Julian Assange. And I thought *I* had a big ego.

[Skykid]

There's been a really insane amount of mainstream Muslim bashing; tbqh it's kind of starting to scare the shit out of me. But this is derailing the topic...

I agree, if you stop for a second and listen and think, it's scary. I had a moment of clarity the other day listening to the news story on the radio (mentioned in my previous post.)
It made me wonder how craftily the media had slipped anti-muslim notions into their reports and how impressively they shape public opinion around it. I must have been drip fed hundreds of stories like this for years and years, but it wasn't until I took a second to put things into perspective that I realised it's all been an incredible crock of shit.

[Ex-Cyber]

It's interesting that so many politicians and pundits talk about WikiLeaks posing a threat to national security without actually presenting concrete examples. I think it's more that the idea of WikiLeaks threatens their idea of national security.

More broadly, the focus on Assange personally is fairly striking to me, but I guess I shouldn't really be surprised. On one hand, he is a shameless self-promoter and has actively identified himself with WikiLeaks. On the other hand, the most revealing thing from WikiLeaks isn't in any of the leaked documents, it's the extent to which it's inflamed the latent authoritarianism that drives so much of American politics. Purportedly respectable people have said that Assange should be assassinated or charged with treason (yes: an Australian should be charged with treason for leaking American documents to the general public; the mind boggles), or that we should create a computer virus that destroys the computers of anyone who downloads documents from WikiLeaks (LOL WUT). It's not enough for these people to disagree with Assange or claim that his actions are wrong; they want to see him and his supporters/collaborators attacked and destroyed. And they get published in mainstream media as serious commentators. I wonder if that's not part of the point of WikiLeaks; Assange has argued that the value of the "document dump" approach rests in illustrating not simply bad decisions, but the atmosphere/culture that produces them. Well, it's done that.

[dcharlie]

post above + ...

i'm concerned how much support for the "Wiki is evil/kill assange" thing there is coming from a) the public but more telling b) other segments of the media.

Death for those who publish (not actually leak) secrets? Like... every other media outlet in the world does? Very very dangerous slope we are on - especially when people are talking about having Assange and Wikileaks classed as a terrorist organisation. There was a book about this sort of thing i think!

[Drum]

It's interesting that so many politicians and pundits talk about WikiLeaks posing a threat to national security without actually presenting concrete examples. I think it's more that the idea of WikiLeaks threatens their idea of national security.

More broadly, the focus on Assange personally is fairly striking to me, but I guess I shouldn't really be surprised. On one hand, he is a shameless self-promoter and has actively identified himself with WikiLeaks. On the other hand, the most revealing thing from WikiLeaks isn't in any of the leaked documents, it's the extent to which it's inflamed the latent authoritarianism that drives so much of American politics. Purportedly respectable people have said that Assange should be assassinated or charged with treason (yes: an Australian should be charged with treason for leaking American documents to the general public; the mind boggles), or that we should create a computer virus that destroys the computers of anyone who downloads documents from WikiLeaks (LOL WUT). It's not enough for these people to disagree with Assange or claim that his actions are wrong; they want to see him and his supporters/collaborators attacked and destroyed. And they get published in mainstream media as serious commentators. I wonder if that's not part of the point of WikiLeaks; Assange has argued that the value of the "document dump" approach rests in illustrating not simply bad decisions, but the atmosphere/culture that produces them. Well, it's done that.

This. Much moreso than any of the leaks themselves (which are mostly just embarrassing as has been pointed out over and over), what was scary was the hysteria and bloodlust from politicians, and the terrifying and/or comical steps that were immediately taken in response. The problem was never the secrets but the people who want to keep them. That is why I will continue to (judiciously) support Wikileaks and shake my head at people who echo the sentiments of the lunatics in power. Seems like for them a bloody nose means a beheading for somebody else.

EDIT: Did I seriously put judicially instead of judiciously? What a spaz.

[BryanM]

In vaguely related news Nigeria dropped charges against Dick Cheney and now he doesn't have to be extradited to stand trial. All it took was a ~$200,000,000 settlement/bribe from Halliboitooon.

