The Complete Wikileaks Thread(All threads merged here!)

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question. Having no way to keep the government honest is worse I think.

You're generalizing. There are other ways. I don't know all the answers, but I know that this is not the way. I'd certainly be willing to discuss other ways, but this thread has been dilluded to the point I think our mutual discussion would be lost.

It should be pointed out that in the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was governments that wanted to put nukes in Cuba, to protect the government there from the government of the US. The Russian people, the Cuban people and the American people were just trying to make a buck and enjoy their lives.

That is a very rosy way to look at it, but having been raised by a man who lived under the tyranny of Soviet oppression I am more than aware that it wasn't as black and white as you are painting it. The Cuban missile crisis was averted because of a diplomatic solution. You and I might not be communicating via the web if some (punk ass fool cheered on by less than informed folks) had been allowed to sabotage those diplomatic efforts. Those working behind the scenes to diffuse the tension no doubt had some choice words that were not brought to the negotiating table.

Now if you and I have big 4x4 trucks and we drove those trucks all over Queens Park should we celebrate and give ourselves medals because we some how managed to avoid toppling the buildings and just ruined the lawns?

Huh? You lost me on this one Unf.

If diplomats acted honourably, leaks would men very little and no one would have to go to war over them.

Careful when you use the word "If" it get's mentalfloss's panties all bunched up.

Seriously though. If we shot those who opposed us we wouldn't have a problem with dissent or loose lips. (I can already hear the knashing of teeth over that joke) -but not from you Unf, I know you know me better than that.

To err is human, we are all human, diplomat or otherwise.

 

[eh1eh]

No sweat. I am not against whistle blowing, but I am a firm believer that there are some things which should be deemed secret. Wiki-Leaks no holds barred approach is definitely not the answer.

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question. Having no way to keep the government honest is worse I think.
...

Really this is a double edged sword. I've change my opinion seven times since this started.

 

[petros]

If you are in PUBLIC office or are funded by the taxpayer in any way shape or form you should be prepared to stand accountable for your actions and words.

 

[Unforgiven]

You're generalizing. There are other ways. I don't know all the answers, but I know that this is not the way. I'd certainly be willing to discuss other ways, but this thread has been dilluded to the point I think our mutual discussion would be lost.

I'm not trying to. This oh well what can you don approach that we have had for the last bunch of decades hasn't done a thing but make it worse. We can make this thread what we want, if we put in the effort.

That is a very rosy way to look at it, but having been raised by a man who lived under the tyranny of Soviet oppression I am more than aware that it wasn't as black and white as you are painting it. The Cuban missile crisis was averted because of a diplomatic solution. You and I might not be communicating via the web if some (punk ass fool cheered on by less than informed folks) had been allowed to sabotage those diplomatic efforts. Those working behind the scenes to diffuse the tension no doubt had some choice words that were not brought to the negotiating table.

Then again if someone showed that these guys were acting like rootin tootin cowboys from the get go, there might not have been a crisis to start with. The whole Cold War was about posturing and idle threats that neither side was going to back up if they had to answer to the people. Foreign policy is the cause of plenty of problems we have today. Like Iraq, if people know that the WMD was just a ruse to get the government to go along with the administration, and that there was no threat at all, would the war have happened?

Wikileaks isn't going and getting the information, they are distributing it after a whistle blower has given it to them. Clearly diplomats along with the rest of the government are busy playing little games with our lives. That should never be the case under any circumstances. But big deal, the government can cover things up, make people disappear and ruin lives and there is nothing that the individual can do about it. But show a whole system of government sanctioned and quite accepted despicable acts like the Iran Contra affair, and people don't accept it.

We want and deserve good government. Sitting on it until people stop demanding it is the usual way for government to deal with the issue. Look at the Canadian Senate. Abolish abolish abolish right up until elected and then it's can't abolish it so we'll stack it. If the Liberals are just as bad as the Conservatives, all anyone can suggest is a shrug and oh well. **** that ****!

Huh? You lost me on this one Unf.

The governments of US and Russia made the Cuban missile Crisis. Not me and some Russian equivalent of me. So saying the government managed to avoid a tragedy is like you and I congratulating ourselves for not doing any more damage to the lawns at queens park by driving our trucks all over the damn place. Government has to change as we can see from many of these cables. If we choose to forget about all the message and focus on the messenger, then we're the ****ing Germans in the 30s and 40s. "Oh I didn't know"

Careful when you use the word "If" it get's mentalfloss's panties all bunched up.

