• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

wikileaks: friend or foe?

Migrated topic.
but polytrip there exposing LIES. thats the whole point to all this. your making this about law enforcement for some reason..? not sure why. also your insisting you know wikileaks motives behind the release of the cables when none of us know whats in the guys mind for sure.

personally i dont think he wants to destroy western society. i think he wants people to know how much they're being bullshitted every day and that brave young men are out there dying everyday for these lies in the streets. for what? oil. dont kid yourself into thinking either of these wars have anything to do with freedom or ending tyranny ext. its about oil and our greedy forceful panic to get every last drop un-interfered.

unless your going to start defending the Iraq/Afghanistan wars i dont see why you would find his actions as a bad thing. were tired of people being fed a pile of lies and then sent to war to kill on false pretenses while we torture our captives in secret prisons. what wrong with exposing that with irrefutable evidence?

you also bring up hooliganism. your looking at each little person involved and calling them savages or whatever term you used when actually things like graffiti and rioting are perfect examples of a society fed up and pushing back. its not in a peaceful way nor do i condone it but your missing the disease these social unrest incidents are a symptom of. a government with no accountability and not playing by the rules with no plans to change.
 
It won't matter if Assange gets convicted for something related to releasing this information. It will suck for him but on the whole the cat is out of the bag anyone can set up a website and anyone can do it anonymously so its less likely to get caught.

What wikileaks doing is really important. Once all the information gets processed and read by more people the more people will realize how fucked up the world really is. If we want to survive the next century that is essential. The leaders of the world are so paranoid and heavily armed, as these documents only further confirm, that this needs to happen.

Also the information in these documents does not single out the US or the west. It shows how corrupt the governments of the world are. There is tons of information on what other countries are doing that's messed up. It doesn't matter if most of the sources are US intelligence since the US is actively spying on or communicating with most people anyway.

There are also efforts made to conceal identify of certain persons. Wikileaks asked the government if it would help seal off names of sensitive people but they didn't want to. In other words their informants lives are worth less then their secrets being kept. However in many documents names are crossed off or XXX'd out.

If you think what wikileaks is doing is wrong try reading through just a handful of random releases. Upon reading enough of them you will realize how necessary this is.

Here is a funny:

 
those are really good points burnt and they sum up what i think most of us are saying.

polytrip- burnt has a great idea, have you even read these cables yet? if you havent you really should if nothing more than to be more informed to defend your position. they may just surprise you. :d

either way good debate going on here.
 
polytrip said:
Actually i don't need to make these points. It's the greatest proponents of wikileaks themselves who do this for me.

Benzyme and saidin themselves have said that they want war and the destruction of western society and that they see wikileaks as a step towards the realisation of that goal.
Click to expand...



nahh nahh, don't put words into my mouth.

all we want, and any other sensible person who voted 'wikileaks is good' wants, is the release of confidential information to the citizens/consumers that would make them second-guess who it is they were supporting and voting for. my wife couldn't understand why I, or anyone else, would want to know what the gov't and the businesses it protects, is up to.. I succinctly put, "well, would you support __ (the company she works for), if you found out they are involved with a child sex slave ring?"
she promptly shook her head.

this is what i'm talking about, among many other heinous crimes these people commit.



I'm not a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, nor a foreign diplomat. I have nothing to hide that affects/supresses other countries' citizens.
 
Hmm, it seems i've been acting a bit fucked-up.

I think it was benzyme's extremely one-sided way of looking at it. The total denying that there could be any irresponsable way of leaking.

I said: OK, i see how the government is realy asking for it and has no right to complain if they don't have a protocol for responsible whistle-blowing that could save lies and expose breaches of the law from the government itself.
Then benzyme goes: hahaha!! irresponsible leaking that would threaten the system itself?..fuck the system and if a few people get killed on the way, so be it, totally fine with me, that's what wars are for!
So then i go: Whaaaat? you say you want the whole world to go up in flames just because there are some crooks among us???
Now i see it, THAT's been the whole reason all along from these anarchists...pretending to expose hypocrisy, but with a secret agenda.
 
benzyme said:
that's ridiculous.
sorry, but that logic is FAIL.
Click to expand...
So basically, after you torpeded my totally reasonable idea that there should be a protocol that whistle blowers could follow and that would separate whistle blowers from irresponsable leaking by saying that there CAN be no irresponsable leaking because the whole system is corrupt from crown to toe-top.
And after i spoke out my worries about how law-enforcement and prevention of terrorism could be threatened if no government agency could have any secret no more and that innocent people could become victim of it.
You go: that happens anyway and it's called war.
So how is it ridiculous and failed logic if i conclude from that that you're hate against the government is so tremendous that you would betotally fine with it to see the whole world go down if only it would take the government with it in it's fall?

