what do you guys think about wikileaks? [Archive]

Adam

11-30-2010, 01:20 AM

I like wikileaks although it has its problems - but those problems were created because of the global problem of corrupted governments.

Its basically a site for the extreme of freedom of press but their spin department needs to be on par with governments. Because they don't release all the info if they feel it will cost lives - except government and right wing media will say they do and it's killing people. These claims become the main issue as they don't spin back - but then do you become the thing you despise if they did? I dunno, maybe the brutal honest truth into the public domain and let the rest fully analyse it is the way to go?

They'd be no wikileaks if we had proper freedom of press. They'd be nothing to leak if the world wasn't so corrupted. Its a side effect of fucking the public up the arse for hundreds of years.

Go Wiki!

kaiser soze

11-30-2010, 06:55 AM

"If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear." - George W. Bush

I haven't bothered looking but find this whole situation a bit perplexing. How can thousands upon thousands of confidential documents get to the public?!? When I worked in Information Protection for the AF - this shit NEVER happened, and if something was compromised a massive investigation would ensue with the likelihood of heads rolling.

Also I haven't heard much as to who released these documents to Wikileaks, I guess that is being kept quiet at the time. Last night on the news they were focusing on the diplomat statements of heads of states - oh woopie, we all know the powerful people will shit in your milk while pouring it in a golden cup.

The U.S. and Talking Heads are saying this will be exceptionally damaging, I agree it could endanger informants, but frankly I also think people from other Countries deserve to know what the hell the U.S. is pulling considering it affects them.

This could be very damaging to Obama's chances of a second term, and when it comes to exposing bush's regime - well everyone already knows that story and will continue to pray for justice.

Will this end the wars - no, Will our diplomats change their tune on how they feel about other world leaders - no, Will this change how Big Business (next on Wikileaks bucket list?!) treats the small people - no

But - I fear this might change how the U.S. government approaches freedom of information for it's citizens. This could be a great opportunity for another step towards censorship. It just feels too convenient.

travesty

11-30-2010, 11:40 AM

But - I fear this might change how the U.S. government approaches freedom of information for it's citizens. This could be a great opportunity for another step towards censorship. It just feels too convenient.

(y)(y) As Rahm so eloquently stated, "Never let a crises got to waste". I think you are exactly spot on. The government is far too fat, bloated and cumbersome to repsond to dynamic crises like this in a cool, calm and collected manner. What you'll see is a knee jerk reaction the other way. Freedom of information is going to get hit hard after this, you can bet on that.

Does anything in those documents surprise anyone? Leaders talking shit about other leaders. Does anyone think that doesn't happen everyday?

They'd be no wikileaks if we had proper freedom of press. They'd be nothing to leak if the world wasn't so corrupted. Its a side effect of fucking the public up the arse for hundreds of years.

I agree. If the gubment didn't act in a shameful manner,there would be nothing to be ashamed of. Do I need to remind anyone that this is the same government that most people on this board continue to try and make bigger and give more power and authority to and yet they expect different results....it boggles me.

I guess my opinion is this... I think the WikiLeaks guy is a scumbag, a dick and gnerally a fucking asshole for doing what he is doing but I appreciate that there are people like that. It keeps things interesting and keeps the other scumbags and assholes on thier toes :D

p-branez

11-30-2010, 12:01 PM

I heard Julian Assange interview on the radio, and even after listening, nothing really stuck out to me. Also, for me, I don't have any idea of the security implications of the leaked documents - and this is subject to hype from the media.

Overall, I hope that it sheds more light on US moral standing in the world. For too long our government has lived a double standard. America is the altruistic government working with other countries to spread the fruits of democracy worldwide, but in reality our government acts unilaterally in violation of international norms, hides unflattering information from its public, and we don't even have democracy in our own country.

Also - most national media, as directed by White House, won't focus on the actual content of the documents. It's already clear: the AP article I read this morning detailed how the individual used a burnt Lady Gaga CD and pretended to sing while transferring information.
I agree that there will be an immediate response with heavier restrictions to access classified information. Then the conversation will move on to cover the trial of the individual, how many years and which charges; who, if any, in the wikileaks organization to press charges against; and how to prevent this from ever happening again.

Dorothy Wood

11-30-2010, 01:54 PM

well, I don't happen to think it'll trigger a lockdown on information for the public, but it's a wake up call to the government to get a better handle on internal security.

and beyond the unflattering character descriptions, the united states has been shown overall true to what we say in public.

