|
The real question is wheter Wikileaks exist to be a whistleblower or merely to libel the US.
Why would you believe it exist to libel the US when they clearly have both targeted, and succeeded in achieving major change in countries such as Nigeria? And even if they did exist to target corruptness specifically in the US, so what?
By releasing many of the "trivial" cables it has put...
I'm fairly certain that Wikileaks strive to censure as little as possible, (i.e it releases almost everything of relevance, as far as we know) and the fact that the mentality shown in the cables adds to the total image given by the "important cables", it would be fairly silly to exclude them. The assertion that censure should be used to shield against embarrassment is ludicrous to me
|
I completely support Wikileaks and what they are doing at the moment.
But I also wonder what is their agenda. When that comes out I might change my mind.
|
On December 07 2010 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:
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)
The first wave contained about 200 cables, a large number of which merely detailed chitchat with foreign officers and politicians, and which didn't lead to major news stories. If 'trivial' just means the cables that got headlines because they insulted world leaders, then there aren't many of those, and you approve of the vast bulk of what Wikileaks is doing. Also I'm under the impression that there were some 'insulting' cables in the first batch, but they're not easy to find in a quick scan, so I won't press the point.
. 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.
Erm, you forgot to read the status bar on my post.
I'm not American. Most people aren't.
[Edit: I now checked yours, you don't seem to be American either - so the next paragraph ought to go for you, too!]
I'm one of the "population of some of the worlds countries" - one of the people you think ought to be lied to for fear of me being turned "against the US". I'm one of that "mob", by which you REALLY mean the people that are supposed to have some meaningful say in the running of the countries they live in. When someone uses the term 'mob' in a political discussion, I immediately insert the words 'Plus, I hate democracy' into whatever he was saying. I don't dismiss the "mob". I'm part of it, as are you, whether you know it or not.
You're saying that secrets have to be kept from us, so that your government and my government continue to have undamaged diplomatic relations. Well my government is lying to me and aiding, and abetting, your government's crimes, as these Wikileaks have shown, and I can only consent (or not) to this if I know it's going on - and if the price of that is that the relationships between your government and mine are damaged (making it less likely for your government to, say, forcibly evict people from their homes to make a military base, or for you genocidal nuclear weapons to be stored in my country, as happened in the past, or for the integrity of the political institutions in my country to be compromised to 'protect US interests'), I think that's a price well worth paying for more democracy. Bring it on!
|
On December 07 2010 06:36 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I think if you intend to make something public which has such a big impact on society, then you NEED to check everything. I actually think wikileaks should be a governmental body (I know that doesn't really make sense, but then again I come from a country which basicly invented the concept i.e. Ombudsmanden). And no, I don't think private conversation should just be published under the assumption that the reader will be smart enough to filter it out. Just like my parallel with medical journals, there will always be someone who distorts it and misuses it even though the information in itself is "innocent". Just like with medical journals I think wikileaks should think carefully about wheter or not each cable is important enough to break the oath silence over. That is in itself a tough call, but something which is handled pretty good in the case of medical journals so it is possible!
I think the above paragraph also covers the part about the sources - I'm obviously aware of the fact that wikileaks can't conjure proof, only publish what is given to them. But that just makes it all the more important that when they publish stuff they make sure it isn't "trivial".
|
Just a question, what stop Wikileaks from making up or receiving fake leaks? Now that they have a reputation on providing real leaks, it would be hard to distinguish what's real and what's not, as people won't believe other side's story.
They said they hired people to validate the leak, but what stops Wikileak itself having their own agenda?
|
The only protection that Wikileaks has right now is credibility. Wikileaks survives and attracts volunteers willing to put up with persecution, pressure, and now death threats because every single one of their releases, from the Iraq War Logs to Collateral Murder to Kenyan human rights abuses, has proved genuine.
Even the critics of WIkileaks haven't dared call them out on dishonesty...yet.
