Wikileaks may have started out to expose abuses and shine a light on them

[wndycty]

Which is good, but now it's about just release documents for the sake of attention which is extremely irresponsible. There is no way that we can be upset with John Kyle for fucking up the START treaty and ignore the fact that Wikileaks may very well give him the fuel to do so.

Fuck Wikileaks, seriously fuck Wikileaks. This is no longer about exposing abuses it's about getting attention and it's fucking irresponsible.

[lillypaddle]

1. I agree

Everyone is appalled by the Plame/Wilson outing, but apparently they don't care about the people who will be put in danger by these leaks. Anything that makes the government look bad is A-OK. This is tragic.

[wndycty]

2. Yup. Wikileaks needs to be looked at objectively

Kudos to them for exposing the abuses, but there is a lot of recklessness without concern of the impact of it's actions.

[EFerrari]

9. Where are you getting that? Who are these people being put in danger?

Objectively, the government has made this claim before each release and objecticely, it hasn't happened, not even once.

The only danger here seems to be in embarrassing corrupt officials.

[sabrina 1]

58. The only people being endangered by these documents are the

war criminals who led this country and others into an unnecessary and genocidal war. The Pentagon itself has said that no one was endangered by the Wikeleaks docs, until it changed its mind and saw the advantage of making such a claim.

Since Wikileaks offered the U.S. military the opportunity to remove any names of people who might be endangered and they refused, any harm coming to anyone, will be the responsibility of the military who could have stopped it.

As for anyone crying about people being harmed, it is laughable who is making this claim. Are you not aware of the harm that the lies about this war has caused to hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including thousands of our own troops?

The hypocrisy is simply stunning. THEY are killing innocents every day, for ten long years. They have no moral authority to point fingers elsewhere.

Exposing the lies is the best way to stop the killing and dying and torture and the whole range of abuses their lies have rained down on so many innocent people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Oh, dear!! Politicians caught and embarrassed!!

[wndycty]

5. So do what the START treaty passed?

Do you care? Or is it all about supporting whatever anarchy Wikileaks can cause?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Why wouldn't the START treaty pass?

If it's a good treaty for both sides how can wikileaks prevent it? Would you rather that it be done in secret?

[cleanhippie]

32. .

[Posteritatis]

61. It won't pass anywy, because the Republicans are still in 2-year-old mode. (nt)

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. About that anarchy fear you expressed:

I am unclear as to what "anarchy" Wikilieaks will cause.

What is it that you fear will happen?
Riots in the streets?

The truth shall set us free = anarchy?

Anarchy is defined as "absence of government".
Yet the issues about the release of info. have been addressed by the Supreme Court, going back as far as Ellsberg in the 70's, so the government was not abolished.

The current government arguments are:

1. "As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing."

If referring to the publication of classified information, US Supreme Court precedent argues against Mr. Koh's claim: New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), aka The Pentagon Papers case.

2. The publication would "place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals."

This is the same claim previously made by the Department of Defense in relation to the publication of the Afghan and Iraq war logs. It bears repeating that the claim was unsubstantiated both times, and that Defense Secretary Gates, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell and NATO officials have admitted as much: Debunked: "WikiLeaks has blood on its hands".

3. "You should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks’ databases."

This echoes the request made by Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell with regards to the publication of the Afghan war logs. As Daniel Ellsberg observed, this was exactly the language used when the US government attempted to use the Espionage Act against him for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. The courts disagreed.

This is perhaps the right time to remember US Supreme Court Justice Black's words in the Pentagon Papers case:

In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.<...>

To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure." No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time.

The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. This thought was eloquently expressed in 1937 by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes - great man and great Chief Justice that he was - when the Court held a man could not be punished for attending a meeting run by Communists.

"The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free <403 U.S. 713, 720> assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government."

http://wlcentral.org/

[Wind Dancer]

22. Thanks for posting this information.

Agree completely!!!! :yourock:

[Amonester]

44. Yep. And to see 'some' here on DU (no less) trying to smear the press

for doing their Constitutional duty is stunning.

[laughingliberal]

53. +1,000,000 nt

[Overseas]

65. Well said. And thanks for the link. //nt

[ProudDad]

60. Utterly Irrelevant

But nice flame bait... :rofl:

[Autumn]

7. For you,

:toast:

[jaxx]

4. I agree with you absolutely.

[earthside]

6. Has it been released?

I haven't seen any report about what information is actually in this 'leak' yet.

So, what are you talking about?

[Catherina]

8. USA! USA! n/t

[PeaceNikki]

10. I am withholding opinion until released, but definitely lean in this direction as well.

I was a bit agnostic on the topic until I read some good points made by DUers this weekend.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atman]

12. Bullshit. The timing is very suspicious...

As if it was TIMED to help kill the START treaty. Lots of people with lots of $$ on the line. Something stinks.

[eShirl]

14. What? Please explain.

[MineralMan]

15. Diplomatic communications are one area that needs

confidentiality. Every one of us has dealt confidentially with someone about something, I have no doubt. Maybe it was nothing more serious than talking with someone about a gift. Or, it may have been as serious as discussing an illness with your physician. Confidentiality protects those who communicate sensitive things to influence an outcome.

