The Wikileaks databank

[Ian]

There are some valid reasons to keep shit secret: preliminary positions in negotiations, because renegotiation becomes impossible once concessions become public, and informants in enemy territory, because they'd be at risk, but transparancy should be the default, and it's the responsibility of the party keeping secrets to keep them under wraps.

Quite true - the Army's security procedures were complete crap. A junior enlisted kid used a recordable CD to copy whatever the hell he wanted. But safeguarding is easier said than done. Try as I might to safeguard my house, a clever burglar could probably find a way in. All my fault if that happens?

If you're using informants, only their contacts need to know their identity. Any other party can just use the anonymous reports by the contacts. Giving access to their info to hundreds of thousands of people is just fucking stupid. It's bound to leak, and when it does it's better if it becomes common knowledge then if it gets into the hands of just the wrong people

Not really - what if an informant's contact drops dead or gets transferred somewhere else? Information needs to be put into writing, and circulated to as few people as reasonable (but no fewer), and archived in databases. Otherwise there's no continuity.

The leaking of diplomatic cables isn't the problem of Wikileaks. Neither was the leaked video of the crew of a combat helicopter shooting up a news crew. If the US can't control their flow of information, that's their fucking problem. And if they don't want their lies found out, they shouldn't fucking lie

A bit of an over-simplification there - those choppers didn't know two of their targets worked for reuters. I watche the video: they thought they were engaging insurgents. Apache helicopters don't wander around cities looking for crowds of civilians to shoot up; they had been under fire earlier. And even Wikileaks admitted it did not have much information on the victims, except that two of them turned out to be employed by Reuters.

American diplomacy - at least since WWII, and probably before that - relied on the assumption that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It has consistently yielded terrible results: installing fascist or criminal regimes in South America, "because the socialists were such a threat". Supporting theocratic or feudal regimes in the Middle East "because the socialists were such a threat".

I'll make one apology for Cold War-era US policies, and it is this: in a great many cases, the US had the option of dealing with a local authoritarian brute or a leftist authoritarian brute who preferred to be in the Soviet sphere. It's not like the Third World was brimming with would-be clones of Thomas Jefferson, ready to lead their people to peace and prosperity if only the US didn't install a dictator in their place.

[Don't Panic]

If foreign policy had a lot to do with it, why would those from Afghanistan attack the US who provided decisive aid - particular in the form of motherfucking rockets - against the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan?

You would expect gratitude from a people who's faith espouses holy war against non-believers?

OK, so if the attack was purely on religious grounds, why the US? What was it an attack on? Christianity? Perhaps I should direct this to Ian?

I didn't say the attack was on religious grounds, the conflict in the north of my country was apparently on religious grounds, but in truth they only decided where the battle lines were drawn, this conflict is no different.

Why do people not realise that 9/11 was little more than a publicity shoot for Al-queda, "here we are, look at us, see what we can do", vanity in a very ugly form. Attacking military bases and troops in other countries would never get them the recognition that attacking two buildings full of innocent people did. It was a recruitment video to get more fighters for their cause.

[JOZeldenrust]

I mean, certainly the state of affairs may have left animosity towards the US Government, but any reasonably intelligent populous would have seen that running a plane in to a building filled with innocent people who could in no way be held respponsible for the acts of a Government several decaes ago is a good way to make a point.


Unless you're a Fanatical Muslim.


Oh dear, Joz. Really? I don't think the US has 'installed a fascist or criminal regime' to combat socialism in a long, long time.

I'm not saying the attacks of 9/11 were intelligent or even rational moves, but most of the Muslim world isn't particularly rational, and not just because they're Muslims, but because so many of them live in dysfunctional communities.

You may not consider the late seventies and early eighties recent history, but many people, including those in Muslim countries, do. That, and fundamentalist Islam has replaced socialism as the enemy of choice. See what's happening: America is backing corrupt, oppressive and aggressive regimes like in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Nothing in the method has changed, only the perceived enemy, but it's the method that's wrong.

[Ian]

haha may not be whistle blowing per say, but... That is great

Yeah... that's great.

Maybe you'd like to see the US attacked by way of the destruction of a dam, or a chlorine plant, or see major utilities corrupted. I suspect you would, because you're the type who doesn't seem to differentiate between a country and its citizens. Your first reaction was to say haha and call it a good thing. Like I said - try telling my 5-yr old daughter why the release of that list is "great".

I refer you to my earlier post calling you a wannabe sociopath.

