Wikileaks hacked ahead of new document release

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

agreed
Doesn't the US have laws limiting the distributing of secret files?
Why isn't everybody working with wikileaks arrested yet?

From what I've read in an article today, security from the inside of the system is pretty weak, and there are 850.000 people who have access to classified information, so I guess that could take a while to find every leak.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

agreed
Doesn't the US have laws limiting the distributing of secret files?
Why isn't everybody working with wikileaks arrested yet?

They did arrest that one army guy for what he did a few months ago.

They are based in Sweden so its probably complected. But I heard that some in the US Government are talking about having Wikileaks declared a terrorist organization under US law.

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

From what I've read in an article today, security from the inside of the system is pretty weak, and there are 850.000 people who have access to classified information, so I guess that could take a while to find every leak.

In some countries those 850,000 people would all be shot if something like this happened...

...just saying...

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

In some countries those 850,000 people would all be shot if something like this happened...
...just saying...

Its lucky then that you happen to live in a democracy with a free press.
Ah those pesky bastard reporters, if only they could be muzzled and sent of to guantanamo bay if they ever critised their government. Lets call all of them terrorists since they don't agree with our [US governments] view.
...just saying....

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Its lucky then that you happen to live in a democracy with a free press.
Ah those pesky bastard reporters, if only they could be muzzled and sent of to guantanamo bay if they ever critised their government. Lets call all of them terrorists since they don't agree with our [US governments] view.
...just saying....

Aye. The public has a right to know what the government does. If the government can secretly do whatever they like, without caring about what the public thinks, without caring what the public voted for, then what's the difference from a dictatorship?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

Aye. The public has a right to know what the government does. If the government can secretly do whatever they like, without caring about what the public thinks, without caring what the public voted for, then what's the difference from a dictatorship?

Not that I am disagreeing with you (nor agreeing with you for that matter), but when people throw out the word "Right", I like to ask them for their source.

Where is it written that the public has a right to know specific details about what their government does?

The whole concept of a representative government is so that the public does not need to know all the details. The public elects representatives and these representatives are empowered by the public to make decisions on behalf of the citizens. If the decisions are not in agreement with the citizens, in a representative government, the citizens can elect someone else. But I am not aware of any policy that allows the public to know specific details of what the government does, especially when it comes to national security.

So why do you think the public has a "right" to know everything that their government does?

A desire to know, sure. But really a "right"?

[XabbaRus]

But is exposing things governments don't make available to us justified when the exposing puts at direct risk serving men and women or people working for us, eg informants in Afghanistan?

The idea behind wikileaks is laudable but only in a perfect world. He is being holier than thou with no thought for the people he could be endagering.

As for what ambassadors think about Brown or Cameron I don't care, though I did take a little afrontage over the remarks about keeping the UK govt. hanging about the so called special relationship.

It looks like the guy tried to get specifics on who he'd be putting at risk so he could make sure what he released didn't threaten them but the government continued to whine to try and stop him from releasing everything. So I'm gonna go with the stuff released not actually putting anybody in danger just the government trying to get the peasants on their side against him.

[Aramike]

Aye. The public has a right to know what the government does. If the government can secretly do whatever they like, without caring about what the public thinks, without caring what the public voted for, then what's the difference from a dictatorship?

Ummm, how does secrecy in government in any way have anything to do with the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy?

Honestly, are you suggesting that all American citizens be allowed to, say, know the deployment of our special forces at all times?

The public does NOT have any right to know everything the government does - I'm not sure where you've gleaned said "right" from, but it does not exist. We, in the US, elect our officials with implicit trust to do what is in our best interest, INCLUDING when it is in our best interests to not know.

Obviously there are limits to this, but complete transparency would be foolish - in fact, should we be completely transparent, we would be exceptionally vulnerable to destruction. Then where does your non-existant "right" to complete transparency come from?

Ultimately, the wisdom of classification is that the public rightly doesn't trust itself.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

The idea behind wikileaks is laudable but only in a perfect world. He is being holier than thou with no thought for the people he could be endagering.

