Wikileaks: For Public good or National Security concern?

A threat to what though? Opinions even among experts are divided. Though, as I said, the experts' arguments against Wikileaks seem to be born from fear of the citizens finding out what their country is actually up to, as far as I can see anyway.

 

Duly noted. 8D

I live under a coconut, so the debris from explosions over there will never be able to penetrate my thick hairy shell. Hence, I care not.

But if I DID care, I'd just have to say : Where's the problem gone wrong? Something must have your people sending love gifts to the states. Propaganda, terrorism, and recruitment can't be happening only there, so why are UK citizens the ones being affected? Maybe you need to start washing out the reasons WHY your people are being affected instead of asking Wikileaks to stop.

 

where is all this information coming from? If it's coming from those inside the government I'm going to be pissed at those immoral bastards because if one is to work in the military or the government, this oath is chanted by the person commissioned:

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120607294.html
I can never see myself selling out my own country.

 

Of course it's coming from inside the government. Obviously the people perpetrating the leaks believe that the content is stuff people need to know.

They aren't dealt with in a way that exemplifies justice a lot of the time. Sometimes they aren't dealt with at all. This is the problem. If you can't trust your government to abide by the laws and expectations of those they purport to represent, why shuld they be in power? Ignorance is not the way to deal with it either. Some of us like to know what's going on. "It's alright if they don't tell us" is a bullshit mindset of individuals who don't understand the real purpose of democracy. And you know, we're not all gavilatius - I'd say a large percentage of us aren't really interested in being lorded over by a totalitarian regime.

I don't think you know what 'selling out' means if you're using it in this context.

 

I meant "selling out" in multiple contexts (for money and turning your back)

the reason I don't like a democracy is because national parties tend to elect radical people (and throw massive amounts of money their way), and not those who know best, the ones who want to get elected lie to anyone who is willing to listen, democracy ends up being a powergrab between who have the most influence and the most money.

http://www.truth-it.net/democracy_and_corruption.html

I accidentally made the mistake of confusing Totalitarian with a republic.
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=11

 

Which is interesting, because although America is ostensibly a republic it suffers from those exact same problems. But speaking from someone who is based in a country with a democratic parliamentary system, those aren't actually the issues we have here at all. We have stringent laws against lying in campaign promises as well as caps and restrictions on election spending (something that I don't believe exists in the supposedly better American republic system) to limit the influences of corporate money.

So you might want to try again, your argument is flawed and shows your ignorance about the various systems of government and how they're implemented in the real world.

Blatant pro-republic propaganda there. Claims without backup, just opinions. Although it's true that there is no constitutional document in a democratic country, you'll find that any changes that could violate rights of the common people get very unpopular very quickly. The government is still answerable to us, because we put them in power.

 

I missed the part where the government can't be a domestic enemy of constitutional rights

 

Um, I'm going to stop you there, the US does not seem to enforce the promises any president has spewed in their campaign or reign
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701818.html

And there's no true cap on how much a candidate can get, which technically means that if I have $600,000 and the cap is $300,000 (which I believe it is), I can have another company be the "middleman" to give the extra $300,000 (which technically negates the Restrictions).

A democracy is "majority rule, minority rights" while a republic is "by the people, for the people". The United States is a Representative Democracy consisting of an electoral college that May be swayed by the people via ballot vote, but since the Electoral College has more power than individuals voting, they have more influence and can vote against popular demand. (didn't you learn about that?) A republic results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Our Founding Fathers, wanted the United States to be a Republic, not this Democracy (a lynching mob is pure democracy in action, a type of mobocracy).

Just because the government may be answerable to us doesn't mean it has to answer at all, Clinton was impeached, yet he was not removed from office. just because a Democracy might have Minority Rights, doesn't mean it has to tend to the minority's rights.

I tend to see it like this: even though it may be an enemy, I will still show faith towards it and serve it to my best abilities

 

You seem to be confused. I'm not American, nor do I live in America. Don't know how I gave that impression at all.

Wrong, the United States is a constitutional republic, and in this case all it has resulted in is corruption, lobbying, injustice and stagnation.

The thing about a democracy is that if it doesn't answer to the public it is replaced through popular vote. Clinton isn't relevant, because the USA is a republic.