EDIT: suppose it was a list of facilities crucial to Canadian health and security, including infrastructure near where you live? Would that be "great"? Would you whine about "freedom of information" then? Boring and pathetic dude.

The location and functions of all those sites were known to the public. The only thing new Al Qaeda could've learnt from this list was the fact that the US value these sites. Big fucking deal.

Of course all those sites were open to public research. But to have them all put on one list is irresponsible any way you cut it. Who do you think is more upset about this list's publication: the US Dept. of Homeland Security, or the employees of the vaccine factories, power plants and other facilities just put on a list by Wikileaks? Would you like to tell them "big fucking deal"? How about if one of my kids goes to drink some tap water and ingests poison because a local reservoir, on this list, was attacked? Big fucking deal?

[JOZeldenrust]

There are some valid reasons to keep shit secret: preliminary positions in negotiations, because renegotiation becomes impossible once concessions become public, and informants in enemy territory, because they'd be at risk, but transparancy should be the default, and it's the responsibility of the party keeping secrets to keep them under wraps.

Quite true - the Army's security procedures were complete crap. A junior enlisted kid used a recordable CD to copy whatever the hell he wanted. But safeguarding is easier said than done. Try as I might to safeguard my house, a clever burglar could probably find a way in. All my fault if that happens?

Absolute security is an illusion, but reasonable security isn't. This wasn't even close to reasonable security.

If you're using informants, only their contacts need to know their identity. Any other party can just use the anonymous reports by the contacts. Giving access to their info to hundreds of thousands of people is just fucking stupid. It's bound to leak, and when it does it's better if it becomes common knowledge then if it gets into the hands of just the wrong people

Not really - what if an informant's contact drops dead or gets transferred somewhere else? Information needs to be put into writing, and circulated to as few people as reasonable (but no fewer), and archived in databases. Otherwise there's no continuity.

I wasn't thinking of contacts as physical people, but rather as units of people. I should've made that more clear. Ever seen "The Departed"? If even Hollywood can create a semblance of a reasonable undercover operation, I'm sure the US government should be able to figure it out.

The leaking of diplomatic cables isn't the problem of Wikileaks. Neither was the leaked video of the crew of a combat helicopter shooting up a news crew. If the US can't control their flow of information, that's their fucking problem. And if they don't want their lies found out, they shouldn't fucking lie

A bit of an over-simplification there - those choppers didn't know two of their targets worked for reuters. I watche the video: they thought they were engaging insurgents. Apache helicopters don't wander around cities looking for crowds of civilians to shoot up; they had been under fire earlier. And even Wikileaks admitted it did not have much information on the victims, except that two of them turned out to be employed by Reuters.

I have no reason to believe the incident was anything other then a tragic mistake, but it was a stupid mistake (even with the poor quality of the video, it's quite possible to see that the thing being carried is a video camera and not an RPG launcher), and the military consciously covered up the event, claiming US troops had nothing to do with the shooting, when they knew what had happened. That was a shameful lie.

American diplomacy - at least since WWII, and probably before that - relied on the assumption that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It has consistently yielded terrible results: installing fascist or criminal regimes in South America, "because the socialists were such a threat". Supporting theocratic or feudal regimes in the Middle East "because the socialists were such a threat".

I'll make one apology for Cold War-era US policies, and it is this: in a great many cases, the US had the option of dealing with a local authoritarian brute or a leftist authoritarian brute who preferred to be in the Soviet sphere. It's not like the Third World was brimming with would-be clones of Thomas Jefferson, ready to lead their people to peace and prosperity if only the US didn't install a dictator in their place.

Allende in Chile was quite reasonable. The socialist student movement in Iran wasn't commited to the USSR. Even in the cases where the alternative was allowing a country to fall into the sphere of the USSR, would that really have been such a bad thing? Communism destroyed itself, like any oppressive regime will if the people have the means to emancipate themselves. The best way to make sure the people have those means is by maintaining trade relationships with those countries, preferably without dealing with the government itself.

I know it's all hindsight, but with some countries America is in the same position they were in in the Cold War. The recent socialist regimes in South America come to mind. Even Iran. A few years ago, when Khatami was president, some positive involvement from the side of America might have been enough to skew the balance of Iranian public opinion in favour of a pro-Western course. As it is, the American hostility towards Iran (yes, I know the hostility is mutual) just serves to solidify the support of Ahmedinejad, and by now most of the Iranian economy is in the hands of the state.

If America wants to protect its interest in the long term, it'll have to stop thinking in terms of short term alliances, and instead focus on long term benefits for the entire world population, including presently hostile communities. Economy isn't a zero sum game.

