|
On December 07 2010 05:28 DorN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:02 Proto_Protoss wrote:
I don't know if the leaks are going to endanger lives Maybe lives are endangerd but just watch the high number of civil casualties never revealed to the public. How can we judge and improve things we know nothing about. Secret bombings in Yemen, killercommandos in Afghanistan and so on. How many people have allready died for doing nothing wrong but being born in the wrong country? If public protest will change something in this case the leaks might save lives instead of endangering them.
This pretty much sums it up, totally agree.
|
On December 07 2010 05:28 DorN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:02 Proto_Protoss wrote:
I don't know if the leaks are going to endanger lives Maybe lives are endangerd but just watch the high number of civil casualties never revealed to the public. How can we judge and improve things we know nothing about. Secret bombings in Yemen, killercommandos in Afghanistan and so on. How many people have allready died for doing nothing wrong but being born in the wrong country? If public protest will change something in this case the leaks might save lives instead of endangering them.
From what I read:
So far it has been impossible to make a coherent case for wikileaks being responsible for the harming, let alone death, of even a single person. It's not surprising really, because if somebody had been demonstrably hurt as a result of wikileaks then it would be all over the press by now.
People have claimed the same thing when Vietnam documents got leaked, but couldn't prove any harm to innocents in the end.
It has been tried with the Iraq and Afghanistan leaks, but again it could not be demonstrated beyond doubt that the leaks resulted in the harming or death of innocents.
|
I am not longer interested in being told what I'm allowed to know or not.
The choice is mine. You can endorse the corrupt world we live in by allowing secret sects to control everything or you can fight it?
I mean did you even read about how the united states govt. manipulated the climate summit to suit its needs and pennalize other countries? And even farther it bullied the entire process..... That is a crime against humans world wide. ..... Picking on poor countries to advance agendas is wrong and then to use that same bullying and leveraging when we are dealing with the future of our planet?
Lets them burn.
|
On December 07 2010 05:32 Ghostcom wrote:Can anyone come up with a good argument as to why private communiques like those should EVER be released? Do you SERIOUSLY not understand of what good can come up from revealing a country like the US secretly BOMBING another country like Yemen?
|
On December 07 2010 05:37 Go0g3n wrote:Show nested quote +
Can anyone come up with a good argument as to why private communiques like those should EVER be released? There is a reason why the oath of silence was invented in the first place and the international cooperation depends on a trust in the diplomatic system - which releasing stuff like this undermines. I've said it before, how comfortable would you be talking to a doctor about a healthproblem if a guy like your beloved Assange published medical journals because "It's the truth about people!!!!"?
Uncovering warcrimes etc. is great and I can only support that, but Assange has taken this a step further and his cause can't be morally supported any longer (at least I can't see how, but please feel free to share some light).
Because any competent voter's ultimate goal is get into the head of his candidate of choice, to see the next 4-6-8 years through his eyes, to analyze what's coming with his brain. These leaks really cracked up their skulls, and it really isn't looking good.
Diplomats aren't elected. This has nothing to do with getting to know your candidate better - this has at best something to do with getting to know their basis for decisionmaking better. But the brutal truth would be that this is simply an attempt to undermine the diplomatic relationships.
|
On December 07 2010 05:37 Simplistik wrote:
From what I read:
So far it has been impossible to make a coherent case for wikileaks being responsible for the harming, let alone death, of even a single person. It's not surprising really, because if somebody had been demonstrably hurt as a result of wikileaks then it would be all over the press by now.
People have claimed the same thing when Vietnam documents got leaked, but couldn't prove any harm to innocents in the end.
It has been tried with the Iraq and Afghanistan leaks, but again it could not be demonstrated beyond doubt that the leaks resulted in the harming or death of innocents.