I think the most dangerous aspect is that the new information reveals the hypocrasy and secrecy of other world leaders. and when it's not doing that, it's revealing secrets that should be kept secret in the interest of keeping peace. the fact that everyone secretly wants to take out Iran may pose a danger to those individual countries as well as the world...if Iran truly has developed nuclear weapons.

anyway, I can't decide how I feel about publishing confidential information. first off, it was leaked, not hacked, so someone with access to the information gave it out. and we don't know who it was or really what the ultimate purpose was. maybe it'll turn out for the best, or maybe the earth will explode in a nuclear holocaust.

either way, I find it all terribly interesting

Helvete

11-30-2010, 02:37 PM

They'd be no wikileaks if we had proper freedom of press. They'd be nothing to leak if the world wasn't so corrupted. Its a side effect of fucking the public up the arse for hundreds of years.

Bollocks, straight up bollocks. Some people have the romanticised view of wikileaks being the valiant source of leaked knowledge amongst all this corruption in the world. A website that is finally making the big Governments of the world think twice and realise they are accountable for their actions.

On the flipside, wikileaks has released information which could lead directly the the deaths of people. Documents listing Afghan nationals who have worked with the coalition forces, such as their names, villages, family names and meeting details.

Now tell me this is a good thing to be released open source?

There are many other things which are not in the best interests of anyone to be released into the public domain as they could harm relations between countries and governments which have been leaked also.

The world is not a pretty place, it never was and never will be. There are things that it is best we do not know about, and there are reasons they are kept this way. Take your vision of a perfect, free world and shove them up your ass because that is the only place it exists.

kaiser soze

11-30-2010, 03:11 PM

The world is not a pretty place, it never was and never will be. There are things that it is best we do not know about, and there are reasons they are kept this way.

oh, there are a ton of things the citizens of this world deserve to know. Blacking out the worst possible actions of some doesn't absolve them of their crimes/conspiracies against the masses.

We are seeing this with the Gulf BP disaster - that shit is still wreaking havoc and not a peep from our government/media/those responsible.

I agree outing people is bullshit *cough* Valerie Plame *cough*, but honestly - 80% of the world is sick of these wars, they are contributing to the fall of economies, the destruction of soldier's families, destruction of the environment, the burning away of diplomacy...not to mention the loss of thousands of innocent lives.

Like I said I don't care too much for this situation, I do fear there might be wicked repercussions - labeling Wikileaks "terrorists" could lead to the labeling of alternative media outlets, NGO's, websites, etc. etc. as something more malevolent then they really are.

I wouldn't be surprised if some on The Right are happy about this, it's gonna be heavy on Obama's administration no matter what stance they take.

Drederick Tatum

11-30-2010, 04:07 PM

There are things that it is best we do not know about, and there are reasons they are kept this way.

like what? illegal invasion, kidnapping, rendition, torture, eavesdropping, surveillance? governments work for us.

Helvete

11-30-2010, 04:34 PM

In some cases, maybe. But does the public really need to know about all the HUMINT (Human Intelligence) sources? First rule of HUMINT, protect your sources. If you don't, your sources end up dead and you've got no more int.

Sure, we all love to hear about the big stuff, but much of it really is of no use to the public but still presents a tremendous risk to many out there. Being of the Intelligence community, it's my job to protect this sort of thing, so it's hard for me not to see this from a purely professional point of view. I don't condone cover ups of illegal acts and human rights abuses, but I understand what goes on and the reasons for it.

I'm mostly against the fucking retarded public not understanding exactly what is being released and all the sensationalism that surrounds such things.

travesty

11-30-2010, 06:23 PM

I'm mostly against the fucking retarded public not understanding exactly what is being released and all the sensationalism that surrounds such things.

Being of the Intelligence community, it's my job to protect this sort of thing

I'm mostly against the fucking asshole, elitist, arrogant government cocksuckers who think they are not part of the "retarded public". Get off your high horse d'bag, you're part of the problem.

kaiser soze

11-30-2010, 06:39 PM

Being of the Intelligence community, it's my job to protect this sort of thing,

well then do your job!