Mental Floss wears panties? 8O I so thought her a dude, or... where is Durka when you need him?!?

Seriously though. If we shot those who opposed us we wouldn't have a problem with dissent or loose lips. (I can already hear the knashing of teeth over that joke) -but not from you Unf, I know you know me better than that.
To err is human, we are all human, diplomat or otherwise.

I think you are closer to being on the spot than even you know. If we just kept our nose out and went about our business with our own country, let other countries deal with their own internal problems, and stepped up only when we are threatened as opposed to our "interests" the world would be a better place. If we're attacked, we should open up hell on earth in the country that attacked us. Not to make it a better stable country, but to claim it as our own, assimilate what is left as our own and take ownership of it or walk away from it a wasteland. We would only fight a couple of wars and they wouldn't last long. That would be all the diplomacy needed to get across the point you don't screw around with us.

Instead we have clean wars, limited damage and smart targeting that ensures the war will never end only fizzle out to a smoulder until it can flair up again when the next bozo gets some power.

Screw these guys man, if someone dies, it's because of what they said that they knew they shouldn't. If Jordan doesn't want Iran to have nukes, Jordan should step the hell up and do something about it instead of smiling while paying someone else to stick the knife in. It's only a matter of time before it's our turn for the knife.

 

[DaSleeper]

All those of you who are for Julian Assange........You are not alone;-)

Socialist Party USA

WikiLeaks and secret diplomacy


Take comfort in the fact that Glen Beck is also on your side....but.... maybe not for thr same reasons you think:lol:

 

[Colpy]

Um, tomorrow, the U.S. administration stops being the biggest douchebag of the world? Followed by China, UK, Australia, Canada, etc..

Oh wait, these states would rather enforce their counterproductive hegemony by completing an all out assault on one person who is just a figurehead of wikileaks, and a minute fraction of the power of that organization. An organization that has already spilled the beans and just needs to release the code to de-encrypt the other 240 something thousand files already leaked via torrent.

The guy has made a laughing stock of this administration's delusional conservatism for the last 40 years. The hilarity being that the more stringent and aggressive that administration gets, the more ludicrous they look, and the more they reinforce the obvious point of contention that diplomacy does not actually exist and a huge reform is absolutely necessary.

So, yea, lock him up! Hang him!

That's what he wants to further strengthen any backlash against U.S. foreign policy.

You're playing right into his hands.

Naw....lock him up, if he falls into your hands.......otherwise, hunt him down and shoot him dead.

Grow up.

The United States is one of the freest nations on earth. It is also one of the most generous. If you think they are worse than China then you have no grasp at all of what you are trying to discuss..........and I suggest you embark on a intensive attempt to educate yourself...

Might I suggest the following link as a start?? From Carleton University, hardly a hotbed of right-wing thought.

Country Ranking Table 2007

Oh, might I point out China is not ONLY fourth on the list of worst human rights abusers (out of 192 nations).......it is a major supporter of all three nations that are worse!!!!!

The United States is 147th on the list. Not only that, the USA is friends with every single one of the 40 nations that beat her. In addition, at least 17 of the nations considered better than the USA on human rights are free because (partly) of efforts of the USA.

Now that you've had a tiny dose of reality, go reconsider. Then come back, and we will talk.

Oh, BTW, Wikilinks was originally largely contolled by Chinese dissidents........until it was hijacked by Assange....

Now, as a historian, let me explain something to you: the sensible people on this earth get on their knees every night and thank GOD that, if there is to be a superpower, it is the USA.

 

[petros]

Lmao

 

[ironsides]

Really this is a double edged sword. I've change my opinion seven times since this started.

Just castrate him and turn him lose.

 

[CUBert]

Naw....lock him up, if he falls into your hands.......otherwise, hunt him down and shoot him dead.

Grow up.

The United States is one of the freest nations on earth. It is also one of the most generous. If you think they are worse than China then you have no grasp at all of what you are trying to discuss..........and I suggest you embark on a intensive attempt to educate yourself...

