Where does WF stand on WikiLeaks?
- Thread starter redwings0921
- Start date
Really, you haven't done any reading?
Here's a few things that wouldn't have been reported otherwise. There's a bunch more. After all, there's over 250k being released.
Cable Document:
US embassy cables: 'British connection' in US corruption scandal | World news | guardian.co.uk
Oil Company + US & UK Diplomats hiring (for quite a lot of money) an investigator to limit information fallout during a lawsuit so that they can continue their actions and business.
Cable Document:
The FCPA Blog - The FCPA Blog - WikiLeaks: Drug CompanyGAYHijinks
Diplomats working with Pfizer to hire an investigator to dig up dirt on someone to pressure them into dropping a lawsuit.
Cable Document:
Wikileaks Cable Shows US Involvement in Swedish Anti-Piracy Efforts | TorrentFreak
US Involvement with Sweden in fighting piracy. Again, wouldn't have been published otherwise.
Wikileaks has helped inform people about this stuff so that they can start up organizations like Demand Progress (which BTW was helpful in postponing a bill that was about to slip through unnoticed that would start limiting the sites US citizens can view on the internet, days after Obama was chastising Iran over limiting the Internet).
My question is, out of those 250k, how many tangibly uncovered corruption?
1, 2, 3? 100?
The vast majority of the cables contained nothing incriminating. Tabloid sleaze at the most. "Diplomat X says Y about Z".
Fact is, this isn't a whistleblowing operation. If it was, all the released material would involve actionable content that could lead to reform.
However, it isn't. So all this "WikiLeaks is whistleblowing and uncovering corruption" claims are hogwash.
There isn't a definitive number because it's highly unlikely that anyone has had time to read and listen to all of the documents which have been released so far.
There's a reason that the cable releases are staggered.
If you read on Wikileak's page about the cables, you'll see that each release will cover different subject matter. Some have more incriminating information than others.
It really doesn't matter what you deem as incriminating. Each of those cables will be important to someone and a cable you pass off may lead to someone else reading it and pushing reform in their own industry.
You can't take what the media is saying about "them being mostly filled with sleeze" and group all of it as being worthless. That's just ignorant.
Again, they said on their site that they'll be publishing the cables in full, as is. So yes, some of them will not contain juicy incriminating evidence.
If they cherry picked, then it would be Wikileaks saying what is important for the people. They are releasing all of them, as is, so that reporters or anyone who cares to view them will be able to narrow them down and choose what's important to them.
So you're saying WikiLeaks is publishing things they don't actually read?
It sounds like you're making up bullshit excuses at this point. Somebody has read all these documents, including the mundane everyday shit and decided it would be good to release them.
If it wasn't going to "whistleblow", what was it published for? Exactly.
Basically these leaks, resulting from criminal activity are being published so that WikiLeaks can get attention and raise their profile. Sort of like a celeb sex tape.
Their claims of whistleblowing and uncovering corruption are bunk. The claim of keeping the government in check is bunk.
When a group is judged by their actions, their true goals and motives are revealed.
They're nothing but tabloid rag now.
Come now, Ar Scion, You are really getting off point here.
I humored you with my last post because it was clear you wanted to steer away from my main point I said which was Wikileaks has exposed government corruption.
But, if you want to try and discredit the point I made, which I backed up two posts ago, then fine... I'll pick apart your current post.
No, I was referring to members of the media and public, outside of the groups that Wikileaks brought on to sift through them. If you took even a second to read the Cables page on Wikileak's website, you'd know that they have screened them.
No, not making them up, just stating logic.
Over 20,000 cables were released on the 28th of November, and some more earlier this week. It's highly improbable that any person outside of those screeners has looked at all of them, let alone spent the time to write stories on every specific issue that they found.
As I said, even "mundane shit" has its relevance. It's important to someone.
You're assuming that just because not every cable was "whistleblowing" that they are useless.
Just because part of the outcome of the release is media coverage doesn't make that the original goal or intent.
Again, just because not every cable contains "whistleblowing" doesn't mean that Wikileaks hasn't brought any to light. I showed you 3 examples two posts ago.
I even provided you with evidence of them helping keep the government in check by aiding Demand Progress in postponing a bill that would limit the Internet for US citizens.
Judgments only reveal what the judger perceives them to reveal.
Again, just because some of the cable documents aren't "juicy" doesn't mean that Wikileaks doesn't serve its purpose.
I humored you with my last post because it was clear you wanted to steer away from my main point I said which was Wikileaks has exposed government corruption.
But, if you want to try and discredit the point I made, which I backed up two posts ago, then fine... I'll pick apart your current post.
No, I was referring to members of the media and public, outside of the groups that Wikileaks brought on to sift through them. If you took even a second to read the Cables page on Wikileak's website, you'd know that they have screened them.
No, not making them up, just stating logic.
Over 20,000 cables were released on the 28th of November, and some more earlier this week. It's highly improbable that any person outside of those screeners has looked at all of them, let alone spent the time to write stories on every specific issue that they found.
As I said, even "mundane shit" has its relevance. It's important to someone.
