Wikileaks does nothing wrong, those that are leaking the information need to be prosecuted. Also its located in Sweden so the US has no jurisdiction to shut it down.
There was a denial of service attack on the Wikileaks website yesterday.
In an important nuance in these government document drops is that the leaker isn't somebody who felt he was taking a noble stand in support of transparency or to uncover government malfeasance. His aim was purely to be destructive. He bragged about unleashing world anarchy.
Peter; I'm not picking at your comment. Are you saying you were surprised by most of it or not surprised? I haven't looked at any of the Wikileaks stuff yet.
He has an obligation as a reporter, the same as Howard. I think if the tables were turned and documents that showed corruption in Genesee County were turned into The Batavian, we would see them. They are a news organization, and they aren't being controlled (as CNN and Fox News usually is).
And Peter...what says what he did is illegal? You may WANT it to be illegal, but he did nothing but acquire documents from others. If anything, the people that leaked the documents are the ones that broke the law.
Interesting, Peter; as much as you suggest leakers "need to be prosecuted," you didn't restrain yourself from reading the leaked documents. And Jason, you wonder if govt can "censor the page so Americans can't view it." Frankly, the damage from these documents will be international not domestic. Most Americans are well-aware of government propensity for telling lies. The object of your worry amounts to the realization the U. S. also lies to Russians, French and British people!
When Daniel Ellsberg dumped the Pentagon Papers in the lap of the world in 1971, he was a hero- his leak confirmed allegations of covert bombing and concealed expansion of the Vietnam war. The Pentagon Papers included CIA memos and White House documents- not embassy cables.
The Wikileaks target a different level of subterfuge and the impact will be much subtler: as Peter notes, "(t)he only thing that surprised me were those drone strikes." Aside from individuals whose rose-colored-glasses are stapled to their face and military brass responsible for preventing such leaks; the Wikileaks will cause little distress. What shall come from this expose (aside from new security procedures)- those who deal with our diplomatic agencies will acquire a new-found level of cynicism, Missouri-style.
Yes, the leaker should be prosecuted for violating security. But, like it or not, the leaked documents are now public information. Buy an umbrella to protect from whiny govt officials defending themselves.
What intrigues me- there are umpteen movies that end with the hero going public with incriminating government files; The Bourne Ultimatum is just one. Since when do Americans side with govt cover-up?
The most obvious hypocrite exposed in these 'leaks' was Saudi Arabia. They want us to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, in essence to protect them from Iranian aggression. Saudi Arabia has been exposed in these 'leaks' as being the largest contributor of funds to the terrorists killing our troops.
Anyone who thinks PFC Manning was simply trying to be malicious hasn't done much research. You may disagree with them but his motives are quite altruistic to him and other members of the far Left Progressive Movement.
Howard, Is this what your faulty link was directed at?
Essay
The Economist on WikiLeaks, and Why I Disagree
The Economist Wikileaks
by Cindy Au | 10:00 am, November 29th, 2010
WikiLeaks has released a massive database of confidential US embassy cables, often detailing major discrepancies between what happens in the scrubbed version of government we’re privy to on our televisions and the reality of what’s happening behind closed doors. The Economist saw WikiLeaks’ most recent airing of dirty US laundry as a step down into the realm of “gossip” and “tattling,” and that publishing the cables en masse was socially irresponsible:
Diplomatic cables are something entirely different. It’s part of the nature of human communication that one doesn’t always say the same thing to every audience. There are perfectly good reasons why you don’t always tell the same story to your boss as you do to your spouse. There are things Washington needs to tell Riyadh to explain what it’s just told Jerusalem and things Washington needs to tell Jerusalem to explain what it’s just told Riyadh, and these cables shouldn’t be crossed. There’s nothing wrong with this. It’s inevitable.
I completely disagree.
First, a brief history lesson. In 1971, a left-wing radical group broke into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania and made off with a few boxes of documents, documents which they then released to the media. In those boxes were uncensored communications that revealed the existence of a completely secret government program called COINTELPRO. Many of those documents were dry memos, boring FBI field reports, and uninteresting back-and-forths between agents in the field and the home office. But taken as a whole, the language of these documents demonstrated a disturbing and pervasive culture of fear that the government had allowed to grow unchecked. And if it weren’t for that break-in, who knows how powerful COINTELPRO would have become, without any of us ever knowing about it.
Now, I’m not saying that the contents of these cables amount to the same type of deception represented by COINTELPRO. But the similarities between stealing a box of papers from an FBI field office in 1971 and what WikiLeaks is doing right now seems worth putting on the table. The Economist argues “simply grabbing as many diplomatic cables as you can get your hands on and making them public is not a socially worthy activity,” but history has shown us that having access to too much information is not the problem. The problem is what we do now that the information is out there.