Might I suggest the following link as a start?? From Carleton University, hardly a hotbed of right-wing thought.

Country Ranking Table 2007

Oh, might I point out China is not ONLY fourth on the list of worst human rights abusers (out of 192 nations).......it is a major supporter of all three nations that are worse!!!!!

The United States is 147th on the list. Not only that, the USA is friends with every single one of the 40 nations that beat her. In addition, at least 17 of the nations considered better than the USA on human rights are free because (partly) of efforts of the USA.

Now that you've had a tiny dose of reality, go reconsider. Then come back, and we will talk.

Oh, BTW, Wikilinks was originally largely contolled by Chinese dissidents........until it was hijacked by Assange....

Now, as a historian, let me explain something to you: the sensible people on this earth get on their knees every night and thank GOD that, if there is to be a superpower, it is the USA.

lmfao

 

[ironsides]

Contributing to the slander campaign against Assange?

The charges are ridiculous. The original charges were dropped because the prosecutor felt they had no chance of resulting in a conviction, since everyone involved agreed the sex was consensual. The dispute is whether or not they agreed to sex without a condom. The charges were later revived and enhanced after he released the latest round of wikileaks. If this was anyone else, the charges would not have been revived and the chances of conviction would be near zero.

Assange's case proves that f you piss off powerful people, your life will come under the microscope. You, your family, friends and associates will be harassed and discredited. Powerful people will call for your assassination and you will be the subject of illegal actions without any recourse to the legal system.

I disagree with powerful people being able to use the legal system to harass people.

BTW, Assange's publication of leaked classified docs does not violate any laws in the US or elsewhere. He is not in the US, nor is he an American citizen. The criminal may be whoever released the classified documents. If that person was a disgruntled American citizen, that person broke the law. If the source was an agent of hostile foreign government, then no law was broken and this is a diplomatic issue.

Be assured that if he hurt the wrong people he will have a accident. Remember what happened to Alexander Litvinenko.

 

[Tonington]

I'm very torn up over this whole affair. Like eh1, I keep bouncing between the two polar opposites. In my case, I have a problem because it's two competing models for how I view my world. On the one hand, I very much agree with the intent and the idealistic foundations that wikileaks is built upon. Whistleblowing is absolutely an essential part of democracy in my books.

But it's here where I have a crisis, because I'm also of the view that some information is best left out of the public, indeed has no business whatsoever being made public. Nobody should have their identity made public if they do not choose, their personal information must be safe guarded. If it isn't, that's a tangible harm.

Public officials and civil servants are aware that there are consequences to how this information is handled. There's a reason that those laws exist, because there are obviously benefits to protecting information, but also protecting the people who blow the whistle when they smell something funny.

I genuinely see merits in both arguments, and don't know how to square the two in cases like this.

 

[earth_as_one]

When I was in China, I never noticed anyone's freedom restricted and I never heard anyone complain about their lack of freedom. What I noticed is that in China I can buy beer or wine in a convenience store and take it to a restaurant. Try that in Canada, see what happens. In China I can walk down the street drinking a beer and get on the subway. Again try that in Canada and see how free we are.

Sure you can't agitate to overthrow the government or break their laws. We can't do that here in Canada either. If someone seriously tried to change Canada to a communist system and had a following, they'd be jailed just as quickly and as long as Liu Xiaobo.

In China you know you have an authoritarian government, and have no illusions about how the system works.

In Canada we have an illusion of democracy, but in reality we live in a plutocracy where wealthy people control the media, control what people know, who gets elected, and as a result control the government. Unlike the Chinese, the majority of Canadians haven't figured out how our system works.

Assange is a threat to the plutocratic system. He'll probably spend about the same length of time in prison as Liu Xiaobo for not wearing a condom during consensual sex.

But if you think China is less free than Canada, you'll have to give me an example of something you can do here and can't do there.

 

[eh1eh]

When I was in China, I never noticed anyone's freedom restricted and I never heard anyone complain about their lack of freedom. What I noticed is that in China I can buy beer or wine in a convenience store and take it to a restaurant. Try that in Canada, see what happens. In China I can walk down the street drinking a beer and get on the subway. Again try that in Canada and see how free we are.