Diplomatic negotiations often involve disclosure of confidential information. Sometimes, I suppose, such disclosures have to do with sinister dealings. Most often, though, they deal with details of the negotiations, tradeoffs being made that are based on intelligence, and other factors. In many cases such information and disclosures are crucial to negotiating bargains. Most diplomacy is involved with negotiating bargains of some sort or another.

In business, including very small businesses, confidential arrangements are often made. A lower price offered to get a specific job than would usually be offered. The negotiations are confidential because the details are none of anyone else's business. Disclosure of such information can create problems, so confidentiality is maintained.

For someone to reveal such confidential information is more than just embarrassing to the parties involved. It can be disastrous.

So, if you've never participated in any sort of confidential agreement with someone else, then I suppose celebrating the Wikileaks disclosure can be justified. I doubt that applies to anyone reading this message. Some things need to remain confidential. Without that, many diplomatic negotiations would never take place. It's a tradeoff. Most things are tradeoffs.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. A lower price offered to get a specific job than would usually be offered.

Isn't that called 'bribery'? So, yeah, of course the parties want to keep it secret. They need to hide their criminality.

As Bill Moyer said, 'Secrecy is the freedom tyrants dream of'.

[MineralMan]

43. No, it's not bribery. For example:

A driveway paving company that's having a slow period might well bid a job at a lower than usual price to keep their employees on the job and being paid. Any business does this, as needed. The reason it's confidential is that they don't want the customer telling other people about the great deal, causing people to demand this lower price at other times.

Happens all the time in business. Confidential arrangements are commonplace.

Similarly, in diplomatic communications, something like this might happen: During a negotiation, a third party has some information that may help an ally bargain better. For example. If the US, say, and Russia were working on some diplomatic arrangement, and the UK happened to know that the prime minister of Russia had a terminal illness, that information could be useful to the US. The information, and how it was obtained, are confidential. While this particular example has not happened, similar information is shared all the time between nations. The confidentiality is part of the sharing.

As in most things, some things are public information and some things are not. Similar situations may have happened in your own life, and probably have. Not on that scale, but...say you and your friend go to look at a car you're thinking of buying in a private sale from a mutual friend. You have $3000 in $100 bills, and you've shared that with your friend. You're bargaining with the seller, and have offered him $2500. If your friend spills the beans and tells the seller you're willing to pay more, he has broken the confidentiality of your discussion and may cost you $500. That's what I'm talking about. I'm sure you can think of such situations in your own life.

[Cid_B]

42. I'll say it again...

This guy Assange is an enemy of the USA. He is actively doing what he can to cause damage to this country and its allies. Everyone was all hippity hoppity happy when the only ramification (in their mind) was dead American Soldiers and our allies and those who work with us to try to make some of the crappiest places on earth just a little less shitty.

Now it dawns on everyone that it goes farther than their hatred of Bush and OEF/OIF.... This guy is an enemy. No shit Sherlocks...

[ShamelessHussy]

17. I am glad they are contributing to our history, I hate how much it is controlled by the elite

And the more publicity they can muster, the better.

[PSPS]

18. Yes, how dare anyone unmask the corruption and duplicity of our betters!!11!

[elehhhhna]

30. Plus 1,000. 11!!1!

[mmonk]

19. Secret government is always subject to leaks. This is nothing new,

just the volume is new.

[MadHound]

20. Ah yes, it is so much healthier for our society to remain in ignorance

Geez, how sad our society has become that members of it advocate for government secrecy, despite the mountains of evidence showing that government secrecy is not a good thing.

Wikileaks is doing a good thing, something that should be celebrated by all who believe in truth and freedom. Sadly, far too many people don't believe in those quaint notions anymore. The list of supporters for the OP here is also very telling.

People willing to pay for and put on their own blinders:puke:

[Catherina]

23. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse.

An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

[dixiegrrrrl]

37. I just grabbed a pdf copy of that book online.

Have not read it since I was too young to appreciate it.
thanks for the reminder.

:hi:

[Catherina]

39. I just did too! This is going to be entertaining. So many quotes, so litttle time

:hi:

[kgnu_fan]

21. You choose ignorance, I choose transparency. Because I believe in democracy.

[Poll_Blind]

24. +1 and a quote from the late Oregon senator Wayne Morse:

From a 1964 Meet the Press interview:

Wayne Morse: What I’m saying is, under our constitution,
all the president is, is the administrator of the peoples’ foreign
policy. Those are his prerogatives, and I am pleading
that the American people be given the facts about our foreign
policy. . . .

Peter Lisagor: You know the American people cannot formulate
and execute foreign policy.

Wayne Morse: Why do you say that? Why, you’re a man of
little faith in democracy if you make that kind of a statement.
I have complete faith in the ability of the American
people to follow the facts if you’ll give them. My charge
against my government is we’re not giving the American
people the facts

PB

[kgnu_fan]

25. Yes, we are smarter than what has been told. We just need correct information

[Odin2005]

26. Unrec.

[Individualist]

27. Unrec

[Warren Stupidity]

28. El Pais, Le Monde, Speigel, Guardian & NYT all disagree.

But what would they know?

