Jury is still out -

About: wikileaks - wikileaks

Quote is from the Wikilinks.org website flash page. The jury is still out in my mind as to whether this website serves the causes of freedom or otherwise is a conspirator with the sole aim to expose the secrets of sovereign nations.   I would never have known about them except for the recent lawsuit closing them down.

(***) I like the power of the statement though!

Tags

  1. zola
  2. jaccuse
  3. secrets
  4. wikileaks

Comments


Seth says
Well perhaps it would help you decide if you rephrased the question to make all of your terms actually referential,  ie make them refer to something real.   Here let me try ...
source: Seth
Does this website serve the causes of freedom of individuals or is it a conspirator with the sole aim to expose the secrets of governments and corporations?
... noting, of course, that it is always a government or a corporation or some person who attempts to keep a secret and not some idealizide thingy called a "nation".   From my point of view it individual people who are free ... not nations.  The more they are informed, the better.  Secrets are always against the people and for the government (or other controlling entity).  

Mark de LA says
Seth 2008-03-03 13:47:50 9430
  Secrets are always against the people and for the government (or other controlling entity).  
source: ... Top Secret is the highest acknowledged level of classified information in many countries, where it is defined as material that would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if disclosed. The term top secret can be applied to information, actions, organizations, projects, etc. of which any knowledge is highly restricted.
... Information is usually classified by the government to protect the people as for example the above classification "top secret" accentuates "exceptionally grave damage" may result if the information is disclosed. There may be people who misuse classifications for their own purposes to avoid embarrassment or prosecution for crimes, but that is not the purpose of keeping information secret.  The against you mention is against our (USA) enemies. You should take your meds more often if you think secrets are always against the people. If the government were to disclose the details of our latest weapon system to everyone, then someone would build it who is not friendly & use it against us;  thus making the argument moot without a country.



Seth says
M 2008-03-03 14:50:29 9430
Seth 2008-03-03 13:47:50 9430
  Secrets are always against the people and for the government (or other controlling entity).  
source: ... Top Secret is the highest acknowledged level of classified information in many countries, where it is defined as material that would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if disclosed. The term top secret can be applied to information, actions, organizations, projects, etc. of which any knowledge is highly restricted.
... Information is usually classified by the government to protect the people as for example the above classification "top secret" accentuates "exceptionally grave damage" may result if the information is disclosed. There may be people who misuse classifications for their own purposes to avoid embarrassment or prosecution for crimes, but that is not the purpose of keeping information secret.  The against you mention is against our (USA) enemies. You should take your meds more often if you think secrets are always against the people. If the government were to disclose the details of our latest weapon system to everyone, then someone would build it who is not friendly & use it against us;  thus making the argument moot without a country.

Yep, "always" was a bad choice of words ... i did not mean to imply that there were not legimitate reasons to keep secrets.  But i think you would find, were you able to do an unbiased study, that "avoiding embarassment or prosecution" is more often the reason than to hide secrets from a national enemy.  The other aspect of what has become an almost   automatic secret classification of any government (or corporate) activity is that you have more freedom to act if you know your actions are not immediately visable to the public ... ie it is difficult to function in a fish bowl.  But i stand by the fact that hiding information is against the freedom of informed action of the person or persons from which you are hiding the information.  Hense the website is acting to promote freedom of informed action.  It is not an evil minded conspiracy of Green Tea sipping liberals.

Mark de LA says
Your so-called facts are mere assertions (or declarations).  When shedding the light of day into dark spaces one should be aware that the nefarious motives may be both in governments & in organizations as well in the abodes & people who shine the light.

So far I have found nothing interesting in WikiLeaks.  One man's scandal is another man's yawn!
  

Mark de LA says
This one is where I begin to wonder whether it is just free speech or anarchy they are after. Slashdot has more & comments here.


Mark de LA says
seth 2008-03-17 09:19:51 9430
Of course a site like wikileaks cuts both ways - it allows people misinform about the large and powerful - and it allows the large and powerful to misinform as well.  Case in point  may well be this which could be the government's attmept to mislead terrorists into building a dud.

So, let me see if you understand me ( of I you) - it's OK by you if wikileaks publishes the detail design & engineering requirements to make a nuclear device as long as they also publish the design & engineering requirements to make a dud or something that explodes in their face !


Seth says
choy 2008-03-17 10:07:17 9430
seth 2008-03-17 09:53:46 9430
M 2008-03-17 09:32:02 9430
seth 2008-03-17 09:19:51 9430
Of course a site like wikileaks cuts both ways - it allows people misinform about the large and powerful - and it allows the large and powerful to misinform as well.  Case in point  may well be this which could be the government's attmept to mislead terrorists into building a dud.

