wikileaks

[NBVegita]

I'm not saying by any means it will stop the leaks.

 

All I'm saying is that every front man that comes out ahead of these organizations will be brought down by the same method of their fame.

 

Also note that we have a testy public, an organization fronted by a rapist (possibly) has a lot less credibility than one which isn't.

 

It doesn't mean the information is any less accurate, but people are less likely to believe it.

 

Either way, more security will happen, more documents leaked, more people championing it, more people's skeleton's become uncovered, repeat.

[»Lynx]

That's provided another front man ever appears. What matters is the organisation releases confirmed authentic documents that show a lot of the aggressive illegal regimes that occur for us as free nations to interpret without Govt. spin doctoring. This will happen as long as there's a means, and rest assured this will always be the case. Edited January 6, 2011 by Lynx

[NBVegita]

I think there has to be a "front man".

 

This is how I see it, it's hard for any group to anonymously post "leaked" confidential files, while staying completely anonymous because as a whole, most people won't believe them. Just look at these forums. If you and I are debating a subject back and forth and I cite a anonymous source that claims to have valid "leaked" secret confidential documents, you'd wonder what drugs I've been taking.

 

Now I'm not stating that a person must be a "front man" but you need a way to add credibility to your . As soon as this is attempted, there will be people who will do many things, both legal and illegal to tarnish your image. If you lose credibility it really defeats your groups purpose for divulging such information in the first place, as if people do not believe you are credible, they don't believe your information is credible either. Even just using wiki-leaks as a reference, it would be incredibly easy to forge "leaked" documents to say anything you want them to.

 

Just look at the history of politics all over the world, it's easier to invalidate your opponent than it is to validate yourself

[»Lynx]

Wikileaks got on just fine for years without any front-man, and I believe the first media outlet I saw in the UK to cite Wikileaks was The Guardian, back in early 2007 when Wikileaks was still a Wiki.

 

Also, ironically, the invalidation you speak of works two ways, however unfortunately can often take the form of smear campaigns. I'm not saying that Assange isn't a rapist, as I don't know (and if I were to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised. He seems like a real creep), but that by no means that he isn't VERY good at his job, and hasn't achieved his goals.

[NBVegita]

I agree that right now we don't know is Assange is or is not a rapist, but just the concept that he might be will skew the public opinion. As in anything political, it's unfortunate, but personal behavior dictates believability. I could be the best lawyer in the world, but no one (as in the general public) is going to believe what I say if I'm also say...a pedophile.

 

Wiki-leaks was nothing until earlier this year. Yes it was noted by some news outlets and even received some awards, but as far as public opinion, they didn't exist. I mean honestly, if at this time last year I had quoted wiki-leaks in a debate on this forum I would have been ridiculed, which does say a lot concerning the range and diversity of news and articles read by those who frequent this forum. It really wasn't until governments (not just the U.S. government) came out denouncing wiki-leaks in middle to late 2010 that the wiki-leaks gained large scale credibility.

 

Personally I think site's like wiki-leaks are going to come and go. The problem is that when you focus on trying to air out the dirty laundry of governments when they don't want it aired, you're going to get yourself into trouble. Now nothing they've leaked is really "critical" at any level, but if they keep digging and depending on the governments they dig into, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these people end up in some "unfortunate" accidents, or magically become international terrorists.

[»Lynx]

Yeah, I agree with you - I've read at least three other similar sites are in the works, and are being set up in press neutral zones like Switzerland/Iceland. Eitherway, I believe Wikileaks will be around for a lot longer (they have other domains, and over 300 mirrors) - it'll be interesting to see how everything pans out.

[Aileron]

Look, I want to establish once and for all that these leaks are *not* harmless. The DoD makes the habit of keeping things secret for the same reason a good poker player will muck his cards if he doesn't have to show them. People, and entire organizations, will have 'tells'. The opponent, if given enough information, will eventually pick up on those tells.

 

War never changes. It always has been and always will be a contest between *people* to the death. The thing about people is - people think. They improvise, adapt, and overcome. In real life terrorists do not kindly stand still in the open so that they can be shot like they do in a James Bond movie. Their goal in life isn't to improve the protagonist's body count. They are trying to win and will change their behavior based upon their situation. They hide in the crowd acting innocent for months, watch us looking for any pattern we might make, and will strike only after they find a weakness. Terrorists are also as tech-savvy as anyone. They will, for example, go to a Soldier's facebook page and find a picture of him in Iraq. They will then use the background of that picture to create a map of buildings in a base, so they can sight in their mortars a little better.

 

The sad truth is that our civilian population has become arrogant in thinking Soldier's can't be harmed just because we can kill an insurgent with a missile fired from an unmanned drone at ten thousand feet. What insurgents lack in technology, they make up for in patience, resourcefulness, and a willingness to accept casualties. If you give them a chicken coup, they will build an IED.

 

Given their past behavior, terrorists have without a doubt in my mind used some footnote in some document that Assange didn't think was important to plan and execute at least one attack on Coalition Forces resulting in the deaths of Soldiers. Obviously I can't prove this. There isn't an abundance of forensic investigators in Afghanistan, and the few investigators we have are all busy nailing IEDs to IED makers because our Rules of Engagement demand that it be done because civilians are whining about Gitmo so much; otherwise we can't keep terrorists in jail. If we did divert those critical resources to satisfy your curiosity of whether terrorists have used documents from wiki-leaks to plan attacks, the question of whether the lack of secret information would have prevented an attack from being successful would devolve into a series of "what-if" statements ending in the conclusion that if Al Queda was omniscient, we'd have lost by now. Still, my suspicion is that somehow, somewhere there is at least one good Soldier who is dead and would not be dead had Assange not decided to support Wiki-leak's creation. And, in my opinion, one Soldier is worth more than ten Assange's.