In the early 1970s, after a bunch of high-profile CIA officers went public with the crimes they were involved with, there was a fad of people working out who the local CIA spies were and publishing it in the public presses, and the same argument was trotted out, that it was endangering the lives of these guys. The closest this ever came to being plausible was when the CIA head of station in Athens was assassinated in 1975 by a left-wing urban guerrilla group after one such exposure, which led to the practice of exposing spooks being outlawed in the US. The exposure itself didn't cause the assassination, however - the terrorists had published a communique detailing the CIA officer's movements (and demonstrating they had been following him) dating from months before his identity was published.
|
I am so tired of this "terrorist" word.. Terrorist, evil terrorists, weapons of mass destruction bla bla, we all saw what came out of american lies about weapons of mass destruction...
We are all being lied to by our goverment and instead of realizing this... Noone will "terrorize" this places that came out, and he is a wanted man.. What a joke.. Cant wait to see what he has to say about bank of america.. all the lies they are covering up..
|
Also something which tends to be forgotten: The ENTIRE package was released by wikileaks, the FOCUS has been decided by the media, which just highlights even more the pathetic contemporary concept that we call media today.
|
On December 07 2010 05:32 Ghostcom wrote:
Can anyone come up with a good argument as to why private communiques like those should EVER be released? There is a reason why the oath of silence was invented in the first place and the international cooperation depends on a trust in the diplomatic system - which releasing stuff like this undermines. I've said it before, how comfortable would you be talking to a doctor about a healthproblem if a guy like your beloved Assange published medical journals because "It's the truth about people!!!!"?
Think of your government as a company you are involved in.
We vote to decide who is going to become the leader of the company.
Wouldnt you like to know when the leader behaves in a way that might damage the image of the company like insulting people that lead other companies you have buisness with?
|
On December 07 2010 05:40 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:32 Ghostcom wrote:Can anyone come up with a good argument as to why private communiques like those should EVER be released? Do you SERIOUSLY not understand of what good can come up from revealing a country like the US secretly BOMBING another country like Yemen?
I'm an idiot.
|
On December 07 2010 05:46 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:37 Go0g3n wrote:
Can anyone come up with a good argument as to why private communiques like those should EVER be released? There is a reason why the oath of silence was invented in the first place and the international cooperation depends on a trust in the diplomatic system - which releasing stuff like this undermines. I've said it before, how comfortable would you be talking to a doctor about a healthproblem if a guy like your beloved Assange published medical journals because "It's the truth about people!!!!"?
Uncovering warcrimes etc. is great and I can only support that, but Assange has taken this a step further and his cause can't be morally supported any longer (at least I can't see how, but please feel free to share some light).
Because any competent voter's ultimate goal is get into the head of his candidate of choice, to see the next 4-6-8 years through his eyes, to analyze what's coming with his brain. These leaks really cracked up their skulls, and it really isn't looking good. Diplomats aren't elected. This has nothing to do with getting to know your candidate better - this has at best something to do with getting to know their basis for decisionmaking better. But the brutal truth would be that this is simply an attempt to undermine the diplomatic relationships.
It sounds like these crooked relationships needed a fresh start anyway.
No offense, but I love that my country can totally destroy any country incredibly rapidly in an all out war but I do not like that is it our only useful asset.
I'm not interested in european nations or nations any for that matter dropping to there knees at the will of my government. The world wide bribery is just sickening.
I mean for Switzerland to actually not remain neutral is more alarming then any of the cables I've read. 200 or more years of history has just been shit on..........
|
On December 07 2010 05:49 DorN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:32 Ghostcom wrote:
Can anyone come up with a good argument as to why private communiques like those should EVER be released? There is a reason why the oath of silence was invented in the first place and the international cooperation depends on a trust in the diplomatic system - which releasing stuff like this undermines. I've said it before, how comfortable would you be talking to a doctor about a healthproblem if a guy like your beloved Assange published medical journals because "It's the truth about people!!!!"?