[Catherina]

35. +1. Nations misled into wars get tired of covering up for US crimes n/t

[kgnu_fan]

29. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors...

[laughingliberal]

50. +1 nt

[rusty fender]

31. Really?

Wow! Are you really that gullible?:eyes:

[cleanhippie]

33. You are entitled to your opinion, regardless of how misguided it may be...

[NorthCarolina]

34. Unrec.

[GodlessBiker]

38. Knowledge is power. Always.

[Marr]

40. Wikileaks with their guy in the White House= yay! Wikileaks with your guy in the WH = boo!

C'mon-- do you not even see how transparently hypocritical this is? I expect this sort of "whatever suits my team at the moment" approach from right-wing loons, but it's sad to see it embraced here as well.

And before you say it-- no, your argument is absolutely different from the one made my Bush supporters when wikileaks was first set up (except for the reversal of a previous opinion, of course). They also claimed that leaks would inhibit the president's agenda.

[Saokymo]

41. I agree wholeheartedly

I'm all for truth and getting information out to the world, but something stinks here. Wikileaks is building too much hype around these releases. Then they make so much noise when their sites get targeted to be shut down -- it's almost like they want governments going after them for this. It's nothing but a huge distraction ploy.

[ljm2002]

45. Wikileaks is not based in the US...

...so the comparison to John Kyle (sp?) doesn't really fly. He is a U.S. Senator with direct responsibility for U.S. policies. How he uses that responsibility is up to him. Wikileaks has no responsibility to consider the political consequences of the material they release. Furthermore, the materials will be published by news media organizations in several European countries as well as in the U.S. These are established media, e.g. Der Spiegel and the New York Times. So maybe you should save your ire for them? Oh yes and one more thing: in this country, the Pentagon Papers case (re-)established the principle that newspapers may legally publish these sorts of materials, once they have been obtained. i.e. "No prior restraint". Part of that pesky Freedom Of The Press clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Wikileaks has taken what precautions they can to prevent truly damaging materials from being published: they offered the State Department the right to look over the documents and advise redactions. The State Department declined. Presumably, the news organizations who will publish these documents have taken some care in this area, but who knows.

In any case, the people who need to worry from a legal standpoint are the leakers. So one might ask, what were their motives for leaking these materials? Wikileaks provides the platform to enable anonymous leaks, but they do not manufacture the materials themselves. Whistle blowers usually are motivated by wanting to expose corruption and hypocrisy. Regardless of their motives, they do put themselves at considerable risk by leaking these documents. They know this risk, yet they still do it. Why do you think that is?

[KittyWampus]

46. Those in favor never held a position of Authority nor do they grasp the concept of Confidentiality

and the role it plays in Diplomacy.

Remember, many DU'ers live in an Ivory Tower where they pronounce how things should be in their Ideal World.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Right. So how exactly is an ignorant electorate supposed to make

informed decisions? And while there is indeed a role for secrecy in the affairs of state, the role of the press is in general to overcome those barriers of secrecy. Governments seek to make all of their affairs secret, permanently. The press is the counter-pressure that exposes the affairs of state for their corrupt mendacity and even downright evil.

Diplomacy will survive wiki-leaks. However, depending on what is actually revealed, there may be some hesitation in the future to do things that are completely unacceptable if there is an honest fear of exposure.

[Catherina]

51. Barf

:puke:

[TexasObserver]

47. If you find yourself making the same arguments as Fox News, reconsider.

[laughingliberal]

55. +1 nt

[Kermitt Gribble]

49. Unrec

It's the duty of the press to keep the government honest. That's why freedom of the press was a fundamental issue in the founding of this country. The mainstream, corporate press no longer fulfills this duty - I applaud WikiLeaks for upholding the job that was originally intended of the free press.

[bluestate10]

52. Crusaders start out with good intentions.

But most get caught up in fame and get lost. The current leaks appear to serve no real purpose and in fact may seriously damage the very causes that the person responsible for the leaks claims he is for.

[TheKentuckian]

54. unrec and I have no idea what role the "right" plays when the "left" assumes their positions based

on who is in power.

[derby378]

56. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

Dude, come on.

[Toucano]

57. Secrecy is an anathema to democracy.

We have accepted entirely too much secrecy in our government for entirely too long.

I welcome the documents' publication.

[ProudDad]

59. That fucker kyl doesn't need an "excuse"...

And the Wikileaks disclosures have NOTHING to do with START...

You're blaming a Patriot for the Earth for the actions of the real criminals?

Well, I know that's a popular exercise here in DU circle-jerk-land... :eyes:

[Catherina]

62. As the Govt tells us, "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".

***************
from funmoi: RT @BeetleCarDriver: "US Government is just about to find out what it feels like to go through a nudie-scanner." #cablegate

[Mimosa]

63. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. n/t

[Forkboy]

64. LOL