing good comes from these leaks, and the only repercusions I can see is a breakdown in diplomatic discussion between countries that need good communication now more than ever.
This is the way the world works and I dont want it made less safe because of this website no matter how noble its motives are.
|
On November 30 2010 12:07 wunsun wrote:
On the other hand, some things should be kept secret. Things that can cause harm to my country and citizens should be kept secret. They should now be known. For the 57th time: pentagon officials themselves have admitted that wikileaks tried to contact them to remove any names they felt would put lives in danger. Pentagon refused.
On November 30 2010 12:08 Tralan wrote:
Nothing good comes from these leaks Many different independent researches are pointing that the approval of the war by US people is taking large drops at each wikileak leak. Something good has already came from these leaks.
|
On November 30 2010 12:10 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 12:07 wunsun wrote:On the other hand, some things should be kept secret. Things that can cause harm to my country and citizens should be kept secret. They should now be known. For the 57th time: pentagon officials themselves have admitted that wikileaks tried to contact them to remove any names they felt would put lives in danger. Pentagon refused.
For the...first time, if the US government is set against making these documents public, do you really expect them to make it so WikiLeaks can write "Approved by the Pentagon" on the top of every page?
|
On November 30 2010 12:10 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 12:07 wunsun wrote:
On the other hand, some things should be kept secret. Things that can cause harm to my country and citizens should be kept secret. They should now be known. For the 57th time: pentagon officials themselves have admitted that wikileaks tried to contact them to remove any names they felt would put lives in danger. Pentagon refused. Many different independent researches are pointing that the approval of the war by US people is taking large drops at each wikileak leak. Something good has already came from these leaks.
Fantastic you are presenting a platitude as the only positive of this leak.
|
On November 30 2010 12:08 Tralan wrote:
I see myself as a very liberal person politically and I think that fox news would probably label me as a socialist or a communist and certainly a baby murderer but I think this new leak is absolute bullshit. It serves no purpose, it hasnt saved any lives or uncovered abuses like the last leak, it does nothing to make the world a better place but infact destabalizes it.
Well perhaps. 'Destabilization' is an interesting word to use. It's the euphemism that the likes of the CIA use to describe all sorts of political dirty tricks - strikes, riots, assassinations, whatever - used to make life difficult for an unfriendly government. Stability is only good when "our" thugs are in power. If the wrong government is in power, stability is apparently a bad thing.
As for not uncovering any abuses, in this very post you note the attempts by half of the Middle East to start a war against Iran, and starting wars is still the supreme international crime, last time I looked. Add to that the secret war against Yemen, where civilians have been killed, the attempt to spy on the United Nations Secretary General, the secret storage of weapons of mass destruction in Europe and Turkey by the US, without the knowledge or consent of the people of those countries, and the fact that the fourth in line to the British throne is a heinous jingoistic bigot when there are no TV cameras in the room. All of those are major and important news stories in their own right (even the one about Prince Andrew - his views matter if he's ever in a position to become monarch, which does have plenty of abusable powers, some of which have been abused in living memory). Not bad going for the first 1/1000th of the document pile.
The desire of certain arab countries to bomb Iran will be on Al Jazzera and will be presented or construed as collusion which undermines the regimes of friendly governments and potentially affects the stability of these countries. Any gain made by democratic elements particualarly in Saudi Arabia is potentially disastrous..
Right, so trying to persuade the United States to launch a military assault on another country isn't what you'd consider 'destabilising', but democratising a brutal, disgusting and corrupt theocracy is? That's a wonderful advertisement for your stability right there.
|
Ok, so for those of us who don't want to trudge through the enormous amount of files or are foreigners such as myself, and thus aren't that invested/interested as US citizens on the whole subject, could anyone provide a nutshell of the warlogs? I wanna hear the spicy details.
|
On November 30 2010 12:55 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Ok, so for those of us who don't want to trudge through the enormous amount of files or are foreigners such as myself, and thus aren't that invested/interested as US citizens on the whole subject, could anyone provide a nutshell of the warlogs? I wanna hear the spicy details.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11868838
Near the end of the article is a summary of some of the points
* Iranian attempts to adapt North Korean rockets for use as long-range missiles
* Corruption in Afghanistan with concerns heightened when a senior official was found to be carrying more than $52m (£33m) in cash on a foreign trip
* Bargaining to empty the Guantanamo Bay prison camp - including Slovenian diplomats being told to take in a freed prisoner to secure a meeting with President Barack Obama
* Germany being warned in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for CIA officers involved in an operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was abducted and held in Afghanistan
* US officials being instructed to spy on the UN leadership by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
* Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime, with intelligence agencies using underworld bosses to carry out operations
* Yemen's president talking to General David Petraeus (while he was responsible for US military operations in Central Asia and the Middle East as head of US Central Command) about attacks on Yemeni al-Qaeda bases and saying: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours"
* Faltering US attempts to prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon
|
On November 30 2010 12:07 wunsun wrote:
I am a fence sitter on this.