Sure you can't agitate to overthrow the government or break their laws. We can't do that here in Canada either. If someone seriously tried to change Canada to a communist system and had a following, they'd be jailed just as quickly and as long as Liu Xiaobo.

In China you know you have an authoritarian government, and have no illusions about how the system works.

In Canada we have an illusion of democracy, but in reality we live in a plutocracy where wealthy people control the media, control what people know, who gets elected, and as a result control the government. Unlike the Chinese, the majority of Canadians haven't figured out how our system works.

Assange is a threat to the plutocratic system. He'll probably spend about the same length of time in prison as Liu Xiaobo for not wearing a condom during consensual sex.

But if you think China is less free than Canada, you'll have to give me an example of something you can do here and can't do there.

There are people in Canada trying to change it into a communist state. They are called the communist party of Canada. They are a LEGAL entity in this country and are not in prison. They have that right here. Is there a democracy party of China? If there is I would bet they are in jail. OK that's one thing you can do here that you can't do in China. I know you are a boob and I'm wasting bandwidth but what the hell.

 

[Tonington]

“In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble," Ron Paul

 

[ironsides]

How little knowledge you picked up while in China, and how little you know about your own country. You want an example:


" I have been to China and saw people conscious of every word they spoke, every movement was closely monitored by the police"


http://www.lnahinu.com/blog/2008/03/25/you-cannot-compare-the-us-and-china/




I have only been to Hong Kong, so I will not comment other than we had a great time.

 

[Colpy]

I'm very torn up over this whole affair. Like eh1, I keep bouncing between the two polar opposites. In my case, I have a problem because it's two competing models for how I view my world. On the one hand, I very much agree with the intent and the idealistic foundations that wikileaks is built upon. Whistleblowing is absolutely an essential part of democracy in my books.

But it's here where I have a crisis, because I'm also of the view that some information is best left out of the public, indeed has no business whatsoever being made public. Nobody should have their identity made public if they do not choose, their personal information must be safe guarded. If it isn't, that's a tangible harm.

Public officials and civil servants are aware that there are consequences to how this information is handled. There's a reason that those laws exist, because there are obviously benefits to protecting information, but also protecting the people who blow the whistle when they smell something funny.

I genuinely see merits in both arguments, and don't know how to square the two in cases like this.

Cool.

It is, of course, a matter of degree. I'm not much of a fence sitter............

Were this aimed at achieving justice foe anyone, I would probably have some sympathy........

But justice is not in Assange's dictionary.....he is just another spoiled little brain-dead brat (at the age of 39) determined to get some attention, and in the process throw a kick or two at the perpetual football, the USA.

And he doesn't give a hoot about the side effects.

 

[shadowshiv]

Re: Hu Jintao, "Kim, You Can't Even Feed 20 Million People?"

There was already a thread on this. It was moved into the huge "Complete Wikileaks" thread so I can see why you missed it. I'll merge this one with that.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I'm wiki leaked out man.

 

[shadowshiv]

I'm wiki leaked out man.

So were we, hence the mergin's.

 

[Tonington]

Cool.

It is, of course, a matter of degree. I'm not much of a fence sitter.

Well, you can disparage him if you like, there's lots on that band wagon.

I've already explained why I find it hard to join either of the bands. You may not think justice is in Assange's dictionary, but you'd be foolish to think that what the government does is necessarily on the side of justice. But like I said, you have to appreciate that at the least the government does take privacy concerns seriously, though sometimes it's convenient cover.

Think of it this way, it's debatable whether or not individual actions by the government are good are not, and it's also debatable whether or not releasing individual cables from Wikileaks is good or not. While actions by Wikileaks will likely cause harm to come to some, we know with absolute certainty that government actions thus far have lead to harm, and these cables make a culpable case that some things are being hidden from us. Since it's politicians, I think it's safe to assume that many of these things that are being kept out of the public serve political ends, such as keeping the outrage down. So, when a military mission languishes and is drawn out, we can equally make the case that the act of keeping information from the public has also probably caused harm.

I don't see it as black and white at all, and frankly I'm not sure how you can hold so much faith in the government position when you have so much to say about various government policies and where "the truth" meets reality.

Don't read my comments as sympathy for Assange, he knew, or should have known what he was getting into. I'm just not willing to make him a martyr one way or the other, if you catch my drift.