However, as soon as they release a single false document, the state media is going to be on them faster than a pack of rabid wolves. And they know it.
|
On December 07 2010 06:52 Aim Here wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:
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)
The first wave contained about 200 cables, a large number of which merely detailed chitchat with foreign officers and politicians, and which didn't lead to major news stories. If 'trivial' just means the cables that got headlines because they insulted world leaders, then there aren't many of those, and you approve of the vast bulk of what Wikileaks is doing. Also I'm under the impression that there were some 'insulting' cables in the first batch, but they're not easy to find in a quick scan, so I won't press the point. Show nested quote +. 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.
Erm, you forgot to read the status bar on my post. I'm not American. Most people aren't. I'm one of the "population of some of the worlds countries" - one of the people you think ought to be lied to for fear of me being turned "against the US". I'm one of that "mob", by which you REALLY mean the people that are supposed to have some meaningful say in the running of the countries they live in. When someone uses the term 'mob' in a political discussion, I immediately insert the words 'Plus, I hate democracy' into whatever he was saying. I don't dismiss the "mob". I'm part of it, as are you, whether you know it or not. You're saying that secrets have to be kept from us, so that your government and my government continue to have undamaged diplomatic relations. Well my government is lying to me and aiding, and abetting, your government's crimes, as these Wikileaks have shown, and I can only consent (or not) to this if I know it's going on - and if the price of that is that the relationships between your government and mine are damaged (making it less likely for your government to, say, forcibly evict people from their homes to make a military base, or for you genocidal nuclear weapons to be stored in my country, as happened in the past, or for the integrity of the political institutions in my country to be compromised to 'protect US interests'), I think that's a price well worth paying for more democracy. Bring it on!
I might've missed the "trivial" in the first batch - I must admit to not have done any extensive search on the subject; like most I was mostly happy about someone proving what everyone already more or less knew. It is only with this second batch the negatives came to my attention. But that doesn't really change my stance - and it is still very possible to remain a credible source without publishing the chit-chat.
I actually always note where people are from and even did a little scottish accented comment to myself But perhaps you should notice I'm from DK, the US government isn't mine. That doesn't really matter though as my arguments are pretty universal. Not knowing what someone else thinks about you isn't lieing to you, I don't think we can disagree there? Getting to know what other people think =/= more democracy - it only equals less or worse international cooperation. And you can think pretty much what ever you like about international cooperation but no matter how you go around it, international cooperation is needed if we are to solve the problems of this world.
|
On December 07 2010 06:54 furymonkey wrote:
Just a question, what stop Wikileaks from making up or receiving fake leaks? Now that they have a reputation on providing real leaks, it would be hard to distinguish what's real and what's not, as people won't believe other side's story.
They said they hired people to validate the leak, but what stops Wikileak itself having their own agenda?
Wikileaks has an "agenda". So does every living person (includes civil servants, judges, presidents...), news agency and government.
But you're talking about something else. You're talking about outright fraud. Well, that seems like a very far-fetched idea. If there's ever something released that doesn't add up, perhaps then the matter will become relevant. Right now though, who cares? What if the president of the US were a Chinese spy? What if God was one of us? What if...
We know that governments lie to get us into war. We know that security is used as a front to shield the powerful from scrutiny when stakes are highest. We know that most news media need outside forces to make them speak truth to power. There is no such thing as a perfect system. There's no such thing as a perfect organization. The truth will set us free (kinda, hopefully).
|
On December 07 2010 06:53 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 06:36 VIB wrote: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. I think if you intend to make something public which has such a big impact on society, then you NEED to check everything. I actually think wikileaks should be a governmental body (I know that doesn't really make sense, but then again I come from a country which basicly invented the concept i.e. Ombudsmanden). Well, personally, I think everyone on the planet should be altruist. I think we should have no wars nor famine. I think our robots should do all the heavy work for us while we fool around all day. But on the real world we have to work with what we have
On December 07 2010 06:54 furymonkey wrote:
Just a question, what stop Wikileaks from making up or receiving fake leaks? Now that they have a reputation on providing real leaks, it would be hard to distinguish what's real and what's not, as people won't believe other side's story.