;)

Dorothy Wood

11-30-2010, 08:38 PM

you guys, did you hear about the recent info dump, or are you discussing this from the point of view of only knowing about the war documents?

because so far only helvete seems to be speaking from a point of knowledge of the situation. the rest of you are emotionally reacting with little factual basis for said reactions.

i'll post links tomorrow i guess, when i'm not using my stupid phone. but it seems like an important and interesting enough topic to warrant further research by others.

travesty

11-30-2010, 09:26 PM

Fair enough. Helvete probably has a lot of insight on the deal. I just can't stand when people think they are above everyone else. They think that if you don't know what they know then you're "retarded". That's elitist and arrogant and I have to call that shit out when I hear it.

kaiser soze

11-30-2010, 09:36 PM

uh, did you read through the thread - Helvete had quite an emotionally charged post. Yes he is in the military and working in intelligence presumably, so that makes only him privy to how we should feel about this?

yes I caught up a little bit on this dump - there was name calling, china calling for Korean unification, Saudi Arabia asking for us to do their dirty work, informants exposed. I guess all sorts of info, serious or fluff. Honestly I doubt any of this will incriminate anyone (other than the spreading the info).

I'm on the fence with this, I believe the people deserve to know - but maybe not all of it (the tactical info) but I also fear this has the potential to empower certain political entities and policies.

Adam

11-30-2010, 11:18 PM

Sorry to come across retarded Helvete.

Like I say, I see both sides.

If the after effect of this is that governments act a little bit more like human beings with morals and responsibility for their actions, not see the general public as collateral or something that can be experimented with then that is the good side.

I also see the point that diplomats will now cover the tracks further, or not actually say what they are truly thinking which'll lead to more conflicts and force the whole thing further underground with even less transparency, then that is a bad thing.

But, lets say you had a criminal activity going on, the police got wind of it but the whole thing was for the greater good of humanity yet the police still closed it down. Do we then discuss getting rid of the police? Or do we discuss how such actions can be within the law in future?

The saddest part is that everything that has come out isn't a surprise. Its just confirmed what we really think goes on behind closed doors. We aren't represented by the same voices that we heard when we vote them in. Its left to the few brave general public who aren't part of this club to expose just how deep corruption goes - someone has to watch those who think they are above any personal responsibility and/or any moral duty when millions of human beings are effected. I get that power corrupts, its just human nature and I'm sure it'd do the same to me in their position but sometimes they should be held accountable. Sometimes - that is the trade off I want to see, its not a massive ask.

Drederick Tatum

12-01-2010, 03:21 AM

Helvete

12-01-2010, 05:14 AM

Wikileaks does not control the information it dumps. Key word, dumps. There is little to no editorial process involved, and this is wrong.

Examples such as the case of Khaled el-Masri, the kidnap, rendition and torture of him DOES need to be released. It's not going to change any views about the CIA though, is it?

Wholesale release of some information though, is harmful and could have future implications which adversely affect the work our Governments do.

Drederick Tatum

12-01-2010, 08:25 AM

Wikileaks does not control the information it dumps. Key word, dumps. There is little to no editorial process involved, and this is wrong.

Wholesale release of some information though, is harmful and could have future implications which adversely affect the work our Governments do.

Your keyword is not relevant any more.

the lack of editorial activity was true with the first big leak of documents earlier this year, however, regarding the second large release in October and now most recently, this is not the case. This time "WikiLeaks...agreed to release only the documents used in preparation for articles that appeared in the five publications, which in addition to Le Monde and The New York Times included Great Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais....In the second batch, released in October, which focused on the Iraq war, WikiLeaks withheld names... (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html)

Dorothy Wood

12-01-2010, 11:32 AM

you're right Helvete, I shouldn't concern myself with the fact that the US instructed its diplomats to collect "fingerprints, facial images, DNA, and iris scans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202678)" of national leaders, along with "current technical specifications, physical layout, and planned upgrades to telecommunications infrastructure and information systems, networks, and technologies used by top (UN) officials and their support staffs...and details on commercial and private VIP networks used for official communications, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/219058)

learning about a secret US intelligence campaign targeting the UN? I'm too fucking retarded for that.

well no, not really. "Let me be very clear -- our diplomats are just that, they're diplomats" (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS4V320101129?pageNumber=1) - reaction from Susan Rice US Ambassador to UN. this is clearly not the case.

well, I don't think that's weird at all. the U.S. wants to know about everything anybody does ever. and Rice may be correct in saying that "diplomats are diplomats", but perhaps the people working around them or with them are also spies.

I don't think the fact that we're trying to get total profiles of key players in world politics is what we should be embarrassed about, we should be embarrassed that we couldn't keep it a secret. is it shady? sure.

but, China keeps trying to hack our shit, Russia had spies here for years...that's just the way things are. We had a major secret attack on our country, everyone knows that america is hated, so they're just trying to intercept any current and/or future plans to blow us up.

The current administration can't make up for all the stupid shit our country's done, it can only do damage control.