So, let me see if you understand me ( of I you) - it's OK by you if wikileaks publishes the detail design & engineering requirements to make a nuclear device as long as they also publish the design & engineering requirements to make a dud or something that explodes in their face !

Not even close.  You ability to misunderstand have exceeded my wildest anticipitation.
Then what do you mean by it cuts both ways, because it can misinform or it can inform!
It means just what the sentence says: "it allows people misinform about the large and powerful - and it allows the large and powerful to misinform as well".   In other words it can be used against the rich or powerful and it can be used by the rich or powerful.   I.e. - it cuts both ways.  

Seth says
choy 2008-03-17 12:53:40 9430
Again, you totally ignored my post entirely about some lamehead posting atomic bomb plans!
phtttt
Nope, did not ingnore it ... i just had a very different reaction to it ... see my reaction above. I took it your reaction on it's face value and had no comment or argumentation about it whatsoever.  You cherish the right of governments and corporations to be secretive and see no value in people breaking down their wall of secrecy.  There is nothing that i could say to you that would budge you from that belief.  Why argue about it?

On the other hand i merely observed that informing and misinforming cuts both ways. 

Seth says
M 2008-03-17 14:32:34 9430
Maybe you don't care (or not) about atomic secrets (sorry they are not just governmental whistle blowing) but I suspect you would change your mind if someone from the Obama campaign were to publish confidential memos about the Wright affair.  Like stuff related to why Wright was cancelled from giving the benediction to Obama's candidacy kickoff!

I suspect that the world is actually safer because now the fantacy that that it is a secret how to build this bomb has been busted.   But aside from that, what you you have happen to this site?

Mark de LA says
Ah! now we're back to your nuclear fantasy of banning all nuclear weapons or give them to everybody.  Either is practically impossible! I will probably use my selective spending prerogatives & ignore it to death in a moment or two! 


Mark de LA says
seth 2008-03-19 08:45:19 9430
M 2008-03-19 08:16:39 9430
Now this one looks like fun in the context of JPM's recent acquisition of Bear Stearns in the middle of the stock market crisis. There is an obvious disclaimer that any of this is true without further investigation.

And if true does this change your opinion of the worth of wikileaks?
If true it at least puts it in the category of whistleblower rather than co-conspirator in espionage against the US.


C says
Apparently Wikileaks is rumored to be in receipt of documents which could expose email dealing with operational security.  Here is a summary from the weekly standard blog.
... Wikileaks is much in the news because of the young Army intelligence officer accused of providing it with a massive trove of diplomatic cables and sensitive military videos. The website’s organizers boast that it “combines the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies with the comfortable presentation style of Wikipedia.”  They convey an assumption that its servers are beyond the reach of law enforcement, and that those who post to it cannot be tracked down.
...... If the substance of this is true, IMHO, it's time to bring treason prosecution into the picture of at least Drake & if Wikileaks publishes then the proprietors thereof.

Mark de LA says
seth 2010-06-15 10:19:25 9430
C 2010-06-15 09:58:30 9430
seth 2010-06-15 09:29:15 9430
would be better to start prosecution of those who slayed the Reuters employee.
What Reuters employee?

hint ... follow the links at Wikileaks that your right wing blogs got disturbed about ... or ...
source: Wikipedia
Wikileaks  are preparing to release a video of an American attack in Afghanistan, which killed around 100 civilians.[1]  The Times has said that the video "is said to concern the so-called 'Granai massacre', when American aircraft dropped 500lb and 1,000lb bombs on a suspected militant compound".[1]  On June 6, 2010, Wired magazine reported that 22 year-old U.S. Army intelligence analyst, SPC Bradley Manning, has been alleged the source of the leak, along with the leak of the Collateral murder video and other documents.[14]
...


What does the Manning affair have to do with a Reuters employee? I am not going to read through a lot of shit to find it out. I found one Reuters employee killed in Iraq.  Other than an attempt to prop up the criminals at wikileaks are you in favor of a website leaking damaging classified information to the press, even if it extends to damage to US forces & the country?

Seth says
C 2010-06-15 09:58:30 9430
seth 2010-06-15 09:29:15 9430
would be better to start prosecution of those who slayed the Reuters employee.
What Reuters employee?

hint ... follow the links at Wikileaks that your right wing blogs got disturbed about ... or ...
source: Wikipedia
Wikileaks  are preparing to release a video of an American attack in Afghanistan, which killed around 100 civilians.[1]  The Times has said that the video "is said to concern the so-called 'Granai massacre', when American aircraft dropped 500lb and 1,000lb bombs on a suspected militant compound".[1]  On June 6, 2010, Wired magazine reported that 22 year-old U.S. Army intelligence analyst, SPC Bradley Manning, has been alleged the source of the leak, along with the leak of the Collateral murder video and other documents.[14]
...