[JOZeldenrust]

haha may not be whistle blowing per say, but... That is great

Yeah... that's great.

Maybe you'd like to see the US attacked by way of the destruction of a dam, or a chlorine plant, or see major utilities corrupted. I suspect you would, because you're the type who doesn't seem to differentiate between a country and its citizens. Your first reaction was to say haha and call it a good thing. Like I said - try telling my 5-yr old daughter why the release of that list is "great".

I refer you to my earlier post calling you a wannabe sociopath.

EDIT: suppose it was a list of facilities crucial to Canadian health and security, including infrastructure near where you live? Would that be "great"? Would you whine about "freedom of information" then? Boring and pathetic dude.

The location and functions of all those sites were known to the public. The only thing new Al Qaeda could've learnt from this list was the fact that the US value these sites. Big fucking deal.

Of course all those sites were open to public research. But to have them all put on one list is irresponsible any way you cut it. Who do you think is more upset about this list's publication: the US Dept. of Homeland Security, or the employees of the vaccine factories, power plants and other facilities just put on a list by Wikileaks? Would you like to tell them "big fucking deal"? How about if one of my kids goes to drink some tap water and ingests poison because a local reservoir, on this list, was attacked? Big fucking deal?

The chance that any of those sites will be attacked has only marginally increased, and the chance that any other important site will be attacked has decreased by the same amount, whatever that amount may be. Strategic sites to attack are pretty much a dime a dozen.

Of course the consequences of an attack are horrendous, bt the attack isn't the fault of the people who publish the list: it's the fault of the people who execute the attack.

[Gawd]

Look at the Homeland Insecurity propaganda speak in this thread from those that pretend to be democratic when they are in fact authoritarian. Oh, we "must keep the opinions and filth of our leaders secret for it will harm everyone." Never mind the fact that you are paying your American fatcats millions of dollars each in salaries, benefits, and pensions. They speak their filth on record and on the taxpayer's time and then the so called Americans in this thread thinks that we must not besmirch the glorious image of our holy leaders by showing the public how they really act. Good grief. If you guys didn't tell me, I would have thought that I was sitting in on an AIPAC emergency session after yet another embarrassment.

[Robert_S]

I find it odd that some of the most pro wikileaks people here have not really identified themselves personally.

Just a little ironic I think...

[JOZeldenrust]

I find it odd that some of the most pro wikileaks people here have not really identified themselves personally.

Just a little ironic I think...

Government secrecy and personal privacy aren't the same thing.

[sandinista]

I find it odd that some of the most pro wikileaks people here have not really identified themselves personally.

Just a little ironic I think...

Government secrecy and personal privacy aren't the same thing.

that's for sure.

[Gawd]

I find it odd that some of the most pro wikileaks people here have not really identified themselves personally.

Just a little ironic I think...

We have Ian in this thread that works for the American Homeland Insecurity. Do you honestly think it's a good idea to identify yourself just so that you get targeted for harassment by the FBI, CIA, and what not that don't need any reason to detain and torture you under the ruse of "protecting America" when it is Americans funding most of the terrorism through oil wealthy dictatorships it is so cozy with?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is nothing irrational about my analysis, unless you are judging it from an irrational love for all things american and a blind allegiance to neo liberalism.

which means? I mean...is that the best you can do? Troll.

Laughter is all that hypocrisy deserves.

[Ian]

Of course the consequences of an attack are horrendous, bt the attack isn't the fault of the people who publish the list: it's the fault of the people who execute the attack.

That's a shameful excuse. The media has no responsibilities? They're excused from all negligence? Try telling that to anyone who's ever been ruined by media exposure - no small list. Even the CNN article I posted declined to actually re-print the names of those facilities.

[Ian]

I find it odd that some of the most pro wikileaks people here have not really identified themselves personally.

Just a little ironic I think...

We have Ian in this thread that works for the American Homeland Insecurity. Do you honestly think it's a good idea to identify yourself just so that you get targeted for harassment by the FBI, CIA, and what not that don't need any reason to detain and torture you under the ruse of "protecting America" when it is Americans funding most of the terrorism through oil wealthy dictatorships it is so cozy with?

And to think I called you paranoid. Silly me.

[sandinista]

There is nothing irrational about my analysis, unless you are judging it from an irrational love for all things american and a blind allegiance to neo liberalism.

which means? I mean...is that the best you can do? Troll.

Laughter is all that hypocrisy deserves.

Troll, you obviously don't even know the meaning of hypocrisy. Stop your crying