After thinking about all that, I can conclude that wikileaks may be a good thing. Maybe some of this stuff doesn't need to be secret. This spy stuff is pretty old-fashioned. Everyone should just be open and honest and try to improve their own country's and citizens' well-being, rather than figuring out how to get the most power.

kaiser soze

12-02-2010, 05:54 PM

I would love to see a Wikileaks Congress edition (y)

Adam

12-03-2010, 02:13 AM

Well the US government has managed to close wikileaks down for now.

I hope you're all feeling a little more free?

edit: There is no evidence to say the US Government have been behind the attacks, it just really looks that way to me (and 99% of the web).

Helvete

12-03-2010, 10:29 AM

I think as a result of wikileaks, certain things will become MORE closed down and secretive. Assange's work may actually be counterproductive to his initial aims.

Some of the articles I have read on The Economist and the related comments argue these points far better than I could, but you don't need to be far right to believe that wikileaks is not necessarily a good thing.

I believe in Governments acting within the law, and within the rules which they impose on us. I don't think they have the right to do as they please without any sort of accountability, don't get me wrong on these things. I just don't think that wikileaks and everything they are doing is right and that they are going about it in the best way.

Don't think I am some sort of far right, flag waving military type who believes in all the 'let's go get those bad terrorist bastards before they kill us all'.

Drederick Tatum

12-03-2010, 11:36 AM

Don't think I am some sort of far right, flag waving military type who believes in all the 'let's go get those bad terrorist bastards before they kill us all'.

yeah well, the mob says otherwise! ;)

Helvete

12-03-2010, 12:08 PM

You're lucky I don't come and free the shit out of you.

p-branez

12-03-2010, 03:47 PM

I think as a result of wikileaks, certain things will become MORE closed down and secretive. Assange's work may actually be counterproductive to his initial aims.

I believe in Governments acting within the law, and within the rules which they impose on us. I don't think they have the right to do as they please without any sort of accountability, don't get me wrong on these things. I just don't think that wikileaks and everything they are doing is right and that they are going about it in the best way.

Don't think I am some sort of far right, flag waving military type who believes in all the 'let's go get those bad terrorist bastards before they kill us all'.

Well said.

I think the subsequent media coverage has especially been counterproductive to Assange's aims (I assume his aim is to increase public awareness of his personal work) - although with as much of a knowledge about international media as he has, I'm sure he expected this.

I'm finding more about Assange being wanted in Sweden for a 'sex crimes' investigation and less about his philosophical ideology and transparency beliefs. I'm hearing about a "terrorist," "anarchist," and someone with a "political agenda," rather than a defender of the human right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition, when the website was up, the FAQs section was very technical - it dealt with how the information was disseminated, where it came from, its classification and importance, and detailed interaction with the U.S. Department of State. If I remember correctly, it contained little or nothing about the overarching issues of censorship and freedom of expression.

yeahwho

12-03-2010, 05:40 PM

Assange just slowed down and exposed what many of us after 911 feel is a "1984 Orwellian lifestyle" of diplomacy and governing. One where we pay to be kept in the dark.

Good, bad or ugly that is the truth.

International diplomacy is like a game of Texas hold-em. Some information is open, a lot shouldn't be, and you should have to pay to see someone's cards.

If someone forcibly revealed your hand during a game, you'd be pissed. If someone went further and revealed all of your hands and your strategy and speculations for the last fifty hands, you would certainly have a right to be upset.

America has a right to protect its interests, even if we don't like that. That doesn't give us the right to hunt him down, although I can understand those who want to.

yeahwho

12-03-2010, 05:44 PM

This is cool, check this wikileak (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12/wikileak-gs-quote-of-the-day/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Pictur e%29),

The Ambassador asked if the corruption and infighting are worse now than before in Kazakhstan. Idenov paused, thought, and then replied, “No, not really. It’s business as usual.

They’re confused by the corrupt excesses of capitalism. “If Goldman Sachs executives can make $50 million a year and then run America’s economy in Washington, what’s so different about what we do?’ they ask.”

lol and right the fuck on

Drederick Tatum

12-03-2010, 06:01 PM

I'm finding more about Assange being wanted in Sweden for a 'sex crimes' investigation and less about his philosophical ideology and transparency beliefs. I'm hearing about a "terrorist," "anarchist," and someone with a "political agenda," rather than a defender of the human right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition, when the website was up, the FAQs section was very technical - it dealt with how the information was disseminated, where it came from, its classification and importance, and detailed interaction with the U.S. Department of State. If I remember correctly, it contained little or nothing about the overarching issues of censorship and freedom of expression.

well then you might need to rethink your consumption of particular news media.