On one hand, it is impossible to argue against the possibility where there are no state secrets. They are the Government for the people and we should know what is going on in our respective countries. Because things are embarrassing, Governments tend to keep everything tight to the chest. Are they so important that they are considered state secrets? Most likely not. However, in most cases, whatever occurs is unknown to us, and as long as it does no harm to my country, I believe I should know about it. Notice that I state country, and not party, i.e. Conservatives, Liberals etc.
On the other hand, some things should be kept secret. Things that can cause harm to my country and citizens should be kept secret. They should now be known.
However, where we draw this line, I do not know.
When you say "where we draw the line" you realize that you or I aren't drawing anything. These decision are made by people in power, an in the interest of those people in power. One person's paranoia may be the determining factor as he gets to make that call.
No one so far has shown how this information is a critical security risk. That's just a bullshit lie spouted by people with something to lose in a political world where there are few secrets. These leaks aren't damaging because they put lives in danger. They're damaging because they harm the reputations of people in positions of political power (by showing their abuse of political power).
It's not as if ICBM schematics where copy/pasted all over the internet.
|
You make a lot of points so I will answer them in order but no I didnt say when the wrong government is in power stability is a bad thing. Saudi is the wrong government but stability is beneficial.
Well we could debate whether of not all wars are a crime but that would require its own thread I think so I wont answer it but bombing a country is not the same as going to war. You can say whatever you like about Kosovo and I understand the arguments against it but in the end the sentiment was good even if the execution was poor and I believe that lives were saved. You look at this so one dimensionally like everything is just black and white. I actually have no idea why the Arab countries wanted to bomb Iran but to answer your point I would say that Iran is a destabalizing influence in the region and disrupts the balance of power. The last leak showed how Iran was responsible for bringing weapons and fighters into Iraq, it has pretty advanced nuclear expertise, the last elections showed that the country itself is unstable, and its leaders are unpredictable islamists.
The secret war in Yemen wasnt secret and its the responsibility of the media to report it and its unfortunate that civilians died but as you say war is evil. Spying is how business is done at the UN; everyone has an agenda, deals are struck first behind closed doors, there are power blocs, and that is just the way it goes. I honestly havnt read about the secret weapons storage so cant comment on it but im pretty sure that any American base counts as American sovereignty so dont see how it is illegal in any way even if it is immoral. Andrew made some mildly disparaging remarks that might hurt the thin skinned but are laughable compared to Philips faux pas. Also I would love to hear about the abuses of the monarchy that you have occured in recent history ie post Cromwell.
A strike on Iran never actually occured so I dont see how it is relevant and you just put words into my mouth there. Of course the brutal autocracy in Saudi Arabia is stabalizing as can be seen by the relatively low cost of oil which by the way would skyrocket if an anti western democratic party gained power. It would destroy the world economy and America wouldnt be able to do anything because it is absolutely impossible to justify a war against a democracy to the UN and god knows what would happen if they did invade a democratic, islamist state.
TLDR: Im sorry we dont live in a idealist liberal world but this is the reality and we have to live with it. My view of stability is perfectly valid in a realist sense.
|
Where does someone even get ahold of all these juicy tidbits?? Seriously, it's like Wikileaks has gone from Whistleblower to the Perez Hilton of International Politics.
I secretly like this leak because it is soo interesting just to read all the secrets! I know it's completely unnecessary, and probably counter-productive in many ways, but- ooh, Russia is using Mob bosses as hitmen? Holy not-so-surprising wikileak!
I personally feel way more knowledgeable after each leaklet I read. It's like watching the Special Features on the DVD except for people who care about geopolitics. Trading Gitmo prisoners for 1 on 1s with the President? So that's how they do it!
|
On November 30 2010 13:16 Tralan wrote:
You make a lot of points so I will answer them in order but no I didnt say when the wrong government is in power stability is a bad thing. Saudi is the wrong government but stability is beneficial.
