WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Are you of the opinion that all dealings between governments should be conducted in the open?

given the changes in technology, information exchange etc over the past 20 to 30 years, I think it would best for governments to behave as if their dealings are being conducted in the open.

2 Replies

@JPB,

So did I.

Back to wikileaks.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

To be honest, JTT, I thought of you when I heard about the kid in Oregon who was unsuccessful in his attempt to blow up a bomb at a public square in Portland, OR. I imagined you 1) are convinced he was tricked into the act, and 2) were somehow disappointed that he was deterred.

Come on, JPB. What could possibly make you think that I would be "convinced he was tricked into the act" when I, we all know so very little about the act. There's just no logical progression there.

Same on 2).

Is number 3) perhaps that I hired him?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Just letting you know how you come across. I tend to agree with you on some/many fronts. But, yet...

there is no 3) unless you want to create one.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Quote:

Just letting you know how you come across.

No, that's not how I come across, JPB. A sensible person doesn't make illogical leaps like that. Nothing I have written, ever, points to me wishing death upon innocents.

3) was sarcasm to illustrate just how unwarranted that was.

2 Replies

@JTT,

I'll leave you to how you think you come across and how I perceive it. You get to push my perception off as nonsensical. Take it, then, for what it's worth, but do, perhaps, ask yourself what message it is that you're truly trying to get across vs the one that's being perceived.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Just letting you know how you come across.

No, that's not how I come across, JPB.

You don't to seem to have a good understanding on how your posts here can be/are perceived by some readers.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Yes, as others have said, names of private individuals being released would be a bad thing. Voyeurs don't need to know the persons and there are those who would very much like to bring harm to anyone involved in espionage at any level.

"All" dealings between any two parties needn't be conducted in the open, but that's an easy answer. Of course there are some things which must be handled delicately (why am I reminded of the wicked witch of the west?), but there are many dealings that we're about to hear about, perhaps, that I'm thinking might not be so awful to have out in the open.

I grew up in the black and white world of the Cold War, Finn, and I'm guessing you did too. I'm realizing more and more just how gray our past and present have been. JTT paints us as the evil black sword of the past 100 years, or so. My brush isn't black, but it's not white either.

Knowledge is a good thing. Knowledge with an understanding of history and perspective is even better.

WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have no intention of applying anything like historical understanding or perspective to the current release of classified information which was obtained through illegal means. Assange has acknowledged that the information he has released and intends to yet release may place individuals in serious danger, and while he regrets this he doesn't believe it is his responsibility to apply a filtering perspective to the information's release. Any individual harmed by the information's release either amounts to unfortunate collateral damage in the war for The Truth, or the result of justice delivered (which I imagine is a position our friend JTT advances).

While Assange may contend that he and Wikileaks are simply objective agents of The Truth and thus not responsible for any incidental consequences of its release, this is simply an argument of current convenience.

WikiLeaks states that its

Quote:

"primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations."

Whatever one thinks of this mission statement, it is clearly not devoid of a point of view. It is not the mission statement of the unbiased, natural agents of the forces of Truth.

Since it exercises a bias in determining what truth it chooses to release, it should accept responsibility for, at least, the reasonably foreseebale consequences of the release of that truth: The murder of personally identified informants and their families...for example.

I don't know that I would be more comfortable with Assange and WikiLeaks if they employed a more active china marker to the information they released, but that they can so easily dismiss the consequences of not employing it at all; in the most obvious of ways is something I find very objectionable.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Are you of the opinion that all dealings between governments should be conducted in the open?

given the changes in technology, information exchange etc over the past 20 to 30 years, I think it would best for governments to behave as if their dealings are being conducted in the open.

exactly

1 Reply

One of the newspapers that received all documents prior to its release on wikileaks was the German "DER SPIEGEL" and they frankly wrote what was said about German leaders. They also mentioned that whoever fed information into the American Embassies was superbly informed about political issues and politicians.

I also went to several German political forums and they kind of agree with the American assessment of German leaders, especially when describing Guido Westerwelle (foreign minister). They wrote about our Chancellor Angela Merkel as "Teflon" Merkel and thought she's primarily concerned about the advantages in her own country, which is perfectly understandable (maybe not to the US government).

So all in all, it's not a big deal for many Europeans. I think the Middle East
and Arab Nations will be more concerned, especially when the assessment is
less favorable towards them.