 

A lot of you scoff at Assange being called a terrorist, and it is fair enough to say that the guy who dons the suicide vest deserves the title more, but the results of Assange's actions caused him to be an accessory to terrorism and regardless of his intentions. He has accomplished more to advance Al Queda's goals than most individual suicide bombers. The information provided from Wiki-leaks will help terrorists sharpen their tactics and will help successful suicide bombers to be more lethal. Additionally, since Al Queda's main hope in this war is political victory, the very act of creating a website to post government secrets just might help prove that the free world just might be as f*(&%ed up as Bin Laden says it is.

 

Ah, but we do have the first amendment, though this is *not* an example of it being exercised. People do have a God-given right to express their ideas. However, classified documents are not the ideas of those exposing them, they are ideas belonging to the DoD which the DoD has decided to withhold. What wiki-leaks has done is akin to somebody setting up a bug in your home, and then publishing things you have said in confidence to the public. The only difference here is that in this case the victim is the government. While the government is not a private enterprise and thus has no rights, the entire reason the Executive branch of the government exists is so as to act as a person would in order to counter foreign dictatorships, ie. if wars were run by Congress, we'd have went back to being British colony around 1812. The Constitutional role of the Executive branch does imply the power bestowed upon them by the people to withhold secrets in the interest of national security.

 

 

All that being said...the sexual assault charges filed against Assange are bull honky. The only thing he did was the same thing every far-left free-loving hippie does on a college campus, and that is rub up against anything as if he were some kind of rodent. While my disrespect for Assange is deep, ultimately I've learned the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right' is profoundly true. Assange belongs in front of a firing squad for being an enemy and a traitor to the free world, and thus should be charged with being an enemy and a traitor to the free world. Nothing good will come of trumped up "rape" charges, and indeed the prick is already out on bail and those who filed the charges look like the back end of a donkey.

 

The right way to do this is for authorities to grab their balls, charge Assange with treason, try him for treason, and if found guilty execute him for treason. The only reason they went with rape instead of treason is because they are afraid of the political reaction. That is the wrong answer since Assange's supporters are a bunch of anarchistic internet pricks who use the internet because they are too cowardly to attach their names to their opinions. That actually is a sad example of what European police forces have become when they can be pushed around by faceless bullies. Just try Assange with treason and if the internet pricks don't like the outcome of the court system, they can shove it.

 

Thus concludes my rant. I'm sure none of you will read it except SeVeR, and he'll only do so to cherry pick one or two sentences in order to imply that I advocate some sort of totalitarian police state. Oh well. I guess that's what passes for rational debate these days.

[SeVeR]

I find this topic a good way to differentiate between the left and right in politics. All the administrators and moderators for this forum take the right-wing stance. Hah, I guess some people just want power more. Figures.

 

Oh, and for the sake of everyone here who can't be bothered to read Aileron's post (I didn't either, I saw my name and started at the bottom), here is a random comment from a lunatic:

 

The right way to do this is for authorities to grab their balls' date=' charge Assange with treason, try him for treason, and if found guilty execute him for treason.[/quote']

 

What I find hilarious is how much of the wikileaks have been swept under the carpet. Hillary Clinton should be facing a prison term for what she's done, yet she's still in her job! It's an utter disgrace.

Edited January 18, 2011 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

Keep in mind that you can only place half the blame on Assange. The other half of the blame is on the military personnel who leaked the documents in the first place. Without that personnel he would have nothing to publish.

[»Lynx]

Good luck charging an Australian for treason in America. Going by your logic, Aileron, they'd also have to charge every news outlet for the same crimes (and those charged would face the same punishments).

[PoLiX]

I find this topic a good way to differentiate between the left and right in politics. All the administrators and moderators for this forum take the right-wing stance. Hah, I guess some people just want power more. Figures.

 

But I'm a democrat leaning independent?

 

I do however work for the government, and am going through lots more hell thanks to this with briefings, training, more limitations (hell, had to go through 2hrs of training just to goto Canada... CANADA). Swift, Freakmonger, and Aileron are in the military, and no doubt going through more fun briefings and training than I even get to. SO MUCH FUN

 

So it is more of a division of who this is affecting, and who it is not. Especially seeing as Left and Right on capitol hill have many people against this.

[Simulacrum]

Given their past behavior, terrorists have without a doubt in my mind used some footnote in some document that Assange didn't think was important to plan and execute at least one attack on Coalition Forces resulting in the deaths of Soldiers. Obviously I can't prove this.

It's not out of the question that you're right. However, so long as we're playing the long-distance blame game, why not also assign responsibility to, say, the Department of Defense for not exercising their opportunity to censor documents that they truly found dangerous?

 

But from another angle entirely, and I think a more important one: how do those hypothetical deaths weigh against those caused by a military allowed to operate outside of civilian control?

[SeVeR]

The right way to do this is for authorities to grab their balls, charge Assange with treason, try him for treason, and if found guilty execute him for treason.

I was thinking of quoting this as being from a "US government employee". What exactly is Aileron's title? I find this quote both maniacal and retarded. It's a sad reminder that these sort of people are still out there.