Wikileaks and the US State Department

[bush_cheney2004]

I dont think you even understand what wikileaks is and does.

I will take that as a long winded NO, WikiLeaks is not culpable in your assessment, even if it facilitates the distribution of private data.

Edited December 15, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Not that easy...I am challenging the high minded folk who champion "free speech rights" or make comparisons to Daniel Ellsberg. Does such bravery evaporate when the data that is compromised just happens to be your own?

Why don't you ask someone like Charles Krauthammer? Here's a guy who pretty much thinks Assange should be shot for publicising government secrets...the same secrets the very newspapers Krauthammer writes for published.

I am discussing the larger point of data privacy, regardless of the source for the leak. Twisted pretzel logic will follow in 3...2...1....seconds.

Regardless of the source, it was state secret's not private data that was leaked. You're chasing a pretzel up the wrong tree.

Edited December 15, 2010 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

This standard would have been a real problem during WW2 as well. The US and UK wanted to overthrow Saddam no matter what and said so in public law.

True, but propaganda by the government tied into MSM gave us one view of it. The bit about public policy was not really stated that much or more would know about that policy. There are people who think Iraq still had WMDs, there are people who think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Propaganda works.

Throwing a yellow flag here....the US government didn't promise you anything in Canada.

True, however, I''l clear that up now and say our "respected" (lols) governments make promises but are quickly broken.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why don't you ask someone like Charles Krauthammer? Here's a guy who pretty much thinks Assange should be shot for publicising government secrets...the same secrets the newspapers Krauthammer writes for.

Why don't you ask Tom Flanagan instead.

Regardless of the source, it was state secret's not private data that was leaked. You're chasing a pretzel up the wrong tree.

As I suspected....a great waffle when confronted by threats to data privacy for individuals.

[bush_cheney2004]

True, but propaganda by the government tied into MSM gave us one view of it. The bit about public policy was not really stated that much or more would know about that policy. There are people who think Iraq still had WMDs, there are people who think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Propaganda works.

We've been over this many times before...it was the stated policy (Public Law in 1998) of the United States to change the regime in Iraq. When the US wants war, there shall be war.

True, however, I''l clear that up now and say our "respected" (lols) governments make promises but are quickly broken.

No such "promise" was ever made to me.

[bloodyminded]

Why don't you ask Tom Flanagan instead.

As I suspected....a great waffle when confronted by threats to data privacy for individuals.

Again: what individual private data was exposed by wikileaks?

[eyeball]

As I suspected....a great waffle when confronted by threats to data privacy for individuals.

We're all talking about state secrecy BC not individual privacy. Do I really need to post links to a dictionary to illustrate the vast difference between the two terms?

Saipan-like retort to follow in 1...2...3 seconds.

Edited December 15, 2010 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

We've been over this many times before...it was the stated policy (Public Law in 1998) of the United States to change the regime in Iraq. When the US wants war, there shall be war.

No arguments here, yes it was public policy, however the rhetoric leading up to the Iraq war painted a very different picture that people bought into. The public policy was never really stated when Bush and Co spoke about the invasion of Iraq. IF the public policy was stated and that was the only thing stated, then everyone would know what the real deal is.

So why do people think that Saddam had something do to with 9/11? Again propaganda works.

No such "promise" was ever made to me.

Read my lips. Every leader has made promises they could not ever keep. Every leader.

[dre]

That sounds good to me And I am not sure what is in place here in Canada, but I suspect there are flaws in both.

Why have we not complained to the US government/military for having such a leak? It's a precursor to more tight control of information, well control over what you and I as citizens of whatever country we are in. Assange is the fall guy (and not the TV show!!!) Assange will be sacrificed which will lead to a more controlled Internet.

Why have we not complained to the US government/military for having such a leak?

Beautifull question! And Ill try to explain why.

People are all full of shit, and this whole thing has broken down based on team politics. People who generally support the US government and its policies are outraged at wikileaks, and others are not.

Notice how none of the people outraged with Wikileaks said a word when it was Chinese documents they were leaking? Or Japenese documents? Or UK documents?

No. Because when it comes right down to it, these people dont have so much of a real problem with what wikileaks IS and DOES, the problem is entirely that THIS TIME WikiLeaks has taken on an organization that these people worship almost as some sort of godhead.

In other words... WikiLeaks has come up against the US government. So wikileaks is EVIL.

Edited December 15, 2010 by dre

[bloodyminded]

Beautifull question! And Ill try to explain why.

People are all full of shit, and this whole thing has broken down based on team politics. People who generally support the US government and its policies are outraged at wikileaks, and others are not.

Notice how none of the people outraged with Wikileaks said a word when it was Chinese documents they were leaking? Or Japenese documents? Or UK documents?

No. Because when it comes right down to it, these people dont have so much of a real problem with what wikileaks IS and DOES, the problem is entirely they THIS TIME WikiLeaks has taken on an organization that these people worship almost as some sort of god.

In other words... WikiLeaks has come up against the US government. So wikileaks is EVIL.

I think that's a good point, and I'll repeat that I cannot recall seeing such blatant and outright sycophancy--as well as sycophancy's little bitch, hypocrisy--as I've seen over this issue.

There are several interesting aspects to this slavering obedience and profound, bone-deep indoctrination; but one interesting notion is "Assange has blood on his hands."

Leaving aside the irritant that no evidence has been offered--even by those who hate him the most, ie Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and much of the "liberal media" press corps--this raises interesting issues in other ways.

One of them is this: since Assange asked for assistance in redaction from the US government, and the US government refused...then they would objectively be culpable in any blood spilled, which they could have avoided.