You're assuming that just because not every cable was "whistleblowing" that they are useless.
Just because part of the outcome of the release is media coverage doesn't make that the original goal or intent.
Again, just because not every cable contains "whistleblowing" doesn't mean that Wikileaks hasn't brought any to light. I showed you 3 examples two posts ago.
I even provided you with evidence of them helping keep the government in check by aiding Demand Progress in postponing a bill that would limit the Internet for US citizens.
Judgments only reveal what the judger perceives them to reveal.
Again, just because some of the cable documents aren't "juicy" doesn't mean that Wikileaks doesn't serve its purpose.
Don't be stupid.
A homeless bum with access to nuclear launch codes is a threat.
It's not about who, it's about what they possess and how they are using it.
If a media organization is justifying their usage of criminally obtained classified information with the words "whistle-blowing" or "exposing-corruption", then their "leaks" should be in line with their goal.
Of the 250k cables leaked, most don't expose any corruption. You cannot explain why they have been leaked.
"Having some use to someone" is a terrible justification. It's irrational. Publishing your personal information could have some use to someone somewhere. Should we therefore do it? Or are you suddenly against the first amendment?
Think about it brah. With every right comes responsibilities. First amendment is not a blank check.
Our constitution guarantees free speech and freedom of press, but not at the expense of hurting legitimate national interests.
Correct, because only a small portion of the 250k cables have been released to the public.
I did. Not liking the answer doesn't mean it didn't happen.
As I posted with your similar example on one of the other threads on this subject, that's a horrible example.
My personal information is not the same as Government information.
It's my right to know what the government is doing and keep them in check. Hell, it's the reason the founding fathers wrote the first amendment.
Nope, I still am for the first amendment. Someone stealing my personal information such as taking my credit card number and using it to make purchases is a crime, not helping them regulate the government's actions.
You're assuming that those releases will hurt national interests. If they will, then perhaps the government shouldn't have been involved with bribery, gathering dirt to make lawsuits against a lobbyist's company go away, or passing bills under the public's nose to limit the freedom of information on the Internet.
The people that lobby the government (and get politicians elected) also either own media companies or associate with people that do. It's very easy for them to only show the information they want to show us.
When leaks like Wikileaks provides get out, of course they are going to say it hurts national interests - those interests are their own.
The government does not operate at 100% transparency, and it shouldn't. Protecting certain information protects certain assets. That's why you can't claim transparency as a reason to install a public webcam in the Oval Office, or to acquire access to nuclear launch codes. That's why you can't find out how the PD has set up their local patrols, where speed traps are located, etc.
This "unlimited transparency" ideology is total tripe and does not reflect reality. There should be as much transparency as possible, not total transparency.
With that established, WikiLeaks is not the arbiter of what information people should know and what they should not. That responsibility is between the American government and the American people, subject to American rights, American responsibilities and American rule of law. With these checks and balances we can ensure that there is transparency, but also responsibility.
To hand over this responsibility to an organization that has no responsibilities to the American people and the American legal system is irresponsible and dangerous.
I can't see how you can refute any of this.
PS- I don't see anything unethical in any of the links you found. Nothing that could blow the whistle on anything.
For the last time, Wikileaks did NOT have anything to do with the DDOS attacks. OK? It was a DIFFERENT group. And both sides have even released statements saying so!
And another thing. Why am I not surprised that many of you go on and on about the US in this. Have you not seen the hundreds of other cables involving other countries? There are incredible revelations like Chavez sending briefcases of cash to Nicaragua's president, and top drug dealers being freed immediately after arrest. There are amazing stories about companies like Shell (not a US company) bribing governments around the world.
But no, it all has to be about American national security. Oh please. Give me a f***ing break.
Wikileaks isn't about endangering American lives you morons, and if you believe that you are either as conniving or as dumb as Sarah Palin. It's about exposing corruption and all the lies most idiots in society (which is pretty much everyone) swallow without a moment's thought.
I'm looking forward to what they tell us about the banking crisis next.
But no, it all has to be about American national security. Oh please. Give me a f***ing break.
Wikileaks isn't about endangering American lives you morons, and if you believe that you are either as conniving or as dumb as Sarah Palin. It's about exposing corruption and all the lies most idiots in society (which is pretty much everyone) swallow without a moment's thought.
I'm looking forward to what they tell us about the banking crisis next.
1) And many expose corruption here, many more expose corruption elsewhere. If you take a look, local news agencies are latching onto stories that go ignored elsewhere simply because they're directly affected. The perceived impact from state-side is incredibly diluted. In many places the cables make the local leadership look bad, not the US...so we ignore them.
2) A democracy is only as good as it's citizens are informed. In recent years huge amounts of information (even non-harmful information) has been classified, limiting the ability of the population to vote effectively.
Foreign policy is a massive part of what our government actually does, but come election time no one has the information needed to hold leaders accountable or elect leaders that are more within our interests.
3) It's a "free" press, they don't have to explain shit to you. Lovell v. City of Griffin (another supreme court case) explained the broad definition of "press":
The Supreme Mothe fucking Court said:
If information being useful to someone is a "terrible justification", I strongly suspect there is no justification you would consider "right". The media every single day publishes information for no reason other than the fact that it's "useful to someone".