Thank god for justice I was worried for that brah.

[Ed Oscuro]

I wish someone would assassinate throwdown and all of those other americans who call out for assassination.

Just my 0.02 cents

You aren't dead of drink in a ditch somewhere? Wonders never cease.

And yet I actually agree with the sentiment - wonders NEVER cease!

Assange is a div, and Wikileaks really is causing some problems (for little actual value in the political realm - most everything that's been leaked was already basically known) but what's new.

In vaguely related news Nigeria dropped charges against Dick Cheney and now he doesn't have to be extradited to stand trial. All it took was a ~$200,000,000 settlement/bribe from Halliboitooon.

Thank god for justice I was worried for that brah.

What were they going to say? "As the CEO of a gigantic multinational corporation, you personally ordered the payment of bribes to some backwater local officials?" INDICTMENT OF THE CENTURY

[moozooh]

Assange fully, to 100%, understands his dangerous role. Which is to serve as a personal image of WikiLeaks (a scapegoat, essentially) and to divert/shape media attention in a way that best serves the ideals of the site. That's not ego, that's purposefully strengthening the focus upon the impact of WikiLeaks. For it in order to succeed the world should very closely watch the conflict that unfolds, and the further it goes the more dangerous and important role becomes that of Assange.

And let's not forget that, even if most of the stuff leaked has been known, for once we have not rumors and allegations, but confirmed, incontestable facts. Politics who so actively postulate that Assange's actions put innocent people in danger should take a couple minutes of their life to learn the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. So far they've had a very hard time making a case against him, while he has more than successfully made a case about nearly every single one of them fuckers. As much as living in this world is dangerous, and being educated about that at least makes it easier to understand who the bad guy is.

WikiLeaks quite seriously is the greatest thing that's happened to the Internet since early 2000s because of the potential impact it causes on the world. In case the system™ will be torn down and substituted by something better in the next couple years, be sure to note the role Assange has played in that. In any case, everything that attempts to destroy corrupt, greedy, and bloodthirsty governments, no matter their country of origin, is a great thing in my book. Go Julian!

[BulletMagnet]

In vaguely related news Nigeria dropped charges against Dick Cheney and now he doesn't have to be extradited to stand trial. All it took was a ~$200,000,000 settlement/bribe from Halliboitooon.

Who says the free market can't solve any problem?

[Ed Oscuro]

In vaguely related news Nigeria dropped charges against Dick Cheney and now he doesn't have to be extradited to stand trial. All it took was a ~$200,000,000 settlement/bribe from Halliboitooon.

Who says the free market can't solve any problem?

You do realize that this has nothing to do with anything, right?

Ceph and religion = BulletMagnet and the free market.

EPIC LENGTH POST AHOY (but actually not completely badly written this time)

WikiLeaks quite seriously is the greatest thing that's happened to the Internet since early 2000s because of the potential impact it causes on the world. In case the system™ will be torn down and substituted by something better in the next couple years, be sure to note the role Assange has played in that.

In this case, "something better" is anarchy, right? Notwithstanding what Jefferson said, governments don't function well if there are no secrets. This kind of extreme libertarianism speaks to a lack of understanding on the part of Assange.

And all he has said about "exposing corruption" has turned out to be a set of hollow promises. Our diplomats' private thoughts about world leaders being made public has done little (if anything) to improve debate in this or other countries, where these revelations have been assiduously ignored (i.e. Russia), were already essentially known (most cases of "inside information" or "inside looks" i.e. the Brazilian fighter jet purchase), had little chance of changing anything (in most cases where people inside a country are looking for evidence their national leaders are thought to be corrupt; even in the U.S. the cables wouldn't be proof of anything in a court of law, and foreign leaders depicted behaving badly laugh them off) or didn't matter (Honduras and a fair number of other cases).

On the negative side of the ledger: Even if we don't have a case of people getting killed to point to, you have the influence of the American diplomatic corp being undercut, not the Army, which would be the first choice of anti-imperialists (although in South America the cables do seem to indicate they aren't planning enough for the possibility of American influence waning there, i.e. "the end of empire").