I see Wikileaks and Assange as a modern "Robin Hood" so to speak . Is it
illegal? Certainly! Will it ultimately hurt or help the world? We'll see!!

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Actually, I do, Beth. I know how an MM or an Oralloy or a Ican or a Foofie reacts because they have written such in their responses. It's akin to a child sticking its fingers in its ears and humming.

What amazes is that, from those that one would think rational, there is little to no response. It's as if everyone is afraid of being stuck in a box from which there is no escape.

If someone was posting things that I disagreed with, or partially disagreed with, I wouldn't sit back out of fear of what others thought of me.

Here, you have taken the dialogue between JPB and me out of context. Our discussion, as you know, relates to me, supposedly, wishing harm upon innocents. That is simply not supported by the facts.

0 Replies

@JPB,

I'm not concerned with that, JPB.

I'm concerned that a rational person like you could formulate such seriously crazy notions without having the necessary proof. And there's no proof, there's nothing to show that I have ever wished harm to come to innocents.

As regards the actual issue. The numbers aren't in major dispute. The facts show clearly how many times the US has engaged in terrorism/war crimes/mass murder/torture/rape/... .

Overall, I'd say that the message is pretty damn clear.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

deej wrote:

ehbeth wrote:
given the changes in technology, information exchange etc over the past 20 to 30 years, I think it would best for governments to behave as if their dealings are being conducted in the open.
Exactly

This tangentially reminds me of an earlier thread that talked about the facebook generation and the death of privacy. It's kind of liking have God everywhere and knowing what you're doing.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have no intention of applying anything like historical understanding or perspective to the current release of classified information which was obtained through illegal means.

Right. Which is where discussion among people with both comes in handy.

Quote:

I don't know that I would be more comfortable with Assange and WikiLeaks if they employed a more active china marker to the information they released, but that they can so easily dismiss the consequences of not employing it at all; in the most obvious of ways is something I find very objectionable.

I don't disagree with this at all. I don't know if their site has recovered from it's supposed access attack, but the limited media reports I've seen so far seem to be exercising some constraint.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have no intention of applying anything like historical understanding or perspective to the current release of classified information which was obtained through illegal means. Assange has acknowledged that the information he has released and intends to yet release may place individuals in serious danger, and while he regrets this he doesn't believe it is his responsibility to apply a filtering perspective to the information's release. Any individual harmed by the information's release either amounts to unfortunate collateral damage in the war for The Truth, or the result of justice delivered (which I imagine is a position our friend JTT advances).

Again, you are trying to color this, Finn, as if all that is uncovered relates only to the pure of heart. If that were so, there'd be no concern coming from any source.

I wonder whose responsibility it is to apply this filtering process to any illegal deeds done. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime comes to mind.

Quote:

While Assange may contend that he and Wikileaks are simply objective agents of The Truth and thus not responsible for any incidental consequences of its release, this is simply an argument of current convenience.

And what is your argument, if not current convenience. What's your hope? This is not a prosecutor position, so how this material was obtained really isn't crucial to the conversation [you just thought you'd throw it in for good measure].

What crucial is what these leaks might show. There are a lot of innocent people dead and many others badly maimed so I find your posturing goodness to be rather, I was going to say 'sickening', but Finn like will do.

Quote:

Whatever one thinks of this mission statement, it is clearly not devoid of a point of view. It is not the mission statement of the unbiased, natural agents of the forces of Truth.

But yours is, right?

0 Replies

@CalamityJane,

I think this may be the case in many instances, CJane. Such instances are what I meant when I said that it isn't necessarily a bad thing to have some of this stuff on the table. I do think that there is a danger, however, to some individuals and to some negotiations if too many details are leaked.

0 Replies

@JTT,

I'm just trying to tell you that your apparent extreme anti-American hatred taints your message to the point that I perceived you seeing this report as a potential opportunity to gloat. We wouldn't be having this conversation if I thought that was truly the message you were trying to send. Take it for what it's worth.

1 Reply

@JPB,

There we differ. I think jtt is sending a message of hatred.

0 Replies

Newsweek calls these "fightin' words" and proclaim WikiLeak's efforts a failure.

Quote:

The problem is what the good ol’ boys I grew up with used to call “fightin’ words.” There are certain things you just don’t say to your enemy’s face, or anywhere in public, unless you want a showdown. More

1 Reply

@JPB,

Here is the backup site for wikileaks, JPB. I've been reading quite a bit in it...
very interesting.

new site

1 Reply

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know