Wikileaks Mega Thread!

[Set the Unbound]

You need to delve deeper. The leaks hitting the front pages are about the USA, but there is SO MUCH stuff leaked by Wikileaks- everything from Azerbaijan's War on Beards to corruption in various Carribean governments.

I thought Julian was a tosser at first, but the more Wikileaks material I read the more I forgive him.

Secrecy has its place, but it's obvious from many of the leaked documents that secrecy is most often just a tool for the powerful to use to conceal their crimes...

Yes but how many of the crimes that have been exposed by wikileaks weren't already known to those who pay attention?

Suspected by those who pay attention, in many cases.

The Dyncorp / Afghan National Police pedophile-sex-party scandal was rumoured way back in July 2009 (and subject to furious denials by the Afghan Interior Minister); but it was not until I read the US diplomatic cables about it that I could believe it really happened.

That stuff is just whacked, and could lose us the war.

I'm sure most of the world's intelligence agencies already knew about it, and of course the local Afghans did, but Wikileaks brought it to the attention of the Western public in a way that noone else could.

[Sciox]

In a lot of the political thrillers I like to read (in paticular the Mitch Rapp series by Vince Flynn) a situation that crops up for American intelligence agencies is that the US's allies are reluctant to share information with them becuase it is eventually leaked to the public and this leads to the loss of the source.

Now this article I read describes a slightly different situation but still illustrates the reason I dislike wikileaks, if the US cannot guarantee information security their allies will stop sharing information and will lead to breakdowns in international relations.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20101216.aspx

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

That stuff is just whacked, and could lose us the war.

Wait, you mean it was winnable at some point?

[Vonners]

In a lot of the political thrillers I like to read (in paticular the Mitch Rapp series by Vince Flynn) a situation that crops up for American intelligence agencies is that the US's allies are reluctant to share information with them becuase it is eventually leaked to the public and this leads to the loss of the source.

Now this article I read describes a slightly different situation but still illustrates the reason I dislike wikileaks, if the US cannot guarantee information security their allies will stop sharing information and will lead to breakdowns in international relations.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20101216.aspx

what about the newspapers? Do you dislike the newspapers?

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

In a lot of the political thrillers I like to read (in paticular the Mitch Rapp series by Vince Flynn) a situation that crops up for American intelligence agencies is that the US's allies are reluctant to share information with them becuase it is eventually leaked to the public and this leads to the loss of the source.

Now this article I read describes a slightly different situation but still illustrates the reason I dislike wikileaks, if the US cannot guarantee information security their allies will stop sharing information and will lead to breakdowns in international relations.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20101216.aspx

what about the newspapers? Do you dislike the newspapers?

Newspapers are the bastion of Teh Liberal Noise Machine, of course I hate them.

[Vonners]

what about the newspapers? Do you dislike the newspapers?

Newspapers are the bastion of Teh Liberal Noise Machine, of course I hate them.

Damn straight!

[Sciox]

In a lot of the political thrillers I like to read (in paticular the Mitch Rapp series by Vince Flynn) a situation that crops up for American intelligence agencies is that the US's allies are reluctant to share information with them becuase it is eventually leaked to the public and this leads to the loss of the source.

Now this article I read describes a slightly different situation but still illustrates the reason I dislike wikileaks, if the US cannot guarantee information security their allies will stop sharing information and will lead to breakdowns in international relations.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20101216.aspx

what about the newspapers? Do you dislike the newspapers?

There are a few I dislike but that's mainly because they feature to many celebrity peices and not enough real news.

[Jesus Strippers]

I love the arguments.

If the US has secrecy, we're like China or NK.

So, if we go completely and totally open, and, additionally, disband the military (If we post our plans to the US Twitter accounts, there's no point in a military ), we'll be good?

Sounds brilliant!

FUND IT!

This argument is completely moronic. That Jullian bastard should be hanged. Why the hell would anyone post their MILITARY SECRETS on the freaking Internet. That makes about as much sense as (quoting yesterday's issue) "the death penalty for attempted suicide."

[The Alma Mater]

I love the arguments.

If the US has secrecy, we're like China or NK.

So, if we go completely and totally open, and, additionally, disband the military (If we post our plans to the US Twitter accounts, there's no point in a military ), we'll be good?

Sounds brilliant!

FUND IT!

This argument is completely moronic. That Jullian bastard should be hanged. Why the hell would anyone post their MILITARY SECRETS on the freaking Internet.

What secrets did wikileaks reveal that were not already readily available on the internet then ?

[Camicon]

This argument is completely moronic. That Jullian bastard should be hanged. Why the hell would anyone post their MILITARY SECRETS on the freaking Internet.

What secrets did wikileaks reveal that were not already readily available on the internet then ?

Ooh! I know! I know!

The classified sutff wasn't on the internet in the first place. *eyeroll*

[The Alma Mater]

What secrets did wikileaks reveal that were not already readily available on the internet then ?

Ooh! I know! I know!

The classified sutff wasn't on the internet in the first place. *eyeroll*

Buzzzz.
Wrong

[Camicon]

Ooh! I know! I know!

The classified sutff wasn't on the internet in the first place. *eyeroll*

Buzzzz.
Wrong

Hmm? Find me a legitimate source that says the US government put classified military documents on the internet, please and thank you.