And of all the "bastards," in Assange's word, that America has to coddle, none of their own secrets are being shared here, just impressions by diplomats of them. Where are the Russian, Chinese, Indian, Italian, Iranian, etc. secrets? Think what you will of America's role in the world, but when America's influence is scaled back, other people who don't claim to be particularly strenuously run democracies gain. If Assange turned his sights on Russia (one of if not the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists, especially in certain parts), for example, he would soon come down with some unusual kind of leukemia.

Iran loves that there's now a public record of the leaders of countries they are pissing off, i.e. Saudi Arabia, appearing to be weak and pleading with the United States to take dramatic action against Iran, which fits Iran's plans for hegemony perfectly by further undermining public trust in those nations.

Some of you seem to think that if everybody is aware that their governments are corrupt, that this will translate into revolution and reprieve from tyranny. Again, look at Iran - the demonstrations recently didn't accomplish much positive, if anything.

Haven't you learned anything?

And what about the argument that "more information is always good?" I sympathize with the truth-seekers, but there is a lot of opinion and little truth here. Benjamin Franklin wrote: "I have long observed one rule...to be concerned in no affairs I should blush to have made public," and it fit Ben rather well, as he was pretty shameless himself. Yet the truth of the matter is that if you got inside anybody's head you would find there are some secrets they would like to keep to themselves, and this can be true of the innocent. Does the world need to know that Prime Minsister X eats her boogers?

Assange himself comes down clumsily on the matter of organizational vs. private transparency, having conducted Wikileaks as a secret dictatorship, holding hostage the best bits in service to himself, not the world, and taking pains not to make his (laughably transparent) OkCupid Profile appear to be him (sort of). He used a false name, anyway. Coward might be the wrong word to use, but courageous is not the right one - Private Bradley Manning is the one doing time, and he wasn't courageous either, appearing to have gone a few steps farther than he had planned out, and landing in jail after admitting what he'd done online.

Ironically, in saying that there's no trust to be had in anything, I think people are coming down on the side of the realists in political science (in international relations theory, i.e. Niccolo Machiavelli), who believe that power is key and that all international organizations are essentially mere sheets of paper, only backed up by power. International realists are generally considered to include Henry Kissinger - hope you enjoy this newly-picked company. This contrasts with the liberal internationalists who believe that countries can work together for a greater good, and to achieve that you need to learn to work together. That includes not running and telling the world what you really think about your newest best pal behind their back. We know this is true from kindergarten - why can't we follow the same procedure in public?

So, here are the options, as I see them:

- Isolationism so we can massage our own egos at not being Morally Compromised in trying to lead other nations (but everything you do, you need to be involved - even AIDS work in Africa involves politics). We tried this really, really hard in the days leading up to December 7, 1941. It failed.
- Simple anarchy, which is never really an option as groups are self-organizing, and opens the door to baleful influences (corporations, regional hegemony, total world conquest, whatever)
- Or we stop reading the diplomats' mail, and life goes on. If people want change instead of just embarrassment, they can actually try READING THE FUCKING PAPERS for once to get basically all the same information. Amazing!

Just to be clear...there's nothing wrong with Wikileaks revealing actually critical information. But these ain't no Pentagon Papers, and Julian Assange ain't no Daniel Ellsberg, and PFC Bradley Manning doesn't seem to be a good match for Samuel Popkin either. Wikileaks plans to release lots of internal documents from Bank of America, which they probably should have done before the diplomatic cables simply because that's probably going to go over better in public (and may even lead to white-collar criminals getting thrown in jail).

[Slump]

Being an American I'll do my part in this thread by saying..."Wuh? Wikileaks?..." *Returns gaze to Ru Paul's Drag Race*

[Acid King]

Dude's a fucking criminal.

http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/ph ... l&id=19031

[Specineff]

I'm glad to see that he's exposed some dirt. But he better stop acting like he's the Goddamned Batman or Green Arrow.

[`Throwdown]

I'm glad to see that he's exposed some dirt. But he better stop acting like he's the Goddamned Batman or Green Arrow.