I admit that those type of comments totally fuck me up, but it's in no way ridiculous or failed logic to conclude that there is apparently no aversion of violence among fanatic supporters of wikileaks if this is their way of discussing things.
 
what I was saying is, that violence and war, civilian casualties...that all happens regardless, and because of power struggles among governments, hidden agendas, etc.

terrorists have nothing to do with it. hell, if you disagree with what your gov't is doing, you're technically considered a terrorist..250 years ago, you'd be considered a patriot.

there is nothing wrong with wanting to expose the truth. responsible citizens would just reneg on their so-called "civic duty" of voting, and not support the aformentioned businesses nor the politicians they sponsor. inform the people of who they've been supporting, and what they've been doing.
 
benzyme said:
what I was saying is, that violence and war, civilian casualties...that all happens regardless, and because of power struggles among governments, hidden agendas, etc.

terrorists have nothing to do with it. hell, if you disagree with what your gov't is doing, you're technically considered a terrorist..250 years ago, you'd be considered a patriot.

there is nothing wrong with wanting to expose the truth. responsible citizens would just reneg on their so-called "civic duty" of voting, and not support the aformentioned businesses nor the politicians they sponsor. inform the people of who they've been supporting, and what they've been doing.
Click to expand...

Benzyme

Brilliantly said... 8)


Much Peace and Understanding
 
polytrip said:
What i'm sugesting is a little more subtle. I sugest there should be a protocol for leaking classified information. Specified circumstances that would allow leaking.

I assume that leaking classified documents is already an illegal thing to do, but there are clearly situations thinkable where leaking would be justified for the greater good of all. Define those circumstances and put them in a law, so that people know what they're supposed to do if they encounter situations where they feel they're obliged to leak.

I suggest, and i hardly think any person equipped with enough intellectual capabilities to understand this very sentence could disagree, that this would be the SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE weapon against irresponsible leaking (revealing names of informants, amounts of ransom paid by foreign embasees in cases of kidnappings, UFO landing sites, etc.)
Click to expand...
As you can see, up till that moment i was very much tending towards 'wikileaks is good'.

It was the fact that this suggestion was torpeded by benzyme as 'too conservative' that made me turn the other side.
If no branch of the government can keep anything secret, than the whole system is at risk. Not just the fact that haliburton has half of the american government in it's pocket. If some law enforcement agency would get up the guts to investigate halliburton's shady busines, than haliburton would be the first to know this, if everything the government does is made public.

I would want there to be a whistle blower protocol that would offer legal protection to any whistle blower who has information that could either save lives or would reveal any kind of unjustice. I believe that such a protocol would ensure that if anybody thinks he has information that falls into this category he would know what to do.
If THEN somebody would not follow this protocol, you would know he would know for sure he has other than higher moral motives and he could be prosecuted with good reason.

I don't see how anybody could be against that, other than that you would be against the government at all times or that you would be against leaking at all times.

I'm sorry for having this discussion spiralling out of control in an ugly direction.
 
polytrip said:
I would want there to be a whistle blower protocol that would offer legal protection to any whistle blower who has information that could either save lives or would reveal any kind of unjustice. I believe that such a protocol would ensure that if anybody thinks he has information that falls into this category he would know what to do.
If THEN somebody would not follow this protocol, you would know he would know for sure he has other than higher moral motives and he could be prosecuted with good reason.
Click to expand...

agreed

I apologize for getting a bit riled, I tend to get very antagonistic against anything resembling or supporting neoconservativism; that ideology represents everything that suppresses the common man who helped build the infrastructure to begin with, with no regard to the loss of human life or environmental harm on their climb to the top of the food-chain.
The Halliburtons, the BPs, the Wal-Marts, the Phizers,the Monsantos...the list goes on and on
 
polytrip,
you keep focusing on the secrets, and why govts need to keep secrets. wikileaks has little to do with secrets and everything to do with the lies and deception of the people they serve. to expose the lies you need to reveal the secrets.