Except people are only willing to undergo the risks associated with leaking when there's substantial reward or moral objection. Things are (almost without exception) leaked for a reason in the media, and that's not likely to happen with personal information. And if it did, you'd do exactly what you do here: Go after the leaker, leave the Press(which includes Wikileaks) alone. The term "shooting the messenger" comes to mind.
Yes, the responsibility to uphold rights for everyone, even in situations where you disagree with them. To see them as an actual ideal instead of some "privilege" that can be thrown away when it's inconvenient.
The rights you advocate are no rights at all. They are disposable suggestions, given to serfs to keep them in line and "patriotic"
Yes it fucking is. Look at it some day? Are there asterisks next to the phrase "Congress shall make no law"? A terms of service that Jefferson skimmed over, buried in the Constitutional footer?
No. There's not.
I disappear for a couple days and you trot this tired old point out again?
We've been through this. With NyTimes vs. the United States, after the Pentagon papers, it was decided that yes: You CAN publish illegaly obtained materially the government thinks hurts the "security" of the United States....because the day you can't, everything will "harm our security". The Supreme Court saw that, and ruled accordingly.
Honestly, come on now. Can you find an amendment with the exception you advocate? Is it in the text of the constitution? How about the federalist papers? Supreme court ruling?
The answer is: No, you can't. Because it doesn't exist. Even the Government accepts that it would be nearly impossible to prosecute them for the leaks directly.
Last edited:
1) You have no basis to claim that all the published cables are blowing the whistle on something. "In many places" and other vague idioms don't cut it. If the intention to publish is whistleblowing, the content must be in line with the intent. If it's not, there is another intent that is not being voiced.
2) False. Stop using cliches that don't apply to the real-life scenario. The issue is not about democracy, it's about federal functioning. The vast number of published cables revealed no impropriety with regards to elected officials that influenced our democracy or our voting choices. Foreign policy is not a top tier factor when Americans vote, and most of the cables' revelations were already well known among analysts who pop up on cable news shows almost every day. The foreign policy/democracy argument is falsely exaggerated in order to defend WikiLeaks
3) Free press don't have to explain shit to me. But they do have an ethical commitment. If not, they should. Namely, not to violate a nation's sovereignty when there is no wrongdoing to uncover.
No. You're missing the point. The justification made is too vague. "Someone somewhere, way up in the clouds...." is not specific, concrete or sufficient enough to do something as serious as this.
It's akin to police forcing their way into every home because "We could find a criminal somewhere..."
Ie, a bullshit argument to defend WikiLeaks that rings hollow once it's examined.
Flat out wrong. With anonymity and source protection, nobody has to risk anything.
Pfc Manning was exposed after deliberately "leaking" himself to someone he thought was a confidant. He didn't take on any risk.
By the way, "leaking" is a wonderful precedent. Pedophiles with access to school records such as bus routes, home addresses and the like could "leak" to PedoLeaks. Of course, publishing a few mundane articles would make them a media organization. I'm sure the founders had this in mind.
I was talking about the responsibility to use your rights for the greater good, which is what WikiLeaks could have done had it tried to find a way to be responsible to the American people via the American legal system.
By the way, you would what would be interesting? To see how these first amendment perverts respond if extremists open a JihadLeaks, dedicated to "transparency" that results in setbacks in the war on terror and possible deaths. "First amendment, bro!"
See that part in bold? That's the core of your problem. You interpret the constitution literally when it is convenient for your worldview, then you interpret it within context when it is convenient for your worldview.
Jefferson is not Nostradamus. His philosophy was rooted in his world experience. He did not consider the realities we live in. That's why we consider the intent when looking at the constitution. It provides some fucking context so that dumbfucks don't take "Congress shall make no law" as justification for banning congress from making laws.
Fuck the Supreme Court. This is about right and wrong, not about judicial masturbation. Would you support the Supreme Court if it came to the opposite conclusion?
If you want to help the American people, do it in a way that is just and fair. If you don't think there is a just and fair channel, seek to engage the US in order to seek reform.
Don't hijack the internet, don't fuck up our government and our diplomatic functioning. Just because YOU are willing to sacrifice the American government in order to know the truth doesn't mean the public is.
I honestly think this is a symptom of cultural centrism. You're lived in the US so long you take the government for granted. Travel for a bit. Talk to non-citizens about their lives back home and their experiences as citizens of a land with a fucked up government system.
Your priorities will realign. You won't pay much heed to abstract bullshit like "Free speech bro!", but instead you'll watch to see how these principles interact with reality on the ground.
Bottom line is, anything good taken to an extreme becomes evil. And WikiLeaks just crossed into that territory. Whether the legal system catches up, whether we catch up, whether our political system catches up, who knows.
But legal and ideological jockeying doesn't change the fact that this isn't about helping Americans. It's about a political ideology that Assange has cleverly polished, packaged and promoted as transparency.
It's marketing at its finest. And it looks like you got suckered.