Think of your government as a company you are involved in. We vote to decide who is going to become the leader of the company. Wouldnt you like to know when the leader behaves in a way that might damage the image of the company like insulting people that lead other companies you have buisness with?
But that's just the point. No one was insulted until Assange came around. Everyone who isn't totally naïve knows that assesments regarding personalities are being made in the political world all the time. The relaying of these are usually kept short and as direct as possible. And again, this is private communication, don't tell me you haven't told you best friend that some guy at work was a jerk, yet you never told said guy what you thought of him. It would create trouble which was totally avoidable, but there is still a good reason to tell you friend this as he/she now knows to tread carefully around said person. Then comes a guy like Assange who happens to pay your phonecompany for a recording of you and your friends convo and played it for the jerk - now tell me again, do you think that would be a morally justifiable act?
|
On December 07 2010 05:32 Ghostcom wrote:
Can anyone come up with a good argument as to why private communiques like those should EVER be released? There is a reason why the oath of silence was invented in the first place and the international cooperation depends on a trust in the diplomatic system - which releasing stuff like this undermines. I've said it before, how comfortable would you be talking to a doctor about a healthproblem if a guy like your beloved Assange published medical journals because "It's the truth about people!!!!"?
Uncovering warcrimes etc. is great and I can only support that, but Assange has taken this a step further and his cause can't be morally supported any longer (at least I can't see how, but please feel free to share some light).
The reason why the fairly trivial cruft has to be released is to increase the credibility of Wikileaks leaking the other stuff. If Wikileaks withheld cables because they "weren't in the public interest" it would put the lie to the notion that they're a neutral clearing house of information, and willing to release any hitherto nonpublic documents pilfered from State or corporate archives. Far better to be accused of distributing trivia than editorialising, or withholding important information. The former allegation is just a value judgement. The latter one gets at Wikileaks' integrity.
Anyways, I'm pretty sure foreign politicians don't give a stuff that the US is saying really critical things about them individually - any politician who can't handle being insulted is obviously in the wrong job. And nonUS diplomats will likely empathise with their vile spook counterparts in the US who are, when they're not sneering at the President of Bogustan's dress-sense, are trying to catch a peep at the credit card numbers of the head of the local United Nations mission. Diplomatic relations aren't going to be materially affected by this leak, and if the US ambassadors find it difficult to make friends after they've been caught spying on everyone else, so much the better.
|
http://www.canada.com/news/Calgary looking into possible charges after Flanagan comments/3935098/story.html#ixzz17MtXEHBA
Calgary looking into possible charges after Tom Flanagan comments
Calgary police said Monday they were compiling evidence for the Crown to determine whether to press charges against Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, for comments he made suggesting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be assassinated.
"Due to a number of calls we have received from the public regarding this matter, the Calgary Police Service will be compiling all facts and compiling a package that will be forwarded to the Crown prosecutor's office for review," said Supt. Kevan Stuart in a prepared statement.
|
On December 07 2010 05:51 Ghostcom wrote:
Actually I'm pretty sure I both started and ended my post with saying that revealing stuff like warcrimes was a good thing. The communiques I was talking about were those I inserted in my post for your convenience - the ones that had nothing to do with warcrimes like the one you are talking about at all! That's the whole point of my post. You clearly say it's great to reveal dirt. While at the same time you include the US secretly bombing Yemen for "terrorists"? "What good can come from" revealing that when you say "it's ok to reveal warcrimes"? What? Did you read your own list before saying I didn't?
And that's the one example I picked up from the list you posted. There's tons of corruption revealed by the cables. No good can come from revealing corruption? wth...
|
On December 07 2010 06:00 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:49 DorN wrote:On December 07 2010 05:32 Ghostcom wrote:
Can anyone come up with a good argument as to why private communiques like those should EVER be released? There is a reason why the oath of silence was invented in the first place and the international cooperation depends on a trust in the diplomatic system - which releasing stuff like this undermines. I've said it before, how comfortable would you be talking to a doctor about a healthproblem if a guy like your beloved Assange published medical journals because "It's the truth about people!!!!"?