the fact that the government has secrest is not what we are upset about and trying to put am end to. were upset about the lies, killing, and greed that is destroying the planet and eventually our society will fall under their hands. this is not 2012 bullshit this is the facts. our civilization is totally un sustainable. just because the end may still be a hundred plus years away doesnt make it less real of a threat.

the opportuning rage of being treated like children that cant handle the reality of the truth is awesome. how dare they. how dare they!
 
I'm for the release of any and all information about pretty much anything that is out there, however I don't know if I actually trust wikileaks' motives. For all we know they are selectively releasing information that will be beneficial to a or a group of special interests. Some people are speculating that this and the hackers retaliation are going to cause the end of internet neutrality. Governments will probably start claiming they need to control the internet to prevent things like this from happening again. Seems like more of the whole problem, reaction, solution crap to me, but I'm not totally sure yet.
 
benzyme said:
polytrip said:
I would want there to be a whistle blower protocol that would offer legal protection to any whistle blower who has information that could either save lives or would reveal any kind of unjustice. I believe that such a protocol would ensure that if anybody thinks he has information that falls into this category he would know what to do.
If THEN somebody would not follow this protocol, you would know he would know for sure he has other than higher moral motives and he could be prosecuted with good reason.
Click to expand...

agreed

I apologize for getting a bit riled, I tend to get very antagonistic against anything resembling or supporting neoconservativism; that ideology represents everything that suppresses the common man who helped build the infrastructure to begin with, with no regard to the loss of human life or environmental harm on their climb to the top of the food-chain.
The Halliburtons, the BPs, the Wal-Marts, the Phizers,the Monsantos...the list goes on and on
Click to expand...
What we seem to have in common then, is acting agressively, maybe too agressive, towards forms of political extremism that are void or any kind of respect for human lives, or maybe life in general.

For some reason we have misunderstood eachother intentions, but that has revealed some interesting layers of moral thinking. The words 'freedom', 'liberty', 'security' or 'public interest' have no real meaning anymore. They've been stretched too far.

The meanings of the words are only instrumental for what real purpose may lie behind them, and it may even be that that underlying purpose itself is yet again only usefull to serve another goal.

In the end, desrcibing what that higher goal is is something where all western moral philosophy thus far seems to have failed.
I think this is because in western moral philosophy, and this is realy strange actually, no thoughts have been going out to the role love has to play in ethics.
Some moral theories mention empathy, but that word is realy lacking something. You can say that empathy is a form of love, a diluted or weaker form maybe. But saying that love is an enhanced version of empathy is realy strange.

The reason we so easily become upset is i think, because we've become acustomed to a world where right and wrong seem not to matter much to anybody anymore. Right and wrong are terms used, only in an opportunistic way and that is the only way that's politically correct these days. to serve the goal of getting something.
While right and wrong are the only things that realy matter. Not being right or being on the right side or getting right, but realy trying to do what's right and realy caring for what's right.
I haven't figured out a way to describe what's the right thing at all times, no formula. I think it must have something to do with love, with caring about others or the world around you.

But i know for sure that everybody has this instinct to feel it. We all deep inside know it when something is not right. It's a feeling that in the end goes deeper than a temporary rage.

And when we fight about something, we can still find and come to terms with eachother because of that feeling. Basically because we want that feeling to prevail and be and act like the best in ourselves and not the worst.
 
pretty much

it elicits deep emotion when one is perceived to side with a system that doesn't really have the individual's best interest in mind. this is why things like wikileaks and its sympathizers resonate strongly with people who are tired of knowing, not seeing and hearing, but knowing that not everything is as it seems, while others lay asleep and oblivious. entertainment is a diversion from more pressing matters.

things like starvation, social injustice...these are ills that are easily avoidable;
the disproportionate allocation of said resources is not a result of shortages, but
an unbalanced distribution.

the powers that be would rather reserve the power and resources for themselves...




why?