[Vonners]

what about the newspapers? Do you dislike the newspapers?

There are a few I dislike but that's mainly because they feature to many celebrity peices and not enough real news.

well if you dislike wikileaks then you gotta dislike the papers that printed the cables as well right?

[Zetion]

What secrets did wikileaks reveal that were not already readily available on the internet then ?

Ooh! I know! I know!

The classified sutff wasn't on the internet in the first place. *eyeroll*

If the classified stuff was important I would care.
But now "classified" means covering up for your fuck-ups and war crimes.

[The Alma Mater]

Buzzzz.
Wrong

Hmm? Find me a legitimate source that says the US government put classified military documents on the internet, please and thank you.

The actual documents ? No.
The contents ? Hell yes. Almost everything wikileaks published was already well known and easily looked up if one was interested. All wikileaks added were a few details, names and personal opinions of diplomats. Why the media has decided to call this NEWS and shove it down the throats of people who in the past 10 years did not even care enough to spend 5 minutes googling things is beyond me.

Still, perhaps there will be more interesting stuff found in the not-yet-read-masses.

[Camicon]

Hmm? Find me a legitimate source that says the US government put classified military documents on the internet, please and thank you.

The actual documents ? No.
The contents ? Hell yes. Almost everything wikileaks published was already well known and easily looked up if one was interested. All wikileaks added were a few details, names and personal opinions of diplomats. Why the media has decided to call this NEWS and shove it down the throats of people who in the past 10 years did not even care enough to spend 5 minutes googling things is beyond me.

Still, perhaps there will be more interesting stuff found in the not-yet-read-masses.

So it should've been a "Buzzzz Right!"
The stuff they've already published, much of it was not found on the internet prior to it's release. For example, all the diplomatic cables.

[Bohemiques]

Media don't really lean right or left. Media lean towards profit.

[The Corparation]

This argument is completely moronic. That Jullian bastard should be hanged. Why the hell would anyone post their MILITARY SECRETS on the freaking Internet.

What secrets did wikileaks reveal that were not already readily available on the internet then ?

Almost nothing new was revealed, to those that payed attention. It just proved there suspicions and brought it to the attention of the everyday uninformed person.

[Geniasis]

I love the arguments.

If the US has secrecy, we're like China or NK.

So, if we go completely and totally open, and, additionally, disband the military (If we post our plans to the US Twitter accounts, there's no point in a military ), we'll be good?

Sounds brilliant!

FUND IT!

This argument is completely moronic. That Jullian bastard should be hanged. Why the hell would anyone post their MILITARY SECRETS on the freaking Internet. That makes about as much sense as (quoting yesterday's issue) "the death penalty for attempted suicide."

I agree, legitimately classified military secrets should remain such. When you abuse that system of classification, however, you destroy that trust. At the moment, we cannot trust the American government to be able to determine what is and isn't worth classifying.

[Zeyad]

This argument is completely moronic. That Jullian bastard should be hanged. Why the hell would anyone post their MILITARY SECRETS on the freaking Internet. That makes about as much sense as (quoting yesterday's issue) "the death penalty for attempted suicide."

I agree, legitimately classified military secrets should remain such. When you abuse that system of classification, however, you destroy that trust. At the moment, we cannot trust the American government to be able to determine what is and isn't worth classifying.

So we punish the government? That'll work wonders won't it?

[Geniasis]

So we punish the government? That'll work wonders won't it?

Did I say that?

No, I don't believe I did.

[Funk4ever]

Ooh! I know! I know!

The classified sutff wasn't on the internet in the first place. *eyeroll*

If the classified stuff was important I would care.
But now "classified" means covering up for your fuck-ups and war crimes.

What war crimes and how would they not be important?

[Octanus IV]

asd

[Katganistan]

asd

That's three.

*** One day ban for spamming. ***

[Scientific socks]

If the classified stuff was important I would care.
But now "classified" means covering up for your fuck-ups and war crimes.

What war crimes and how would they not be important?

I have not heard of any troop locations being revealed. But even if that was the case the Wikileaks founder was not the one who put it up. He may have been negligent to delete something but he is not the leaker. He is just the publisher. Oh also he is not American so he never really betrayed the American troops. The closest you could push this is he is betraying the troops of allies as he is technically an Australian citizen.

He is a supporter of espionage which I am sure is punishible in that context but he is not the one who is doing the initial espionage.

Still why we should believe what is up there is beyond me. Most of it is believed because it sounds so plausable by what we already know. If the foreign countries are reliant upon this information for whatever (unknown) reasons I would seriously question their judgement. A smart general may be able to use this to his advantage by putting up false leaks and setting up traps.

What life has been put at risk by this is also unknown by me. If anyone is responsible for putting American lives at risk (or others as every democracy has been targeted) prehaps we should be blaming thoes who authorised guantanamo and thoes who organised sex parties with children. This certainly is going to have an impact on winning over the foreign citizens.

But nah lets blame the publisher whos crime was setting up a web site and not its content when any inteligent military commander could use this to his advantage if terrorist are silly enough to believe information that can not be proven other than by the reactions of thoes who have been acussed.