They said they hired people to validate the leak, but what stops Wikileak itself having their own agenda? So far all of what they leaked has been confirmed to be true even by the targets of the leak. If at any point, anyone start saying the leaks aren't true, we can start doubting. But so far that has never happened. And when it does, we can also ask for those saying the leaks aren't true, to try and prove it 
|
On December 07 2010 07:23 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 06:53 Ghostcom wrote:On December 07 2010 06:36 VIB wrote: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. I think if you intend to make something public which has such a big impact on society, then you NEED to check everything. I actually think wikileaks should be a governmental body (I know that doesn't really make sense, but then again I come from a country which basicly invented the concept i.e. Ombudsmanden). Well, personally, I think everyone on the planet should be altruist. I think we should have no wars nor famine. I think our robots should do all the heavy work for us while we fool around all day. But on the real world we have to work with what we have
It's not an unrealistic demand in any way or shape like you are making it sound. On the contrary it is actually immoral to refrain from doing so.
|
On December 07 2010 06:34 rabidch wrote: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. Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:52 AttackZerg wrote: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.
You really want the world to continue status quo?
At one point humans believed that rats could mutate out of wet rages , witches were burnt and people widely believed that mana fell from the heavens each morning to feed the jews.
I do not feel at all compelled to follow in ridiculous paths of the past.
I have been using the internet since 1996 and I've been addicted to free information since then. I have believed for years that the internet would set us free. Now people are wielding it as a sword and the result is that freedom of information is ruining the image of some politicians.... boo hoo. How many people have died because it is in the best interest of my country to kill first and count bodies later.
My country has no right to use protected diplomats to spy on other nations. That isn't politics that is espionage.
|
It is sad to see that the media and governments can make people debate the wrong issue. We shouldn't care at all about if what wikileaks does is immoral or illegal. It doesn't matter, even if it is.
US citizens now know more about how the US government acts and thinks. And they should now known the US doesn't like democracy. But this is not talked about. Isn't the US a democracy where the people would like their government to also promote that in other countries? I thought US people believed that? Or got they that cynical?
One clear example is that the US thinks that Arab countries support an attack on Iran. But, 80% of the people in those countries oppose attacking Iran. Even 56% think the middle east is better off with an Iran that has nuclear weapons. They are scared of Israel having nuclear weapons and no one on the arab side having them. Now they may be wrong. But you either believe in democracy or you don't.
Instead, US quotes Arab dictators, who are US puppets. And they might quote them selectively.
Maybe wikileaks censors the documents to bias a certain view. I don't really believe that. But US diplomats are going to be very selective and one sided in what they report.
|
On December 07 2010 06:54 furymonkey wrote:
Just a question, what stop Wikileaks from making up or receiving fake leaks? Now that they have a reputation on providing real leaks, it would be hard to distinguish what's real and what's not, as people won't believe other side's story.
They said they hired people to validate the leak, but what stops Wikileak itself having their own agenda?
Well judging from the reaction from the US government, they aren't fake.
And what you bring it is a pretty common dilemma. "Who watches the watchmen?"
|
On December 07 2010 07:58 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 06:54 furymonkey wrote:
Just a question, what stop Wikileaks from making up or receiving fake leaks? Now that they have a reputation on providing real leaks, it would be hard to distinguish what's real and what's not, as people won't believe other side's story.
They said they hired people to validate the leak, but what stops Wikileak itself having their own agenda? Well judging from the reaction from the US government, they aren't fake. And what you bring it is a pretty common dilemma. "Who watches the watchmen?"
Government isn't suppose to be so powerful as was the idea of founders. It is the idea that the people watch the watchmen. and vice versa. Both have duties and when one fails the other follows suit.
People start turning to drugs-gangs and crime The government follows suit and played into that culture shift ( Brazil ) - Luckily that is now coming to an end.
Just like when people stop hounding the government and let their voices die. The government takes control and there is no transparency or in our case a false sense of transparency. If people really had a sense of what was going on i think we would see our country take a much better shift. Our tax dollars Have no oversight what so ever from the people. It's just controlled by the elite. and its a god damn shame.
|
On December 07 2010 06:54 furymonkey wrote:
Just a question, what stop Wikileaks from making up or receiving fake leaks? Now that they have a reputation on providing real leaks, it would be hard to distinguish what's real and what's not, as people won't believe other side's story.