And what is the apologists' universal justification? "The US government does not "work with" terrorists," they sniff, with world-weary self-righteousness.

"Terrorists"? Wow. Why is Assange a "terrorist"?

Oh yeah....because a couple of reactionary politicians, and their intellectual media defenders, said so. QED.

Sarah Palin is now their go-to voice for down-home wisdom.

And another thing....sure the government works with terrorists. Frequently.

The idiocy is piled on.

One scarcely knows where to start correcting the little servants.

Some day these people will look back at this with the squirming embrassment they richly deserve....and will declare they always defended wikileaks.

Edited December 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

I think that's a good point, and I'll repeat that I cannot recall seeing such blatant and outright sycophancy--as well as sycophancy's little bitch, hypocrisy--as I've seen over this issue.

There are several interesting aspects to this slavering obedience and profound, bone-deep indoctrination; but one interesting notion is "Assange has blood on his hands."

Leaving aside the irritant that no evidence has been offered--even by those who hate him the most, ie Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and much of the "liberal media" press corps--this raises interesting issues in other ways.

One of them is this: since Assange asked for assistance in redaction from the US government, and the US government refused...then they would objectively be culpable in any blood spilled, which they could have avoided.

And what is the apologists' universal justification? "The US government does not "work with" terrorists," they sniff, with world-weary self-righteousness.

"Terrorists"? Wow. Why is Assange a "terrorist"?

Oh yeah....because a couple of reactionary politicians, and their intellectual media defenders, said so. QED.

Sarah Palin is now their go-to voice for down-home wisdom.

And another thing....sure the government works with terrorists. Frequently.

The idiocy is piled on.

One scarcely knows where to start correcting the little servants.

Some day these people will look back at this with the squirming embrassment they richly deserve....and will declare they always defended wikileaks.

Can you imagine how much of a hero this guy would be to the exactly same people condemning him now, if it was a bunch of secret Iranian data that they leaked, and the US wasnt involved?

Theyd need to change their shorts every time they heard this guys name!

[GostHacked]

This incident may precipitate a change in attitudes towards government secrets. As I have been posting, the Government 2.0 initiatives are starting to take root globally - demanding that government be more open in the way they operate. This incident may push that forward.

Interesting you say this. We really need to pull that curtain back some and see who the real players are. And watch out, they propose more open government, but that will be the opposite of what will really happen. Unless people like you and me stand up and don't tolerate it anymore.

There was a promise/proposal of more open Internet. Again unless we stand up for it, and support someone like Assange (as arrogant and self centered as he is) we are going to find a tighter control of what you and I can access online. Pretext.

[bush_cheney2004]

So why do people think that Saddam had something do to with 9/11? Again propaganda works.

Because they want to...arrest them.

Read my lips. Every leader has made promises they could not ever keep. Every leader.

Not to me, and in this context, never to you in Canada.

[GostHacked]

Because they want to...arrest them.

N, it's not because they want to, it's because they are told what to think. People can't think for themselves and the government takes advantage of it.

Not to me, and in this context, never to you in Canada.

Well, you know what context I was using it in.

[bud]

most of the information wikileaks has put out is nothing new to those who make an effort to inform themselves and realize how it all works. it's also nothing new for the apologist of the system who, for one reason or another try to downplay a corrupt system that is far away from a democratic process.

what is important here is whether or not the leaks will push the general public to learn more about what happens outside of what the mainstream media regurgitates to them.

[bush_cheney2004]

...what is important here is whether or not the leaks will push the general public to learn more about what happens outside of what the mainstream media regurgitates to them.

Nope...not unless it comes with free entertainment. A lot of people just don't give a damn.

[GostHacked]

Nope...not unless it comes with free entertainment. A lot of people just don't give a damn.

That's part of the problem.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's part of the problem.

Why is it a problem? You can't project your value system to others.

[GostHacked]

Why is it a problem? You can't project your value system to others.

I think you can. See Iraq, Afghanistan.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think you can. See Iraq, Afghanistan.

So you are suggesting we go to war over WikiLeaks ideals?

[GostHacked]

So you are suggesting we go to war over WikiLeaks ideals?

I am not suggesting anything. What are you suggesting?

[bush_cheney2004]

I am not suggesting anything. What are you suggesting?

I am suggesting that your comparison is out of context....your personal values about what is important are not necessarily the same as anyboby else's, nor should they be.

[GostHacked]

I am suggesting that your comparison is out of context

Context eh? You've done a lot of the same, more than most. Context?

....your personal values about what is important are not necessarily the same as anyboby else's, nor should they be.

Well, seems like the US's real values have been exposed through wikileaks, and that is not sitting well with the powers that be. And are your values the same as those living in Iraq or Afghanistan?

But then you will spit out something like .. well what about Canada/Haiti .. and I'd say that is out of context, which your reply usually is 'tough titties'.

[bush_cheney2004]

Context eh? You've done a lot of the same, more than most. Context?

Individuals are not nation states.

Well, seems like the US's real values have been exposed through wikileaks, and that is not sitting well with the powers that be. And are your values the same as those living in Iraq or Afghanistan?

No and no.

But then you will spit out something like .. well what about Canada/Haiti .. and I'd say that is out of context, which your reply usually is 'tough titties'.

Krikey...Canada is also in Afghanistan and has bombed Iraqis. So what's your point vis-a-vis personal/individual values?

Edited December 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

Individuals are not nation states.

You don't say!!

No and no.

Krikey...Canada is also in Afghanistan and has bombed Iraqis. So what's your point vis-a-vis personal/individual values?

Canada was not involved in the second war on Iraq .. maybe the first.

So I've lost track of what your original point was. Can you refresh my memory?