Well we could debate whether of not all wars are a crime but that would require its own thread I think so I wont answer it but bombing a country is not the same as going to war. You can say whatever you like about Kosovo and I understand the arguments against it but in the end the sentiment was good even if the execution was poor and I believe that lives were saved. You look at this so one dimensionally like everything is just black and white. I actually have no idea why the Arab countries wanted to bomb Iran but to answer your point I would say that Iran is a destabalizing influence in the region and disrupts the balance of power. The last leak showed how Iran was responsible for bringing weapons and fighters into Iraq, it has pretty advanced nuclear expertise, the last elections showed that the country itself is unstable, and its leaders are unpredictable islamists.
The secret war in Yemen wasnt secret and its the responsibility of the media to report it and its unfortunate that civilians died but as you say war is evil. Spying is how business is done at the UN; everyone has an agenda, deals are struck first behind closed doors, there are power blocs, and that is just the way it goes. I honestly havnt read about the secret weapons storage so cant comment on it but im pretty sure that any American base counts as American sovereignty so dont see how it is illegal in any way even if it is immoral. Andrew made some mildly disparaging remarks that might hurt the thin skinned but are laughable compared to Philips faux pas. Also I would love to hear about the abuses of the monarchy that you have occured in recent history ie post Cromwell.
A strike on Iran never actually occured so I dont see how it is relevant and you just put words into my mouth there. Of course the brutal autocracy in Saudi Arabia is stabalizing as can be seen by the relatively low cost of oil which by the way would skyrocket if an anti western democratic party gained power. It would destroy the world economy and America wouldnt be able to do anything because it is absolutely impossible to justify a war against a democracy to the UN and god knows what would happen if they did invade a democratic, islamist state.
TLDR: Im sorry we dont live in a idealist liberal world but this is the reality and we have to live with it. My view of stability is perfectly valid in a realist sense.
Arguing in favour of these instances of US or Arab foreign policy is not the same thing as arguing that the public ought not to know about them at all. Whether or not the governments should be doing these things (and I'll certain disagree with you on that), if we're living in a democracy, the government is only supposed to be doing these sorts of things with the informed consent of the population. If we're not living in a democracy, then what justification, other than brute force, does the government have for even existing, let alone demanding that we let their diplomats work unmolested? Come to think of it, even if the US was perfectly democratic, the people of Iran, the Netherlands, Turkey, or Yemen haven't had a chance to vote on their policies, so what right they have to interfere with the politics of those countries, I know not.
Of course, you might, in the name of 'stability' or 'realism', decide that democracy is a bad thing, except perhaps as a rhetorical device or something to fool the general public with, which is consistent with your torture-a-million-people-as-long-as-the-oil-prices-are-in-the-right-ballpark attitude to Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure why me, or the Wikileaks people, or anyone else, are morally bound to respect the secrecy of governments that have no intention of being accountable for the things they do. I reckon destabilising those sorts of governments is generally a good thing.
Andrew made some mildly disparaging remarks that might hurt the thin skinned but are laughable compared to Philips faux pas. Also I would love to hear about the abuses of the monarchy that you have occured in recent history ie post Cromwell.
Philip isn't in line to the throne, and his idiotic comments were splashed all over the public presses at the time. Andrew is, and his nonsense has been kept secret, until now. Prince Philip's racist comments were certainly more offensive on the you-can't-say-that-word level, but Andrew's moronic xenophobia allowed him to sneer at the French, on the grounds that they're too soft on corruption, and British newspapers (on the grounds that they're investigating corruption and/or human rights abuses, and making it difficult for British business to profit from it). I don't want someone that stupid (for not seeing the blatant hypocrisy there) or venal to be anywhere near the levers of power.
One instance of a modern abuse of the monarch's powers would be the dismissal of the Australian government in 1975, where the governor general of Australia (the person with the monarch's powers there), unilaterally decided to abolish a social democratic government and call an election ostensibly because of a constitutional crisis. (The governor general, John Kerr, was a former member of a CIA front organisation and a CIA defector who was in the Australian embassy at the time claimed that the dismissal was engineered to halt the government's scrutiny of the Australian intelligence services and US bases).
Another would be the illegal mass deportation of islanders from Diego Garcia, in order to make room for a US military base. It was the Royal Prerogative that was used to carry this out (and that's what makes the UK courts powerless to undo the crime). Something that's missing from almost every account (i.e. every account I've ever read) of the Diego Garcia expulsions was that shortly before it happened, the British government actually attempted to use democratic means to hand over a different island in the Indian Ocean (Aldabra, it's name was), but it was blocked in Parliament. When democracy gives the wrong answers, use the Queen to overrule it.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
Okay, at first I thought WIkileaks did something bad and that those things should stay secret. Then I heard that 2.500.000 people had access to these confidential documents. TWO AND A HALF MILLION.