Seth says
M 2010-06-15 11:01:49 9430
seth 2010-06-15 10:19:25 9430
C 2010-06-15 09:58:30 9430
seth 2010-06-15 09:29:15 9430
would be better to start prosecution of those who slayed the Reuters employee.
What Reuters employee?

hint ... follow the links at Wikileaks that your right wing blogs got disturbed about ... or ...
source: Wikipedia
Wikileaks  are preparing to release a video of an American attack in Afghanistan, which killed around 100 civilians.[1]  The Times has said that the video "is said to concern the so-called 'Granai massacre', when American aircraft dropped 500lb and 1,000lb bombs on a suspected militant compound".[1]  On June 6, 2010, Wired magazine reported that 22 year-old U.S. Army intelligence analyst, SPC Bradley Manning, has been alleged the source of the leak, along with the leak of the Collateral murder video and other documents.[14]
...


What does the Manning affair have to do with a Reuters employee? I am not going to read through a lot of shit to find it out. I found one Reuters employee killed in Iraq.  Other than an attempt to prop up the criminals at wikileaks are you in favor of a website leaking damaging classified information to the press, even if it extends to damage to US forces & the country?
Yep the criminals are not at Wikileaks, the criminals are the ones they are exposing  ... your tendency to come down on the wrong side of an issue notwithstanding.

Mark de LA says
seth 2010-06-15 11:24:49 9430
M 2010-06-15 11:01:49 9430
seth 2010-06-15 10:19:25 9430
C 2010-06-15 09:58:30 9430
seth 2010-06-15 09:29:15 9430
would be better to start prosecution of those who slayed the Reuters employee.
What Reuters employee?

hint ... follow the links at Wikileaks that your right wing blogs got disturbed about ... or ...
source: Wikipedia
Wikileaks  are preparing to release a video of an American attack in Afghanistan, which killed around 100 civilians.[1]  The Times has said that the video "is said to concern the so-called 'Granai massacre', when American aircraft dropped 500lb and 1,000lb bombs on a suspected militant compound".[1]  On June 6, 2010, Wired magazine reported that 22 year-old U.S. Army intelligence analyst, SPC Bradley Manning, has been alleged the source of the leak, along with the leak of the Collateral murder video and other documents.[14]
...


What does the Manning affair have to do with a Reuters employee? I am not going to read through a lot of shit to find it out. I found one Reuters employee killed in Iraq.  Other than an attempt to prop up the criminals at wikileaks are you in favor of a website leaking damaging classified information to the press, even if it extends to damage to US forces & the country?
Yep the criminals are not at Wikileaks, the criminals are the ones they are exposing  ... your tendency to come down on the wrong side of an issue notwithstanding.
Your inability to answer the question or make the distinction between criminals who release national security information to spys via the media or in private notwithstanding;  belies any high road you are deluded into thinking you are on as a fellow-traveler of whistle-blowers.  There are good ways to blow a whistle if you witness illegal & immoral acts. Blowing national security in the media is not one of them. Such is just an attempt to get famous for 15 minutes. Just talk to the right politician & see if you can trigger a Congressional investigation is a better way.


Mark de LA says
Former agent alerted authorities in WIKILEAKS case... The main story now has about 10 segments on Google News all of which have their own news front.  The latest is about the investigation of a soldier, Bradley Manning, for leaking thousands of documents & a video which were secret. google wikileaks or follow this for the stories in google news.
Note this is over 2 years since the website made its debut.

See Also

  1. Thought about: Wikileaks.Org with 55 viewings related by tag "wikileaks".
  2. Thought Interesting Meme with 42 viewings related by tag "wikileaks".
  3. Thought Sourcing Around with 35 viewings related by tag "secrets".
  4. Thought Blowing Your Own Whistle with 20 viewings related by tag "wikileaks".
  5. Thought The Occult, Magick & Logic with 7 viewings related by tag "secrets".
  6. Thought Wikileaks - The Movie with 2 viewings related by tag "wikileaks".
  7. Thought & the beat goes on with 0 viewings related by tag "secrets".
  8. Thought DHS seized Domain Names, BUT ... with 0 viewings related by tag "wikileaks".
  9. Thought about: wikileaks - mirrors with 0 viewings related by tag "wikileaks".
  10. Thought about: the honourable woman with 0 viewings related by tag "secrets".
  11. Thought Assange on Hillary with 0 viewings related by tag "wikileaks".