Personally I'm interested in the content of these cables. I don't care about Assange's philosophical ideology or these extremely dubious charges. These charges that are labelled by the mainstream media as 'rape' actually aren't anything of the sort. Swedish prosecutors are after him for a crime that involves the use of contraception, a crime that would incur a penalty of about $715. And somehow Interpol are now on the case and have issued warrants for his extradition. For $715?!...okay.

Doesn't matter though, the rape genie is out of the bottle and is almost impossible to get back in. Classic character assassination.

Meanwhile, even though the Secretary of Defence Gates himself describes reaction as "significantly overwrought (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/gates-on-leaks-wiki-and-otherwise/?partner=rss&emc=rss)", some officials and commentators are calling for Assange's execution. How hysterical has political discourse become?

Some in the US are even accusing him of treason, completely ignorant of the fact that somebody can't be guilty of treason if they're not a citizen of the country.

saz

12-03-2010, 06:36 PM

^spot on. that is exactly why i can't take the majority of the mainstream media seriously. the rapid pace of, and the manner in which the media and the general public is being dumbed-down is extraordinary.

Dorothy Wood

12-03-2010, 11:07 PM

wow, thanks for the thoughts dudes.

i think a positive result of the wikileaks surge in popularity is how it seems to have emboldened some in the media to become more interested in finding and revealing the truth. like they all seem so excited to be talking about it. well, the newspeople i pay attention to at least (generally i like my news quiet and thoughtful: npr, new york times online, or maybe i watch a "meet the press" or charlie rose).

anyway, i'd be surprised if the site didn't get shut down, or else he'd be like some scary world-dominating evil genius sort of character, and i'm not quite ready to accept that that kind of person exists yet.

Helvete

12-06-2010, 05:00 PM

Excuse me, lefties. Any response regarding the latest 'highly controlled and edited' information dump...I mean release?

Nah, couldn't possibly cause any problems for anyone! No, we don't have something called 'Key point security' in the military intelligence world relating to the guarding of such information. I'm so brainwashed, falling for the lies the Governments spouts trying to keep us in check by making us believe we live in a world of danger!

Drederick Tatum

12-07-2010, 12:45 AM

jesus, calm down or at least try and write like an adult, no one's persecuting you.

despite your hysterics the fact remains that if this information regarding the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative came out as part of current releases then it has had to go through an extra layer of editorial decision-making, the newspaper it was published in.

Have you actually looked at the list? It's basically sites any one with an internet connection and the smallest semblance of ingenuity could already identify. None of them are secret.

Bob

12-07-2010, 12:58 AM

have any of the predicted doomsday scenarios happened as a result of the leaks yet?

it's like, i want to trust the government when it says that confidentiality is important but i'm positive the government is full of shit about this sex crimes thing and it's pretty gung ho about that too so i just don't know who to trust

Helvete

12-07-2010, 02:03 AM

Have you actually looked at the list? It's basically sites any one with an internet connection and the smallest semblance of ingenuity could already identify. None of them are secret.

No I didn't actually, I just read the headline on a newspaper I didn't buy and decided to get all upset about it.

kaiser soze

12-07-2010, 08:20 AM

So it looks like Assange is Public Enemy #1

But what about the individual(s) who gave him the information?

not a word.

If this information is so damaging to the countries exposed, the citizens of those nations deserve to know who sold them out.

kaiser soze

12-07-2010, 08:34 AM

Some Universities tell students not to view or speak of Wikileaks on social sites ?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRTcrtA4gQs&feature=player_embedded#!

It's not like this shit is a secret anymore

M|X|Y

12-07-2010, 09:46 AM

i read some of them and nothing really seemed all that shocking.
i kind of don't see what the huge deal is about them.

apparently monsieur assange has threatened to release unedited 'damaging' info if he is arrested or killed,
so it seems he has somewhat curated what has already been released and taken out info to protect some people.

im more concerned with what will happen to everyone else as a result of this...
'let no crisis go to waste'.. will this be an opportunity to tighten up the internet?

yeahwho

12-09-2010, 07:28 AM

im more concerned with what will happen to everyone else as a result of this...
'let no crisis go to waste'.. will this be an opportunity to tighten up the internet?