What the fuck, USA, what the fuck...
|
Didn't read the whole thread, but does anyone else think that this might just be a way to monitor people who are accessing this information? What better way to track down the enemies intelligence personnel?
|
On November 30 2010 20:58 Desirous wrote:
Didn't read the whole thread, but does anyone else think that this might just be a way to monitor people who are accessing this information? What better way to track down the enemies intelligence personnel?
not really, since it may be hard to track visits and the hits they're getting is probably in the millions or more (cant guess)
if anything itll just make US agencies try and stop leaks etc.
|
On November 30 2010 20:58 Desirous wrote:
Didn't read the whole thread, but does anyone else think that this might just be a way to monitor people who are accessing this information? What better way to track down the enemies intelligence personnel?
Pretty much any other way is better. Anyone sitting on the internet sniffing the traffic to Wikileaks is going to have to sift out the millions of people reading the site just out of curiosity, and the millions more hits from botnets who are doing those DDOS attacks on the site. And chances are, if they find the actual spy, the address will just resolve to an address in the likes of kgb.gov.ru, which isn't going to tell anybody anything they didn't already know.
Spies generally know their counterparts from other countries anyways. If you want to spot a career spy, just get your hands on the civil service directories for the appropriate country, and check out the career history for the ones that match certain patterns (like being trained at the right institutions or being transported between various war-torn troublespots).
|
Good to see Wikileaks continuing their work.
The state's dirty laundry is always funny to read.
|
On November 29 2010 07:54 Rflcrx wrote:
Guys, we are talking about wikileaks here..they can handle any amount of trolls that want to ddos. any normal site would be ddosed if they would recieve the attention wikileak recieves. Any sort of somewhat succesfull ddos has to come from a experienced and well financed source or wikileaks wont even notice it was under attack. don't thread the site like your clan homepage at some freehoster...
DDOS attack now exceeding 10 Gigabits a second.
vor ungefähr 1 Stunde via web
We are currently under another DDOS attack.
vor ungefähr 3 Stunden via web
hm..
|
On December 01 2010 00:27 Rflcrx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 07:54 Rflcrx wrote:
Guys, we are talking about wikileaks here..they can handle any amount of trolls that want to ddos. any normal site would be ddosed if they would recieve the attention wikileak recieves. Any sort of somewhat succesfull ddos has to come from a experienced and well financed source or wikileaks wont even notice it was under attack. don't thread the site like your clan homepage at some freehoster... Show nested quote +
DDOS attack now exceeding 10 Gigabits a second.
vor ungefähr 1 Stunde via web
We are currently under another DDOS attack.
vor ungefähr 3 Stunden via web
hm..
They undoubtedly made lots of enemies by releasing all the info...it could come from a dozen sources. It's a little interesting that the attack is coming so late though.
|
On November 30 2010 12:57 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 12:55 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Ok, so for those of us who don't want to trudge through the enormous amount of files or are foreigners such as myself, and thus aren't that invested/interested as US citizens on the whole subject, could anyone provide a nutshell of the warlogs? I wanna hear the spicy details. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11868838Near the end of the article is a summary of some of the points Show nested quote + * Iranian attempts to adapt North Korean rockets for use as long-range missiles
* Corruption in Afghanistan with concerns heightened when a senior official was found to be carrying more than $52m (£33m) in cash on a foreign trip
* Bargaining to empty the Guantanamo Bay prison camp - including Slovenian diplomats being told to take in a freed prisoner to secure a meeting with President Barack Obama
* Germany being warned in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for CIA officers involved in an operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was abducted and held in Afghanistan
* US officials being instructed to spy on the UN leadership by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
* Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime, with intelligence agencies using underworld bosses to carry out operations
* Yemen's president talking to General David Petraeus (while he was responsible for US military operations in Central Asia and the Middle East as head of US Central Command) about attacks on Yemeni al-Qaeda bases and saying: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours"
* Faltering US attempts to prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon
These point summaries are pretty suspect. The BBC one seems alright, but I saw a spot on CTV (in Canada) on it, and they just cherry picked cables that promoted their agenda, i.e.: all the anti-Iranian stuff.
I haven't even bothered to see what Fox is saying.
|
Concerning the DDoS attacks: http://twitter.com/th3j35t3r
I remember when they first started threatening this stuff, he was pretty showy about how weak wikileak's website security was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