[moozooh]

In this case, "something better" is anarchy, right? Notwithstanding what Jefferson said, governments don't function well if there are no secrets. This kind of extreme libertarianism speaks to a lack of understanding on the part of Assange.

No, too early for anarchy I'm afraid. So far large groups of people still need to be governed, that much is obvious. However, the problem that persists throughout the vast majority of countries who call themselves civilized is that people establish a political entity — power — to serve their interests and uphold the law, but the transition goes further to power dodging the law to serve its own interest and, in the worst but unfortunately not the rarest case, indirectly forces people to serve their interest as well using all the same laws as they see fit. Symbiotic relationships becomes parasitic, and it's a perfectly normal reaction observable in all kinds of species to try getting rid of the parasite on their body. In some cases, however, that requires some kind of a surgical intervention. It's not WikiLeaks's sole role but a very complex composite movement that should start with and be accompanied throughout by a global paradigm shift towards ideals of sincerity, peacefulness, and desire for the global well-being. Again, WikiLeaks's role here is to hammer down the point that the current powers that govern people do not qualify for that ideals. They continue serving their own agenda that does squat about actually benefiting the people under them, and one of the possible reasons for that is that power's self-preservation mechanisms (institutions like central banks and the Federal Reserve system, as well as clans like the Rockefellers who have enough influence to have a say without being entangled in actual politics) have been established way before the today's governments, and their interests remain the same. It's obvious they're unwilling to let go, and, as one of the consequences, are actively inhibiting the technological progress (why do you think we're still using oil while a lot more efficient alternatives have existed for a while?).

What exactly they will be replaced with is a different question, but I'm willing to put my trust in the notion that today's society is not so rotten as to come up with something that's even worse. The Internet as a whole is much more than a way to pass time on a forum; it's a way for people from every point in the world to communicate and exchange information freely without censorship. Living in this age makes it appear to be possible to do things differently for once, and yet again WL is proving that governments of the old don't quite fit here, seeing as Internet activism gradually picks them apart.

And all he has said about "exposing corruption" has turned out to be a set of hollow promises. Our diplomats' private thoughts about world leaders being made public has done little (if anything) to improve debate in this or other countries, where these revelations have been assiduously ignored (i.e. Russia), were already essentially known (most cases of "inside information" or "inside looks" i.e. the Brazilian fighter jet purchase), had little chance of changing anything (in most cases where people inside a country are looking for evidence their national leaders are thought to be corrupt; even in the U.S. the cables wouldn't be proof of anything in a court of law, and foreign leaders depicted behaving badly laugh them off) or didn't matter (Honduras and a fair number of other cases).

Well, it's not like he lied; however, if we are to believe Assange, there's more to come. Time will tell.

And of all the "bastards," in Assange's word, that America has to coddle, none of their own secrets are being shared here, just impressions by diplomats of them. Where are the Russian, Chinese, Indian, Italian, Iranian, etc. secrets? Think what you will of America's role in the world, but when America's influence is scaled back, other people who don't claim to be particularly strenuously run democracies gain. If Assange turned his sights on Russia (one of if not the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists, especially in certain parts), for example, he would soon come down with some unusual kind of leukemia.

That entirely depends on Assange's connections and abilities to gather and maintain information. Seriously, the US cables leak was hardly a fluke; just look at the amount of data the site has accumulated so far. It can indicate two things: 1) Assange has numerous and powerful enough benefactors among people who support his ideals; 2) apparently if they're up to finding and leaking information, they can do their job. While it's true that after all of this the world's governments (at least those with more guilty conscience) will attempt to strengthen their defenses, more people that happen to be in the sensitive parts of the system will join Assange as well. Because they're exactly as fed up with shit as the next guy. Every country has its Bradley Mannings. So far the site has consistently been upping the ante, and there's no particular reason to believe it will stop after this. In fact, others have caught up as well.

Some of you seem to think that if everybody is aware that their governments are corrupt, that this will translate into revolution and reprieve from tyranny. Again, look at Iran - the demonstrations recently didn't accomplish much positive, if anything.