The exact same lines I was thinking along, especially now with multiple hack attacks and a major cyberwar over internet control, (Hacker Threatens More Attacks on Those Seen as WikiLeaks Foes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/world/10wiki.html))

And the twist and turns are very slippery indeed, Revealed: Assange ‘rape’ accuser linked to notorious CIA operative. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/)

The information wiki-leaked was available to over 400,000 people, these leaks are nothing all that controversial, but it is just enough to tighten transparency and internet access for all.

Not to discount the importance of the documents released, I just know the real hardcore information is not available to 400,000 people.

Drederick Tatum

12-09-2010, 07:35 AM

foreigners can't be traitors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WuuGKW_eNc). Lieberman is probably smart enough to realise the basic facts, but also that repudiating these howls of treason is not in his best interests. the Fox anchor though, she probably has no idea.

Helvete

12-09-2010, 07:48 AM

And you berate me for thinking the 'common' person is too stupid to understand what this whole thing is about!

saz

12-09-2010, 03:42 PM

p-branez

12-13-2010, 10:12 AM

A refreshingly rational voice in Congress, the only Congressperson who will speak about the real issues instead of political pandering - Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). From here (http://www.npr.org/2010/12/13/132021734/the-nation-ron-paul-s-stand-for-transparency):

"Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets we should focus on our delusional foreign policy. We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue and outright military intervention can maintain our international status as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy of debt and monetary debasement."

...

"We may never know the whole story behind the recent publication of sensitive U.S. government documents by the Wikileaks organization, but we certainly can draw some important conclusions from the reaction of so many in government and media. At its core, the Wikileaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both parties, insists on asking the wrong questions. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead the media focuses on how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information. Unfortunately no one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public! This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does."

...

"State secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name? In a free society we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling and outright military intervention in the post–World War II era has made us less secure, not more, and we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often it's the official government lies that have given us endless and illegal wars resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths and casualties."

Bob

12-13-2010, 01:32 PM

i don't like ron paul ideologically for the most part but i do respect his attitude. he always seems to say what's on his mind rather than putting it through the politician filter. i wish everyone in congress would do that.

yeahwho

12-13-2010, 05:47 PM

How come his son "Rand" turned out to be such a lapdog?

Ron Paul is correct and it's very refreshing to see someone have principles in the republican party. Ron Paul is not my "cup of tea" politically. I find a lot of his ideas cruel and geared toward white straight males.

Ron Paul does do one thing right though, he consistently irritates and delights all sides of the U.S. political spectrum by sticking to his guns. But just because a person sticks to his guns doesn't mean his guns are are shooting at the right targets.

The recent mainstream media attack mode on Julian Assange is what really terrifies me. I watched "All the President Men" last night and realize that our media has removed itself from actually fighting for first amendment heroes and now attacks those who become whistle-blowers. What the media should be doing is figuring out the real reasons why they can't do their job. They willingly prop up the Governments propaganda on Assange with the same zest they propped up the Governments propaganda on the Iraq War.

Is it me or has anyone else noticed this, in-depth reporting just doesn't connect with the overwhelming majority of US citizens? We've lost the ability as a Nation to focus on the realities of our problems. We know what is happening to destroy our Country, but we won't take the time to stop it. We just let the corporate military rule continue on an international campaign of world domination thinking that maybe they're looking out for our families too. Do you really think that is true? A $100 tax break convinces people they're well on their way?

saz

12-13-2010, 06:43 PM

spot on yeahwho and i'd add that a dumbed down corporate media (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/S0E2grFA-1I/AAAAAAAAcaM/fCd1pcb1ZDk/s1600/media-moguls-1200x849.jpg), which continues to dumb down the country (and arguably the west for that matter), with the assistance of reality tv, isn't helping.

jackrock

12-14-2010, 03:11 PM

WikiRebels - The Documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTfOL9_HBE&feature=player_embedded) from Sweden's SVT.

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the raw data does go through an editorial process by journalists before it hits the internet. They take out sensitive information, such as informant names, etc. (It's detailed in the doc above.) I believe this is a revelation started on the cables, not done on the iraq war logs.

As far as there not being any interesting cables, as of today there is just over a thousand released out of 251, 287. Many months to go.

Adam

02-05-2011, 06:50 AM

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/the-guardian-201102

^that link is a good read (long tho, 15-20 minute read) about the recent falling out with The Guardian newspaper. I had a bit of a pro-wikileaks rant on facebook and a friend who has been working with the paper on wikileaks said that it's about as close to the truth as what is happening.

To me, it seems as tho the NY Times and Guardian were pressured into becoming anti-freedom of press, but the article paints a different picture.