"Man is by nature a political animal." ~Aristotle
 
by the way....it's fine to question the motives of one man who aims to expose the misconduct of global governments...


but it's also very easy to get distracted from the big picture: why have these governments
been acting in this manner? what is it that they have to hide?

Assange did not perpetrate these heineous international crimes, nor he did perpetuate the suppression of third-world nations, start questionable wars, or contribute to mass genocide. remember who's really on trial here, it's so much bigger than Assange and Wikileaks.
 
polytrip said:
Benzyme and saidin themselves have said that they want war and the destruction of western society and that they see wikileaks as a step towards the realisation of that goal.
Click to expand...

I do not want, nor condone war or violence of any type. In fact I believe they are antithetical to the goals at hand. I am meerly pointing out that in times of change, violence can happen and lives can be lost. Think more of Kent State and less Moussolini. Western society is already crumbling, and when it falls (and it will) a lot of chaos is inevitable as people are woefully unprepared for what would result.

The system we have does not work, it is bad for the people and it is destroying this planet. Either something changes and we find a new paradigm or we will destroy ourselves, it is as simple as that. Change is inevitable, it must happen if we are to survive, id rather see it come before its too late, and wikileaks to me is a step in the right direction. More information in the hands of the masses is always a good thing in my opinion.

polytrip said:
Anybody can easily convince me that i am wrong. You just need to convince me that either of the following four points are wrong:

1-If you want to fight crime or terrorism you need to keep some things secret.

4-If you want society to change, then this can be done peacefully since peacefull protest is allowed in our society's.

If you can proof me wrong on ANY of those four points, then i will immediately admit that i am wrong.
Click to expand...

I'll tackle a couple of your points. First off, one mans "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter". To use a broad brush stroke term like terrorist could apply to any and all people who believe in their own soverignity as individual rights and freedoms butt directly up against any and all state entities. Secondly you cannot win a "war" against an ideal. The "War on Terrorism" has done nothing more than create more terrorists and make us less safe. The "War on Crime" creates more crime and less freedom in the name of "security". The "War on Poverty" creates more poverty, the "War on Drugs" more problems with drugs. By focusing attention upon it and labeling it as something to be defeated or eradicated you only perpetuate the existence of said malady.

There is no such thing as a terrorist. It is a word used by one government to set its populace against another whom it deems different or unworthy. It is a fabricated enemy, a ruse to keep the population from looking at the wrongs being perpetuated in their own back yard, and instead to some mythical enemy "over there".

To #4. Yes, I agree that all long lasting and meaningful change should come about by peaceful means. Peaceful protest is allowed in many societies, but it is severly restricted, and has been dealt with heavy handedly quite often. Wikileaks is the ultimate peaceful protest, allowing all to have at their disposal the information to make a reasoned decision as to whether we want the kind of dealings our "leaders" are perputating in our name. They represent US, and I for one want to know exactly what they are doing in that regard.

How can we "elect" people to carry out our will if all that they do is hidden behind closed doors? Or they are allowed to say one thing and do another?
 
saidin- cheers to that pearl of wisdom. i wish your reply could be read by the world or this whole thread for that matter. very well put. i agree completely that wikileaks is the ultimate non violent protest. all they have done is shown the world the true nature of government in this century. they have fabricated nothing. they simply are drawing back the curtain revealing the truth.
 
I support the leaking:

1) When VP Cheney's office leaked Valerie Plame's name it ruined her career and put lives at risk for the purpose of selling the lie that Iraq had a nuclear program. That leak seems a lot more sinister than these Wikileaks. I think the motives behind a leak matters.
2) What was leaked is here: Wikileaks about. It's interesting.
3) Thomas Jefferson observed that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. He didn't say it would be easy or fair.
4) I'm not sure most Americans will pay attention to this type of information. These leaks are not as much fun as American Idol TV. Most Americans are not driven by knowledge or even self-interest but rather convenience and/or fear. We seem to have a remarkable ability to deny reality. This has to eventually change, but right now it seems as if we believe what we feel like believing rather than accepting messy, inconvenient, unpleasant facts.
5) Wikileaks said they will be leaking Bank of America information soon. Do you suppose Assange will cut a deal and stop leaking to save himself? I would very much like to see some banking transparency.

I hope no lives are lost from the leaks.
 
Back
Top Bottom