wikileaks

porterjack

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
3 2 2 2
sure is causing the shit to hit the fan here with allegations flying about cover ups concerning what the Can govt knew and how it withheld information and ( if wikileaks information is true) blatantly lied to the Canadian public

is wikileaks good for us?

sometimes the truth hurts and wars are not pretty and fair, i dont like govts that lie and spin but sometimes what we dont know wont hurt us seems to fit
 
An external watchdog is great. A biased one is bad, and that's what wikileaks seems to be imo. Either way, what they've done is beyond illegal. Soliciting and distributing classified material is obviously against the law.
 
What they did is a classic. Cherry pic the documents to make their case. Make it a massive amount of info that would take a long time to verify.

They have an obvious anti war bias

You could probably go thru govt documents and make your case for the opposite view by cherry picking also.
 
An external watchdog is great. A biased one is bad, and that's what wikileaks seems to be imo. Either way, what they've done is beyond illegal. Soliciting and distributing classified material is obviously against the law.
i take your point about the fact that the docs were classified but if i am not mistaken they describe past events and are not operational planning documents so do not disclose intended actions, an argument could be made that once an operation is over the secrecy surrounding it is somewhat lessened and as such these docs could be less sensitive than their security grading suggests
 
An external watchdog is great. A biased one is bad, and that's what wikileaks seems to be imo. Either way, what they've done is beyond illegal. Soliciting and distributing classified material is obviously against the law.

What they did is a classic. Cherry pic the documents to make their case. Make it a massive amount of info that would take a long time to verify.

They have an obvious anti war bias

You could probably go thru govt documents and make your case for the opposite view by cherry picking also.

and I would be more interested in what exactly the leaders in congress knew about what was going on.

I suspect they knew more than they will ever let on. Or lent a deaf ear to give themselves cover.

Where are you guys getting this? When did this turn into a partisan thing?
Is there any proof that the documents are cherry picked?
 
Where are you guys getting this? When did this turn into a partisan thing?
Is there any proof that the documents are cherry picked?

Are you serious?

The guy is known to be anti war

Those documents painted things in a bad light for the US and how we have bungled things

I don't believe the guy did it so we would change our approach to win. He wants us out of there.

Oye Tim

Wake up
 
Are you serious?

Why yes I am, can you please answer my questions? I really want to know where this information is coming from.

The guy is known to be anti war

You can be anti war and still leak information fairly, right?

Those documents painted things in a bad light for the US and how we have bungled things

If this guy was pro war and he was a flaming republican, the documents would still paint things in a bad light for the US. The content is the content. It's not like he wrote them.

I don't believe the guy did it so we would change our approach to win. He wants us out of there.

So your assertion is that he gets leaked document and only releases those that are in line with his agenda? Although it's possible, it's hard to imagine since the site is full of dirt on everyone. I personally haven't seen a lean one way or the other.
Are you sure this isn't a example of, "I don't like what he's doing, so he must be for the other side" kinda thing?


[vbtube]0TqCJR-1vEg[/vbtube]


wake%20up%20call.jpg
 
Where are you guys getting this? When did this turn into a partisan thing?
Is there any proof that the documents are cherry picked?
Hold on, I'll let you know when I'm done reading all 90,000 pages.

Seriously though, they titled the infamous leaked attack helicopter video "Collateral Murder", and presented their opinions throughout the video. An unbiased site would simply host the video, not make purposely inflammatory titles and advance their agenda throughout.
 
Leak Soup
By Morgan Meis

r
ID_IC_MEIS_WIKI_AP_001.jpg


Julian Assange
What, me worry?

I’ve become a Julian Assange man. Leak away, Julian. Leak it all, leak everything. Leak whatever you can until they find a way to shut you down for good.
At first, I was not sure how to feel about the recent dump of classified documents at WikiLeaks. I could see the arguments on both sides. I understand that we are the owners of a flawed and imperfect world within which no one owns a pair of those proverbial clean hands. No, we have a dirty world of infinite compromise. We muddle through, more or less, and the women and men who do the muddling, at the international level, are, more often than not, engaged in a tricky business. Human beings have a hard enough time being moral agents. For nation states, the task is well nigh impossible. And yet, wars are, sometimes, averted. Catastrophes are met with coordinated action. Relatively more dangerous countries are kept in check by relatively less dangerous countries. A global civilization manages, if nothing else, to persist. Bravo to the individuals who make this so, some of whom are the very members of the international diplomatic corps whose private and sometimes catty emails were just published for the world to read.