Haven't you learned anything?

I admit I'm not qualified to judge the exact prerequisites for revolution, or at least a major reformation of any given government, but I do think that the concept of a critical mass, which has worked every time before, still exists and is operational to a serviceable extent. As Lenin, who I believe to be the greatest revolutionary the world has seen to date, has put it, there are three main conditions for the revolution to happen:
1) the ruling class are unable to maintain the existing way of governing a country, and common folk is unwilling to comply to the existing way;
2) rapid drops in lower classes' and other minorities' welfare;
3) significant increase in political and social activism of the masses.

As a power's self-preservation mechanism normally opts to distract and pacify the masses with cheap entertainment (amusingly, this shit works every time!), it becomes increasingly important to remain lucid. WL helps do just that, and by that fact alone it creates and to some extent maintains the atmosphere that destabilizes the powers' inhibiting influence over people and nudges the society closer to that point of change.

And what about the argument that "more information is always good?" I sympathize with the truth-seekers, but there is a lot of opinion and little truth here. Benjamin Franklin wrote: "I have long observed one rule...to be concerned in no affairs I should blush to have made public," and it fit Ben rather well, as he was pretty shameless himself.

Hey, I can post quotes as well: "In a free society we are supposed to know the truth… in a society where truth becomes treason we are in big trouble." That be Ron Paul. Make of that what you will, but the point is that things that governments do, that they are not supposed to do or are shameful, should be made public because we — the people — establish the governments or ourselves and should thus decide what to do about their doings. It's not about private life. When people decide among themselves what to do with a country or any given aspect of it and don't tell anybody, that's not private matter. That shit deserves to be known, and it's politicians' responsibility if they don't like people knowing about their secret treehouse. I, for one, have never signed any contract that says I want my life directed by an entity that claims to cater to my interests, openly fails to do so, and never asks for my consent before making any action. Have you?

As for the rest, again, time will tell.

[Skykid]

Essays in this thread.
Good stuff though.

I'm with moozooh.

Ed, you always seem to take similar tact in these debates. You're damn good at talking up a defence, but it does start to feel like a bit like an attempt to break one's will with extraordinarily lengthy posts and a smattering of quotes. I feel like there's a purposely ignored logic for the positivity of movements like Wikileaks, because there must be positivity in offering the truth rather than having an untold volume of misdemeanours - unsanctioned by the voting public - withheld.
Are you in government by any chance?

[moozooh]

Maybe he's just playing the devil's advocate to see for himself if the more promising side is able to put up sane arguments. :D

[louisg]

[

And what about the argument that "more information is always good?" I sympathize with the truth-seekers, but there is a lot of opinion and little truth here. Benjamin Franklin wrote: "I have long observed one rule...to be concerned in no affairs I should blush to have made public," and it fit Ben rather well, as he was pretty shameless himself.

Hey, I can post quotes as well: "In a free society we are supposed to know the truth… in a society where truth becomes treason we are in big trouble." That be Ron Paul. Make of that what you will, but the point is that things that governments do, that they are not supposed to do or are shameful, should be made public because we — the people — establish the governments or ourselves and should thus decide what to do about their doings. It's not about private life. When people decide among themselves what to do with a country or any given aspect of it and don't tell anybody, that's not private matter. That shit deserves to be known, and it's politicians' responsibility if they don't like people knowing about their secret treehouse. I, for one, have never signed any contract that says I want my life directed by an entity that claims to cater to my interests, openly fails to do so, and never asks for my consent before making any action. Have you?

Um, Ron Paul is no Ben Franklin. I do *generally* agree with his statement, but the expectation that a government keep no secrets is unreasonable (just like any other entity that needs to guard itself from others). I can easily think of things that could be treasonous to leak for example (I did not say 'to publish'). So, these kinds of hard rules (Ron Paul's quote) don't really have any place in reality.

That said, if you go and start a bunch of wars based on lies solely to line your pockets, this is what you get. Are most people going to care? No. Thus, it will not change how most people view things. But, the positive aspect is that the knowledge is now out there.

