How to prevent the public from becoming informed, responsible citizens

[Skybird]

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

This document is a classified (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks. ``The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classified information to WikiLeaks.org cannot be ruled out''. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses ``trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whistleblowers'', the report recommends ``The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the WikiLeaks.org Web site''. [As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective]. As an odd justification for the plan, the report claims that ``Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the WikiLeaks.org website''. The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks---U.S. equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay.

[Oberon]

China bans access to anything that might be informative, and I'm surprised North Korea even lets its people have internet lest they discover the outside world
Can't say I'm particularly surprised about Russia either, and honestly Sky, I wouldn't be surprised to see Australia add itself to that list before long.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

China bans access to anything that might be informative, and I'm surprised North Korea even lets its people have internet lest they discover the outside world
Can't say I'm particularly surprised about Russia either, and honestly Sky, I wouldn't be surprised to see Australia add itself to that list before long.

Fair assessment

[CaptainHaplo]

The point is that this was a US internal memorandum - showing that at least some elements inside the US government, have concerns over information being released (regardless of its lack of security implications) because the public would raise immortall H E double hockeysticks...

Just one more example of the government thinking that they do not answer to the people.

Thanks Skybird -good find. I can't say I am suprised.

[Oberon]

I don't think there is any government on this planet that truly feels a need to answer to its people and hasn't been for some time. The government sets the rules and we follow them or get persecuted. S'how they roll.

[Skybird]

BBC has a story on WikiLeak:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8605055.stm

I first stumbled over it when they published a German document about the health insurrance system in germany. It was a government-ordered study of the private health inssurance companies - coming to results the government did not want to have after the liberal FDP entered the coalition. the liberal'S cloients are - amongst others - private insurrance companies, and the study found them to be far, far more uncompetrtive and cost-expliding and expensive than the mandatory state insurrances most people have. The FDP minister's reaction was quick and telltaling - he took the study and put it in a safe, wanting to hide it.

For examples like this, I support wikileaks. It and investigative jorunalism is urgently needed in a poltical system that is haunted by omni-present corruption and massive abuse of power, rendering th term "election" and "democracy" almost meaningless.


I am still with them on stories like the BBC mentions, the video evidence for Apaches intentionally shooting civilians, and the crews applauding the act (http://www.collateralmurder.com/).

But I understand that there is sensitive information that could put interests of state reason at risk, that are legitimate security interests and not of a nature linking their covering with corruption and absue of power. In such cases, responsible journalists and wikiLeask should indeed voluntarily act reasonably and weigh factual, legitimate public interest against legitimate factual security interests of a nation and it's society. Political parties' power interests, covering scandals etc, are NOT legitimate public interests. They should get unmasked indeed, asnd for that independant, ungagged journalism is a must.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I don't think there is any government on this planet that truly feels a need to answer to its people and hasn't been for some time. The government sets the rules and we follow them or get persecuted. S'how they roll.

Yeah but there are limits Oberon. When they get crossed stuff like this happens:

[geosub1978]

There are some common bases for all governing centers (not governments) of the world. And these are: Money - Power - Control.
Governments just manipulate people. So, documents like this should couse no surprise. I think...

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah but there are limits Oberon. When they get crossed stuff like this happens:

Most of what went on in the French Revolution was not so much because the people had had enough, but because of capitalists (meaning people with capital, or money) wanting to change the laws to favor themselves (such as free use of private property, etc). The food riots were largely attributable to these individuals hording grain on their "private property" with the purpose of causing grain prices to soar due to lack of availability and caused starvation to run rampant all over France even though there was plenty of food available. Which started the riots, which blamed the 'corrupt royalty' (talk about hypocrisy) for the lack of food (the food was there, nobody but the aristocracy could afford to buy it though).

They also after the revolution enacted all kinds of laws which stripped any power from the worker and gave it all to the property owners, eliminated price fixing (before prices were fixed by the government to ensure fair trade and prevent gouging), and abolished all guilds, unions, etc. These guys also as a result sowed the seeds of communism which is the exact opposite (supposedly all power to the working class, though that is a lie too).

So pretty much "the people" were used again. What always surprises me though is not how much people are suspicious of government (I don't blame them), but how few are suspicious of big business (the corporations). After all, who is controlling who and where is the money coming from?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

So pretty much "the people" were used again. What always surprises me though is not how much people are suspicious of government (I don't blame them), but how few are suspicious of big business (the corporations). After all, who is controlling who and where is the money coming from?

To this I can only say

Oh yes

This I have asked myself so very often during past discussions that I have stopped counting it.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Most of what went on in the French Revolution was not so much because the people had had enough, but because of capitalists (meaning people with capital, or money) wanting to change the laws to favor themselves (such as free use of private property, etc). The food riots were largely attributable to these individuals hording grain on their "private property" with the purpose of causing grain prices to soar due to lack of availability and caused starvation to run rampant all over France even though there was plenty of food available. Which started the riots, which blamed the 'corrupt royalty' (talk about hypocrisy) for the lack of food (the food was there, nobody but the aristocracy could afford to buy it though).

They also after the revolution enacted all kinds of laws which stripped any power from the worker and gave it all to the property owners, eliminated price fixing (before prices were fixed by the government to ensure fair trade and prevent gouging), and abolished all guilds, unions, etc. These guys also as a result sowed the seeds of communism which is the exact opposite (supposedly all power to the working class, though that is a lie too).

So pretty much "the people" were used again. What always surprises me though is not how much people are suspicious of government (I don't blame them), but how few are suspicious of big business (the corporations). After all, who is controlling who and where is the money coming from?

Well you're basically saying (in more detail) the exact same thing I just said.

As for the rest, I am well aware of the French Revolutions aftermath. That could well happen here too I suppose, but such pitfalls aren't an argument against revolution, far from it. The line is still there and I think we're being pushed a little towards it every day.

[NeonSamurai]

The line is always there though, and the question is who is doing the pushing, and who will it benefit when it happens. Revolutions have always typically exploited the poorer more uneducated members of the society to overthrow the so called ruling class, only to have a new one put in its place that is just as bad or worse then the last one. It is almost always motivated from a mid group that has capital (money, land, power) and wants to expand its power base and take over.

Sure sometimes revolution has actually benefited the people as a whole, but rarely so, and even still, that middle group gained its own ends in the process.