They said they hired people to validate the leak, but what stops Wikileak itself having their own agenda?
This is a very valid point that also raises the question have they already provided false information by faking a document, or perhaps by changing one. Even Subtle changes can have dire ramifications with this kind of information.
|
|
|
On December 07 2010 09:03 undyinglight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 06:54 furymonkey wrote:
Just a question, what stop Wikileaks from making up or receiving fake leaks? Now that they have a reputation on providing real leaks, it would be hard to distinguish what's real and what's not, as people won't believe other side's story.
They said they hired people to validate the leak, but what stops Wikileak itself having their own agenda? This is a very valid point that also raises the question have they already provided false information by faking a document, or perhaps by changing one. Even Subtle changes can have dire ramifications with this kind of information.
Its unlikely though. Like others said, with entire governments that would love nothing better than to take Wikileaks down, the only thing keeping them alive (and with supporters) is the reliability they have shown. If that trust is broken, they lose everything, its not worth it for them. Besides, from what they have released so far (and the reactions to it), it seems that information has been true. If information released by wikileaks turns out to be false, it only hurts them by making them be like other news agencies who twist facts to tailor their needs, instead of reporting documents brought forth by whistleblowers (and attempting to verify them).
Yes, anything is possible, just unlikely.
|
On December 07 2010 09:07 moopie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 09:03 undyinglight wrote:On December 07 2010 06:54 furymonkey wrote:
Just a question, what stop Wikileaks from making up or receiving fake leaks? Now that they have a reputation on providing real leaks, it would be hard to distinguish what's real and what's not, as people won't believe other side's story.
They said they hired people to validate the leak, but what stops Wikileak itself having their own agenda? This is a very valid point that also raises the question have they already provided false information by faking a document, or perhaps by changing one. Even Subtle changes can have dire ramifications with this kind of information. Its unlikely though. Like others said, with entire governments that would love nothing better than to take Wikileaks down, the only thing keeping them alive (and with supporters) is the reliability they have shown. If that trust is broken, they lose everything, its not worth it for them. Besides, from what they have released so far (and the reactions to it), it seems that information has been true. Yes, anything is possible, just unlikely.
I agree with your sentiments, still it will be interesting to observe them and see what their next move is, or seeing what their agendas truly are. I suspect a malicious plot in the works.
|
There was an interesting read in the WSJ today about this bomb of information.
Assange has written several documents about his dislike for the USA and other conspiracy documents. And yeah, it definitely will make the government seem like it has nothing to hide and will make what they are doing more transparent, but this will lead to unfavorable ramifications to the way the government is operated. These documents will make the government return back to its pre-9/11 ways of being more tight-lipped and increased inefficiency with its transferring of information between officials. So yeah, that's great we feel like we have more power against the government, but it's not going to be benificial in the long-run to the US.
|
On December 07 2010 09:16 kathode wrote:
There was an interesting read in the WSJ today about this bomb of information.
Assange has written several documents about his dislike for the USA and other conspiracy documents. And yeah, it definitely will make the government seem like it has nothing to hide and will make what they are doing more transparent, but this will lead to unfavorable ramifications to the way the government is operated. These documents will make the government return back to its pre-9/11 ways of being more tight-lipped and increased inefficiency with its transferring of information between officials. So yeah, that's great we feel like we have more power against the government, but it's not going to be benificial in the long-run to the US.
If we allow government to become more secretive because Wikileaks reveals criminal actions by the government, whose fault will it be? There was a time decades ago where stuff like the War Logs and Cablegate might have beaten the government into accountability. Apparently, such times are no longer.
Or maybe government is already accountable for the people, and the citizenry of the United States as a whole truly do not wish to know what their government does and does not do. In which case, I have absolutely no sympathy for what's coming to them. Assange is NOT beholden to the United States...which pretty much makes him unique in this world, considering the arm-twisting the US has done, and the disgusting groveling that has ensued.
...Incidentally, this is exactly what Assange is trying to do. I've posted it before, and I'll post it again. It's literally hacker mentality, applied to transparency. Curing government through inefficiency...
http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-“to-destroy-this-invisible-government”/#
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