Of course, I don't think the wars would have been prevented unless 9/11 hadn't happened (and maybe not even then). People were willfully ignorant and angry. There was enough transparency back then then to tell that the reasons were made up-- we didn't need Wikileaks. And nothing in the cables so far are revolutionary (AFAIK), just suspicion-confirming.

[BulletMagnet]

Ceph and religion = BulletMagnet and the free market.

Heh, you are at least partially right on that one, I must admit...I do see the sentiment as at least semi-relevant to the Halliburton situation (insofar as laissez-faire types claim that simply pitting everyone's greed against everyone else's greed without any restraints always works out for the best), but yeah, that's not the topic at hand here.

If people want change instead of just embarrassment, they can actually try READING THE FUCKING PAPERS for once to get basically all the same information. Amazing!

This, I think, touches on a whole other subject: as you infer, democracy (and the free market, by happenstance) only works when you're dealing with an informed and empowered public/consumer base, since an ignorant and passive one can easily be manipulated and fleeced by those in positions of privilege. Considering, once again, that our media is owned by corporations whose only motive is profit (which can be obtained much more easily when nobody knows what they're buying/supporting and whose tenuous grasp on minimal financial security, coupled with a culture that mocks intellectualism, don't leave them with enough resources or inclination to find out), is it any wonder that so many people know so little about even the most basic ways the country works?

Wikileaks plans to release lots of internal documents from Bank of America, which they probably should have done before the diplomatic cables simply because that's probably going to go over better in public (and may even lead to white-collar criminals getting thrown in jail).

Now THIS I can get behind pretty much without reservation - if there's any entity that's acted with more undeserved and repulsive impunity than the government of late, it's the financial sector.

[Obiwanshinobi]

If people want change instead of just embarrassment, they can actually try READING THE FUCKING PAPERS for once to get basically all the same information. Amazing!

This, I think, touches on a whole other subject: as you infer, democracy (and the free market, by happenstance) only works when you're dealing with an informed and empowered public/consumer base, since an ignorant and passive one can easily be manipulated and fleeced by those in positions of privilege.

I tell you when democracy works - when people do not fear the authorities, that's when. You might say that this is never the case, in any country, but hey, in the US (I believe) there are taboos stronger than authorities. Even the president is not allowed to do certain things.
In the likes of Belarus, however if anything's granted, it's the fact that the authorities can break those taboos and get away with it.

Considering, once again, that our media is owned by corporations whose only motive is profit (which can be obtained much more easily when nobody knows what they're buying/supporting and whose tenuous grasp on minimal financial security, coupled with a culture that mocks intellectualism, don't leave them with enough resources or inclination to find out), is it any wonder that so many people know so little about even the most basic ways the country works?

This kind of power (i.e. "owning the media") is vastly overrated. Effectively the only bullshit people buy is the bullshit they want to believe in. The only truth they do not buy is the truth they do not want to know.
If people know too little about even the most basic ways the country works, it's because they do not expect the truth to make them happy. They just hope the good times will last a little bit longer.

[BulletMagnet]

I tell you when democracy works - when people do not fear the authorities, that's when.

This is true as far as it goes, but methinks it's also true that people do not have to be afraid of their government to be under its thumb - just so long as they're convinced that what they're being given is the best there is to receive, there's no reason to use force or threats to keep them from asking questions or demanding change. The "no need to worry, we're already taking care of everything" storyline has worked wonders time and time again, especially when coupled with the fear of someone else as opposed to one's own leaders.

Effectively the only bullshit people buy is the bullshit they want to believe in. The only truth they do not buy is the truth they do not want to know.