It’s not WikiLeaks’ job, as The Economist says, to “bring together a board of experienced people with different perspectives to review the merits of releasing that particular cable.” It’s our job.
So start reading.
This post originally appeared on the author’s blog, Matter Anti-Matter, and is republished here with her permission.
I didn't read the documents I read a news report about the most interesting things found in the documents.
And a curiosity for information is far from violating orders and using a security clearance to steal information and make it available to the enemy. In my mind this is an act of treason.
I still know things that are classified that I could spill and screw our military, but I won't tell them to anyone. So don't try to equate me with this POS.
Peter,
Some people are confusing the theft of the information with Wikileaks. An Army PFC stole (allegedly) the information. He is the one who is accused of a crime and is under arrest.
I am not sure what crime the Wikileaks guy committed, especially since he is not a US citizen. I don't support the release, but was it a crime?
Kevin; in your link, I only see what others believe Manning's motives were, I didn't see any statement from Manning. So far I don't think we really know his motives. To me, he is a hero, this US government is far too secretive and downright arrogant. Unfortunately he is also going to be a martyr, he knew the law and he broke it. I'm grateful for his sacrifice. If there were less foreign entanglements, there'd be a lot less secret dealings to hide. If we stay out of wars, less civilians would get killed. Pretty freakin' simple. James Madison & Thomas Jefferson would love Wikileaks, in my humble opinion:
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.
Wikileaks does nothing wrong,
Wikileaks does nothing wrong, those that are leaking the information need to be prosecuted. Also its located in Sweden so the US has no jurisdiction to shut it down.
The US can't shut Wikileaks
The US can't shut Wikileaks down, but can it censor the page so Americans can't view it?
Not that censoring the page
Not that censoring the page for Americans in any way reduces the damage done...just curious I guess.
There's nothing legally the
There's nothing legally the U.S. gov. can do.
There was a denial of service attack on the Wikileaks website yesterday.
In an important nuance in these government document drops is that the leaker isn't somebody who felt he was taking a noble stand in support of transparency or to uncover government malfeasance. His aim was purely to be destructive. He bragged about unleashing world anarchy.
Regardless of why he did it
Regardless of why he did it Howard, what he did is illegal.
Personally from what I have seen, none of it is unsurprising except the drone attacks on Yemeni soil.
Peter; I'm not picking at
Peter; I'm not picking at your comment. Are you saying you were surprised by most of it or not surprised? I haven't looked at any of the Wikileaks stuff yet.
He has an obligation as a
He has an obligation as a reporter, the same as Howard. I think if the tables were turned and documents that showed corruption in Genesee County were turned into The Batavian, we would see them. They are a news organization, and they aren't being controlled (as CNN and Fox News usually is).
And Peter...what says what he
And Peter...what says what he did is illegal? You may WANT it to be illegal, but he did nothing but acquire documents from others. If anything, the people that leaked the documents are the ones that broke the law.
Anthony, I'm not talking
Anthony, I'm not talking about he guy running the site I am talking about the leaker.
Dave, I screwed my comment up. The only thing that surprised me were those drone strikes.
Bradley Manning is the name
Bradley Manning is the name of the Army PFC (i think that was his rank) who copied the documents onto CD's labeled "Lady Gaga."
"It was surprisingly easy," he said.
He's been in solitary confinement for something like eight months now.
Interesting, Peter; as much
Interesting, Peter; as much as you suggest leakers "need to be prosecuted," you didn't restrain yourself from reading the leaked documents. And Jason, you wonder if govt can "censor the page so Americans can't view it." Frankly, the damage from these documents will be international not domestic. Most Americans are well-aware of government propensity for telling lies. The object of your worry amounts to the realization the U. S. also lies to Russians, French and British people!
When Daniel Ellsberg dumped the Pentagon Papers in the lap of the world in 1971, he was a hero- his leak confirmed allegations of covert bombing and concealed expansion of the Vietnam war. The Pentagon Papers included CIA memos and White House documents- not embassy cables.
The Wikileaks target a different level of subterfuge and the impact will be much subtler: as Peter notes, "(t)he only thing that surprised me were those drone strikes." Aside from individuals whose rose-colored-glasses are stapled to their face and military brass responsible for preventing such leaks; the Wikileaks will cause little distress. What shall come from this expose (aside from new security procedures)- those who deal with our diplomatic agencies will acquire a new-found level of cynicism, Missouri-style.