With these diplomats in mind, there are a myriad of well-reasoned arguments as to why WikiLeaks puts diplomatic missions in danger, threatens global stability, promotes the very secrecy it seeks to eradicate, etc. You can, in fact, find some of these arguments in a December 3 op-ed in the New York Times. It was written by Wolfgang Ischinger, himself a diplomat, chairman of the Munich Conference, former deputy foreign minister to Germany, and a participant in the negotiations around ending the war in Bosnia and establishing an independent Kosovo. As far as I know he’s a decent man. In his op-ed, he makes the point that “international crisis management and crisis prevention are among the nobler tasks of modern bilateral and multilateral diplomacy.” And who are we to dispute the claim? To Mr. Ischinger, WikiLeaks is a danger to the noble task of diplomacy insofar as the trust that is required in such ventures has been compromised. “Once trust has evaporated, it is difficult, sometimes even impossible, to rebuild.” That’s why Ischinger titles his piece as a question: “The End of Diplomacy as We Know it?” He claims that the leaks are about much more than “hurt egos.” “This is more serious: It is about war and peace, and it can be about life or death.”

And that is where Ambassador Ischinger lost me for good. That is where I went over to the other side, where I became a Julian man. There is only so much bullshit that any man can ingest, and I’ve been topped off. Mr. Ischinger is in the same lineage as all the noble men and women who have been managing the competing interests of war and peace for the last few hundred years. They have armed nations, and then disarmed them. They’ve left regions to stew and boil in endless carnage in the name of a greater stability. They’ve arrayed armies of invasion in other instances when the powers that be deemed it appropriate. From Klemens von Metternich to Wolfgang Ischinger, we’ve been told that the secret doings of this management of peace and war is at the service of a greater order and well being. The Hobbesian nightmare of the state of nature, a war of all against all, is continually gestured to as the price of giving up on the obscure ways of the diplomatic art. We need them, these architects of peace and war.

And yet we know, we have always known somewhere in our hearts, that this is the bullshit of the powerful. Necessary bullshit, perhaps. A bullshit to which we have no better alternative. But I won’t be told that I have to take my bullshit and like it. That I have to suffer the lies and manipulations of the great maestros of war and peace and smile and thank them for it. I want, at least, to be served my helping of bullshit with a side of discontent. I want to be displeased about the lies and the duplicity and the cynicism. I feel better knowing that the diplomats know that we know. This is a thin victory, even a little bit spiteful. It does not, pace the rather grandiose claims of Julian Assange, lead to a better and more honest world. I suspect we simply have no idea what the final impact of WikiLeaks will be, good, bad, or indeterminate. Probably indeterminate. But damn if the raw glimpse of truth didn’t feel refreshing. The sweat of men like Wolfgang Ischinger cleanses us all. Their worry gives us a little more strength to trudge on ever forward into the next war, the one which they are surely planning even now, with fewer emails, and as secretly as they can. 6 December 2010



Morgan Meis is a founding member of Flux Factory, an arts collective in New York. He has written for The Believer, Harper’s, and The Virginia Quarterly Review. Morgan is also an editor at 3 Quarks Daily, and a winner of a Creative Capital | Warhol Foundation Arts Writers grant. He can be reached at morganmeis@gmail.com.
 
is wikileaks good for us?

sometimes the truth hurts and wars are not pretty and fair, i dont like govts that lie and spin but sometimes what we dont know wont hurt us seems to fit

Wikileaks reveled nothing that wasn't already known to people who don't use the mainstream media for their information.

It's not good for us. I've changed my opinion on this after looking into it. It's so obviously a false-flag operation to bring about control and censorship of the internet, the biggest threat to governments in the west.

So yeah, wikileaks, very bad.
 
Back
Top