This is certainly the case for some people, but I think many others (myself included, frankly) would consciously choose to be much more up on what's happening and more involved in it if such a situation was more realistic for them - the world is complicated, and who except those a) whose careers depend on it, or b) for whom earning a daily living is not a concern, has time to keep up with it all, especially when so much of the relatively accessible stuff is so often incomplete or flat-out wrong (case in point: as noted in the opening of this blog post, a Pulitzer prize-winning Washington post columnist is unable to grasp the simple concept that giving out tax breaks adds to deficits)? On TV and the radio it's even worse, and very few true alternatives exist - yeah, some people could certainly try harder to bone up on their facts, but plenty more would like to, but can't, at least not without neglecting other areas of their lives which require even more frequent and immediate attention.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Heh, truth be told I accuse mankind of cognitive laziness because I, myself, am lazy. Still, I'm not sure if people more educated than I are any less prone to their hunches when it comes to voting...

[Acid King]

This, I think, touches on a whole other subject: as you infer, democracy (and the free market, by happenstance) only works when you're dealing with an informed and empowered public/consumer base, since an ignorant and passive one can easily be manipulated and fleeced by those in positions of privilege.

In other words: Never.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

My 2 cents on where i stand

Like has allready been mentioned by someone, I think theres a high possibility that Assange rather then been a dick is just playing the media game as he knows been a celeb will bring in more publicity then normal whistle blowing on WL. Also I dont know the facts about the case been made against him but it wouldnt suprise me if its all aload of BS those in power have cooked up as a means to bring him down.

LOL at anyone whose calling for him to be shot as a traitor even though hes not from the US I wonder if the reason theres so much hate towards him is due to the fact WL is forcing them to face the truth about their country and has broken their perception that the US (and its allies) are the good guys who are fighting a moral crusade against the forces of evil.

Its worth knowing that the muslim world already knows about war crimes made by western soldiers. What WL is doing is showing us westerners whats happening so that hopefully we can put a stop to it.

[Kakizaki]

I wonder if the reason theres so much hate towards him is due to the fact WL is forcing them to face the truth about their country and has broken their perception that the US (and its allies) are the good guys who are fighting a moral crusade against the forces of evil.

Yup, because all Americans must be mindless sheep. For fucks sake, give that sentiment a rest.

Maybe some of the disdain towards him is due in part to the many people who are fapping off to an obscene degree over the recent information that WL has reported? Information that, as Ed already pointed out, is already kind of out there for those that are willing to read or listen just a little bit. A lot of these recent reports were kind of like "no shit" if you pay any attention to global politics yet some people are treating this junk as some sort of revelation.

Some people (some here) are criticizing "mainstream" media and appear to be lapping up any info that WL dishes out. Some may find the info from WL more palatable or credible simply because it already gravitates towards or affirms their beliefs. Keep in mind that everyone has an agenda and a "truth" that they are trying to promote. WL is no different.

Also, I swear earlier in this thread I read a comment regarding WL info and how there has been no proof that the leaked info has been detrimental to U.S. security (I would quote this if I could find it - I apologize). To whoever stated this, you do realize that no official is going to publicly give specific detailed information as to how it has impacted security right? That would be blatantly irresponsible. I'm not stating that I believe the info necessarily was highly detrimental to security but it isn't exactly practical or reasonable to expect a government to explain how the information was harmful to security.

I mean this in all sincerity, but while some you are criticizing the U.S. and its allies, or commenting about the tyranny of the U.S., do you ever think about your own ideals? Are those ideals necessarily a fit for everyone? Do you take that into account? I'm a bit curious after reading the comments about transparency in this thread. Personally, I am willing to sacrifice some transparency for the sake of security. I understand that some of you may not agree with me and I can respect that. However, I feel like some of you in this thread (okay maybe just one or two people) are making the assumption that people (in this case Americans) blindly accept what is going on or are not aware . I'm not sure that is exactly the case. I'm definitely not implying that U.S. actions don't deserve criticism, but I do think there are some double standards and pretty large assumptions here.

[greg]

The scene: a formal dinner party. Enter a woman wearing a beautiful evening gown, with matching jacket.

Woman: "Oh my, there's no coat rack. And if I put my coat on the back of my chair, it may get wrinkled! Whatever shall I do?"