Yes, the leaker should be prosecuted for violating security. But, like it or not, the leaked documents are now public information. Buy an umbrella to protect from whiny govt officials defending themselves.
What intrigues me- there are umpteen movies that end with the hero going public with incriminating government files; The Bourne Ultimatum is just one. Since when do Americans side with govt cover-up?
The most obvious hypocrite
The most obvious hypocrite exposed in these 'leaks' was Saudi Arabia. They want us to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, in essence to protect them from Iranian aggression. Saudi Arabia has been exposed in these 'leaks' as being the largest contributor of funds to the terrorists killing our troops.
Interesting piece from The
Interesting piece from The Economist on <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/overseeing_st… benefit to democracy</a>.
Anyone who thinks PFC Manning
Anyone who thinks PFC Manning was simply trying to be malicious hasn't done much research. You may disagree with them but his motives are quite altruistic to him and other members of the far Left Progressive Movement.
http://www.bradleymanning.org/about/supporters/
Howard, Is this what your
Howard, Is this what your faulty link was directed at?
Essay
The Economist on WikiLeaks, and Why I Disagree
The Economist Wikileaks
by Cindy Au | 10:00 am, November 29th, 2010
WikiLeaks has released a massive database of confidential US embassy cables, often detailing major discrepancies between what happens in the scrubbed version of government we’re privy to on our televisions and the reality of what’s happening behind closed doors. The Economist saw WikiLeaks’ most recent airing of dirty US laundry as a step down into the realm of “gossip” and “tattling,” and that publishing the cables en masse was socially irresponsible:
Diplomatic cables are something entirely different. It’s part of the nature of human communication that one doesn’t always say the same thing to every audience. There are perfectly good reasons why you don’t always tell the same story to your boss as you do to your spouse. There are things Washington needs to tell Riyadh to explain what it’s just told Jerusalem and things Washington needs to tell Jerusalem to explain what it’s just told Riyadh, and these cables shouldn’t be crossed. There’s nothing wrong with this. It’s inevitable.
I completely disagree.
First, a brief history lesson. In 1971, a left-wing radical group broke into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania and made off with a few boxes of documents, documents which they then released to the media. In those boxes were uncensored communications that revealed the existence of a completely secret government program called COINTELPRO. Many of those documents were dry memos, boring FBI field reports, and uninteresting back-and-forths between agents in the field and the home office. But taken as a whole, the language of these documents demonstrated a disturbing and pervasive culture of fear that the government had allowed to grow unchecked. And if it weren’t for that break-in, who knows how powerful COINTELPRO would have become, without any of us ever knowing about it.
Now, I’m not saying that the contents of these cables amount to the same type of deception represented by COINTELPRO. But the similarities between stealing a box of papers from an FBI field office in 1971 and what WikiLeaks is doing right now seems worth putting on the table. The Economist argues “simply grabbing as many diplomatic cables as you can get your hands on and making them public is not a socially worthy activity,” but history has shown us that having access to too much information is not the problem. The problem is what we do now that the information is out there.
It’s not WikiLeaks’ job, as The Economist says, to “bring together a board of experienced people with different perspectives to review the merits of releasing that particular cable.” It’s our job.
So start reading.
This post originally appeared on the author’s blog, Matter Anti-Matter, and is republished here with her permission.
C.M., nope. Link fixed.
C.M., nope.
Link fixed.
Interesting column from David
Interesting column from David Brooks <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30brooks.html">on the document dump</a>.
I didn't read the documents I
I didn't read the documents I read a news report about the most interesting things found in the documents.
And a curiosity for information is far from violating orders and using a security clearance to steal information and make it available to the enemy. In my mind this is an act of treason.
I still know things that are classified that I could spill and screw our military, but I won't tell them to anyone. So don't try to equate me with this POS.
Peter, Some people are
Peter,
Some people are confusing the theft of the information with Wikileaks. An Army PFC stole (allegedly) the information. He is the one who is accused of a crime and is under arrest.
I am not sure what crime the Wikileaks guy committed, especially since he is not a US citizen. I don't support the release, but was it a crime?
Kevin; in your link, I only
Kevin; in your link, I only see what others believe Manning's motives were, I didn't see any statement from Manning. So far I don't think we really know his motives. To me, he is a hero, this US government is far too secretive and downright arrogant. Unfortunately he is also going to be a martyr, he knew the law and he broke it. I'm grateful for his sacrifice. If there were less foreign entanglements, there'd be a lot less secret dealings to hide. If we stay out of wars, less civilians would get killed. Pretty freakin' simple. James Madison & Thomas Jefferson would love Wikileaks, in my humble opinion:
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.