Think of your government as a company you are involved in. We vote to decide who is going to become the leader of the company. Wouldnt you like to know when the leader behaves in a way that might damage the image of the company like insulting people that lead other companies you have buisness with? But that's just the point. No one was insulted until Assange came around. Everyone who isn't totally naïve knows that assesments regarding personalities are being made in the political world all the time. The relaying of these are usually kept short and as direct as possible. And again, this is private communication, don't tell me you haven't told you best friend that some guy at work was a jerk, yet you never told said guy what you thought of him. It would create trouble which was totally avoidable, but there is still a good reason to tell you friend this as he/she now knows to tread carefully around said person. Then comes a guy like Assange who happens to pay your phonecompany for a recording of you and your friends convo and played it for the jerk - now tell me again, do you think that would be a morally justifiable act?
I would tell Assange to stop being an ass.
Same scenario can be applied in marriage, what if you rant to your best friends about some annoyance about your partner. Then all of sudden Assange comes in and tell your partner what you said, creating unnecessary tensions.
Simply because everyone likes to share their secrets, in a form of stress release. Most of these does not create harm to anyone else, unless someone being an ass and decided to blow it.
|
On December 07 2010 06:02 Aim Here wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:32 Ghostcom wrote:
Can anyone come up with a good argument as to why private communiques like those should EVER be released? There is a reason why the oath of silence was invented in the first place and the international cooperation depends on a trust in the diplomatic system - which releasing stuff like this undermines. I've said it before, how comfortable would you be talking to a doctor about a healthproblem if a guy like your beloved Assange published medical journals because "It's the truth about people!!!!"?
Uncovering warcrimes etc. is great and I can only support that, but Assange has taken this a step further and his cause can't be morally supported any longer (at least I can't see how, but please feel free to share some light). The reason why the fairly trivial cruft has to be released is to increase the credibility of Wikileaks leaking the other stuff. If Wikileaks withheld cables because they "weren't in the public interest" it would put the lie to the notion that they're a neutral clearing house of information, and willing to release any hitherto nonpublic documents pilfered from State or corporate archives. Far better to be accused of distributing trivia than editorialising, or withholding important information. The former allegation is just a value judgement. The latter one gets at Wikileaks' integrity. Anyways, I'm pretty sure foreign politicians don't give a stuff that the US is saying really critical things about them individually - any politician who can't handle being insulted is obviously in the wrong job. And nonUS diplomats will likely empathise with their vile spook counterparts in the US who are, when they're not sneering at the President of Bogustan's dress-sense, are trying to catch a peep at the credit card numbers of the head of the local United Nations mission. Diplomatic relations aren't going to be materially affected by this leak, and if the US ambassadors find it difficult to make friends after they've been caught spying on everyone else, so much the better.
Whilst I do understand the question of credibility, there a plenty of ways to attain this (heck the first wave of publishments didn't include any "trivial" cables and no one doubted the validity). Also, you are underestemating the value of public opinion a great deal. Sure the individual politicians probably don't care (because just like both of us said - they are used to it), but some of the stuff is more genereal stuff regarding population which can easily turn the population of some of the worlds countries against the US leading to damageing of the diplomatic relations - Ceasar was one of the first to realise that the real power always lies with mob; and you can't dismiss that as easily as you try to do.
It is therefor also wrong to say that it is simply a value judgement. The real question is wheter Wikileaks exist to be a whistleblower or merely to libel the US. By releasing many of the "trivial" cables it has put itself in the latter category which is really only despicable, whilst if it had stuck with revealing crimes of war/against humanity it would be something I could support wholeheartedly.