Man standing in the corner: "This looks like a job for, SPONTANEOUS ERECTION MAN!"
*Dashes into the bathroom to change into his superhero costume, not of tight-fitting spandex, but mainly just loose-fitting gym shorts. Returns to stand next to the woman*
Man: "I believe I may be of some use in this situation?"
*ROINK!*

Woman: "Oh, thank God it's you, Spontaneous Erection Man! My coat is saved!"
*Hangs coat*

Spontaneous Erection Man: "Your coat will be safe and wrinkle free with me!"

Narrator: "So once again, the day is SAVED, thanks to SPONTANEOUS ERECTION MAN!"

[BulletMagnet]

Still, I'm not sure if people more educated than I are any less prone to their hunches when it comes to voting...

I don't know if anyone's ever put out much hard data on that front, but I'd be willing to bet that those at the top of the societal heap vote against their own interests (especially without knowing it) FAR less frequently than those beneath them do...then again, that's just a "hunch" on my part to begin with, heh.

In other words: Never.

"Not as well nor as often as they ought to" is more the phrase I'd use.

To whoever stated this, you do realize that no official is going to publicly give specific detailed information as to how it has impacted security right? That would be blatantly irresponsible.

One would hope so, though in recent times a good-sized bunch of politicians has shown itself quite willing to act blatantly in opposition to national security to score short-term political points, starting with Valerie Plame straight on through to refusing to enact the New Start treaty, repeal DADT, or appoint even well-qualified candidates to vital advisement positions. Something tells me that Wikileaks isn't immune to that same sort of self-serving bile.

[louisg]

One would hope so, though in recent times a good-sized bunch of politicians has shown itself quite willing to act blatantly in opposition to national security to score short-term political points, starting with Valerie Plame straight on through to refusing to enact the New Start treaty, repeal DADT, or appoint even well-qualified candidates to vital advisement positions. Something tells me that Wikileaks isn't immune to that same sort of self-serving bile.

Ummm, how is repealing DADT hurting national security? Or did you mean refusing to repeal DADT?

[BulletMagnet]

Ummm, how is repealing DADT hurting national security? Or did you mean refusing to repeal DADT?

Yeah, I worded that a bit weirdly; if you work your way through that phrase you'll see that I meant "refusing to do A, B, and C", though it's easy to misread it.

[ncp]

Regardless of the documents his site leaked, he himself seems like a pretentious asshat. No matter what you think about the actual content of the documents, all HE did was run the site that the documents are hosted on, and now he (and many an idealist on the internet, apparently) sees himself as some sort of messiah. It's like hosting a shmup superplay site and claiming you're the best shmupper ever because you're hosting all these awesome replays

As for the actual document leak, it seems pretty dumb to me. As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong here, I didn't read too much on this shit, and I didn't even read the essays in this thread yet), it was mostly stuff that is inconsequential to citizens, opinions/documentation of foreign politicians, policies, etc., so what's the point, other than maybe to make the US look bad and to serve this ridiculous "ALL INFORMATION MUST BE BROADCASTED" ideal?

[Ex-Cyber]

Also, I swear earlier in this thread I read a comment regarding WL info and how there has been no proof that the leaked info has been detrimental to U.S. security (I would quote this if I could find it - I apologize). To whoever stated this, you do realize that no official is going to publicly give specific detailed information as to how it has impacted security right? That would be blatantly irresponsible. I'm not stating that I believe the info necessarily was highly detrimental to security but it isn't exactly practical or reasonable to expect a government to explain how the information was harmful to security.

That was me, and yes, I realize that. I don't expect people with clearances to go on TV and name names or anything like that. What I do expect (not an actual expectation, but an ideal one) is that when someone presents this kind of argument in a serious opinion piece, they support it with some kind of evidence. They don't necessarily need to be able to point at a specific incident or person who was threatened, but they need to do something to elevate it above a mere presumption.

I'm not especially an advocate of WikiLeaks. I think they could be using their contacts and resources more responsibly/effectively. That's beside the point for me, though. I care a lot more about what the backlash says about our political culture, and whether it's going to build into a wave of support for an infrastructure for Internet censorship. If the spread of these documents is the problem, merely shutting down the WikiLeaks site isn't going to accomplish a damn thing, Somebody out there in policy-making land must have figured that out by now.