Who should you be mad at? The government that does the shady and rotten things that endanger its troops or citizens? Or the person who brings it out in the open?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, electric light the best policeman.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Not that I am disagreeing with you (nor agreeing with you for that matter), but when people throw out the word "Right", I like to ask them for their source.

Where is it written that the public has a right to know specific details about what their government does?

I'm not talking about some kind of legal right that's written in your laws. Just about a symbolic one.

If the decisions are not in agreement with the citizens, in a representative government, the citizens can elect someone else.

But how can the citizens know these decisions are not in agreement with them, if these decisions are not known?

Originally Posted by Aramike

Ummm, how does secrecy in government in any way have anything to do with the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy?

Honestly, are you suggesting that all American citizens be allowed to, say, know the deployment of our special forces at all times?

The government makes decisions on behalf of its citizens. The government is chosen by those same citizens. Now if you remove the ability for those citizens to know what the government does, how can the government be a truthful representative of the citizens? It can't.
One of the requisites of democracy is this ability to know about the actions of the government. Because voting is based upon these actions. Remove this ability, and you remove the ability to truthfully vote.

Furthermore, the deployment of troops or the execution of military commands is not on the government level.
If the government would release any details on military operations, yes, the military would be at risk. But the government generally doesn't make those detailed plans, the military does. The government tells the army "Invade Iraq", "Kill Bin Laden" etc.
I think the public should know whether or not for example a war is imminent. This way they have the opportunity to oppose against it if it's not according to their wishes.

If a government-issued command endangers an operation, I think such information can and should be withheld - UNTIL the end of the operation. When the operation is completed this government-issued command should be released to the public, so they can form their own opinion about it.

Example: Obama decides Ahmadinejad should be killed. He commands this to the CIA.
Up until now, the public shouldn't know about it. If it does, Ahmadinejad can be tipped off and go into hiding.
The CIA sends a kill squad to Iran and shoots the target.
When the target is dead, it should be revealed that it was done by the CIA, or at least that the CIA had an ongoing operation to kill him. If the public is dead against the assassination, they can oppose it by for example not re-electing Obama.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Who should you be mad at? The government that does the shady and rotten things that endanger its troops or citizens? Or the person who brings it out in the open?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, electric light the best policeman.

Exactly

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

Example: Obama decides Ahmadinejad should be killed. He commands this to the CIA.
Up until now, the public shouldn't know about it. If it does, Ahmadinejad can be tipped off and go into hiding.
The CIA sends a kill squad to Iran and shoots the target.
When the target is dead, it should be revealed that it was done by the CIA, or at least that the CIA had an ongoing operation to kill him. If the public is dead against the assassination, they can oppose it by for example not re-electing Obama.

Suppose the only way the CIA could get access to Ahmadinejad would be if they posed as representatives of the International Commission of the Red Cross from Switzerland... and we did not tell the Swiss (which would not be surprising).

Do you still think the people have a right to know that their country violated about a hundred conventions, agreements, treaties and laws even though the cause may be "good"?

No. Oftentimes the reason such operations need to be kept secret is not due to the target, but the methods of access.

International policy is a dirty game. We are making deals with countries you would be shocked at, and going behind the backs of our closest friends. We are making and accepting trade-offs that would morally offend many US citizens.

Politics making strange bedfellows is a virginal honeymoon compared with our foreign policy. I have been working international policy analysis for almost 30 years (next year!). It is an ugly side of Realpolitik. The reason citizens can enjoy their feelings of pride in their country is
That. They. Don't. Know. About. It.

It is not something to be proud of, but it does reflect the ugly reality of foreign policy.

The truly damaging part of the wikileaks is that data is being released without context or confirmation. Citizens will read a few documents, assume that what they are reading is true, and make conclusions and inferences that may be completely inaccurate simply because they lack the training, experience, and background data necessary to be able to evaluate data like this. This is my profession and it is not easy.

President Bush once commented that he does not "do nuance" when it comes to foreign policy. Well foreign policy is nothing but nuance.

And reading a little data out of context is a good way to make a wrong inference.