I'm sorry if I'm slow to respond, but I try my best to respond as coherent as possible and I'm slightly distracted by some homework, but I will do my best to respond to all posts which deserve a respond (like this one did).
|
On December 07 2010 06:15 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:51 Ghostcom wrote:
Actually I'm pretty sure I both started and ended my post with saying that revealing stuff like warcrimes was a good thing. The communiques I was talking about were those I inserted in my post for your convenience - the ones that had nothing to do with warcrimes like the one you are talking about at all! That's the whole point of my post. You clearly say it's great to reveal dirt. While at the same time you include the US secretly bombing Yemen for "terrorists"? "What good can come from" revealing that when you say "it's ok to reveal warcrimes"? What? Did you read your own list before saying I didn't? And that's the one example I picked up from the list you posted. There's tons of corruption revealed by the cables. No good can come from revealing corruption? wth...
See this one is embarresing - I could've sworn I edited that one out - because you are right, it was on my list in the first case. I just rechecked; it still stands there so I'm the twat here. My sincerest apology. And it has been fixed. It was obviously never intended to be part of the list, dunno why the edit didn't go through in the first place 
|
I think it's sad to see how many people were so naive before this leak to think that the international politics is anything but politics.
On December 07 2010 05:52 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:46 Ghostcom wrote:On December 07 2010 05:37 Go0g3n wrote:
Can anyone come up with a good argument as to why private communiques like those should EVER be released? There is a reason why the oath of silence was invented in the first place and the international cooperation depends on a trust in the diplomatic system - which releasing stuff like this undermines. I've said it before, how comfortable would you be talking to a doctor about a healthproblem if a guy like your beloved Assange published medical journals because "It's the truth about people!!!!"?
Uncovering warcrimes etc. is great and I can only support that, but Assange has taken this a step further and his cause can't be morally supported any longer (at least I can't see how, but please feel free to share some light).
Because any competent voter's ultimate goal is get into the head of his candidate of choice, to see the next 4-6-8 years through his eyes, to analyze what's coming with his brain. These leaks really cracked up their skulls, and it really isn't looking good. Diplomats aren't elected. This has nothing to do with getting to know your candidate better - this has at best something to do with getting to know their basis for decisionmaking better. But the brutal truth would be that this is simply an attempt to undermine the diplomatic relationships. It sounds like these crooked relationships needed a fresh start anyway. No offense, but I love that my country can totally destroy any country incredibly rapidly in an all out war but I do not like that is it our only useful asset. I'm not interested in european nations or nations any for that matter dropping to there knees at the will of my government. The world wide bribery is just sickening. I mean for Switzerland to actually not remain neutral is more alarming then any of the cables I've read. 200 or more years of history has just been shit on..........
their*
Welcome to institutions. Welcome to the past 60 years. Ever heard of NATO or the Cold War for any matter? European nations have been on the side of the U.S. for several times longer than how long you've been living. And favors are favors.
|
On December 07 2010 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:
It is therefor also wrong to say that it is simply a value judgement. The real question is wheter Wikileaks exist to be a whistleblower or merely to libel the US. By releasing many of the "trivial" cables it has put itself in the latter category which is really only despicable, whilst if it had stuck with revealing crimes of war/against humanity it would be something I could support wholeheartedly. I don't understand your position. You say you agree that many of the leaked material are great and you're glad it was leaked. But you also say some parts of leaks shouldn't be leaked because they are "trivial". I don't get it. What would you propose they would to instead? Suppose you're wikileaks, you receive hundreds of thousands of cables containing both serious crimes and serious stuff. What would you do? Would you just go through each one censoring the ones that are just silly and unimportant? Don't you think it would be smarter to just release the whole thing and let the reader decide what is and what isn't important?
When you say "they should just stuck with leaking warcrimes" you sound like you think wikileaks is some kind of leak fairy. That will magically summon proof of warcrimes in paper out of thin air  Wikileaks is just the medium, they're not the source. If the people with access to proof of warcrimes are not handing the proper evidence to wikileaks, then you should blame the source, not wikileaks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