Let me know when you're done being a faggot, will you?

 

Please don't be uncivilized by throwing derogatory slang at other Romulation members, it's rude.

 

I don't see the issue here. I meant "faggot" as in the traditional meaning of "piece of wood", in this sense used to describe your general ignorance. You'll never win a debate if you keep assuming things like that.

 

We are entitled to our own ways if interpretation like others here; no matter what others may think. This is why they call it the Debates thread. We as people should to be heard nary of position, religion, sexual preference or personal thought. I brought my reasons (albeit shot) but it doesn't entitle you to call me names because I cease to stop trying to sway you. That is the point of debates.

You win, America is unjust and as corrupted as any other government that stands in the world (kudos), each has their secrets (like you and I) and would each liking to be entitled to a single owner. I agree that we do need be informed, but In My Opinion (see above: debates thread) I am entitled to serve and protect my nation to the best of my abilities to employ the status quo and keep order among our citizens, if it is to save face and destroy any evidence distasteful or incriminating to my country, then so be it, America gave me freedoms that few have and that should never be taken for granted.

I guess that's the soldier in me

 

I would like to hear an opinion from somebody that is actually put at risk from wikileaks and not some kid sat behind a computer screen in a country that is not at risk.

 

Your wish is my command :
http://www.neocodex.us/forum/topic/100732-wikileaks-and-its-true-effects/

There you go, that's a military man's opinion. Even comes with it's own community lash.

 

My opinion is exactly the same as his with the exception that im no longer in the military so I don't personally have to get angry or involved.

 

I love people who go say things along the lines of "say that to my face, fucker" online. It's the internet, nobody gives a fuck. Msg for instance could easily kick my arse by the looks of him, yeah, but that's fine by me since I'll likely never meet him (nothing against you msg, I respect you, think you're a stand-up bloke and would totally buy you a pint; you're just the first person who came to mind as being able to hand my arse to me).

None of the information is current, guys. Troop movements from 2008 don't reflect 2010's, especially considering the withdrawal of troops in the last 12 months.

 

Im just saying some things do put people at risk, some things should be kept quiet. Release them after the war, im ok with that.
I have a friend with just one arm and no legs, ive had 2 friends die in iraq and 1 in afghanistan, If I was still involved wouldn't want my own countrys press putting me in extra danger just so a few people can complain more about their rights. Do it after the guys in danger come home, that is the right way.
Post Merge: [time]1292060838[/time]
Heres the friend I mentioned http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8192634.stm
Anybody living in the UK may recall BBC breakfast did a big story about him about a year ago.

And heres another http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6269613.stm

Yeah these things happen in war, but having things happen to friends makes you think. These cases may not be caused by wikileaks but somebody somewhere is dead thanks to wikileaks.
Anything that could possibly endanger the lives of soldiers(on both sides) should be kept secret until it is absolutely safe and will not endanger anybodys life.
Deal with it at a later date.

 

I would like to say something about morale. Its like a horse dragging a carriage called kalesa here in the Philippines. If the horse can see the roads and cars near it, it will get spooked/scared causing it to be uncontrollable and get someone killed like the driver, passenger and the people surrounding it. But if the driver will cover the horse's eyes and just let it steer the beast, it will be an efficient horse. Like the troops, if they just know what they need to know, they will fight better. Remember shoot first ask questions later? But if they know everything, the troops will split into 2 camps, 1 are the loyalist and the other are the mutineers that disagree with the high command. Instead of fighting a single enemy, they are now turning their guns at each other. 1 charge, and the other retreat.

The US entered the war, let it finish what it started or else all they did for many years turns to waste. All those who died, lost an arm and leg, would have gone home beating their chest that what they did their was for nothing.

 

Depending on which government official you ask though, 'later' is synonymous with 'never'. ;\
Just saying.

Wikileaks is not exclusively for soldiers, nor is it a soldier's monthly magazine. It's for everyone, and more to the point, there's not supposed to be shooting anymore.

And also, by that logic, should we all revert to communism? The looks of it to me, China pretty much does what you think is right. They censor everything but the barest information, shut journalists up in jails and randomly clap accusations onto protesters. So the citizens know nothing but ignorance, what their government allows them to know, and what they can scavenge out of the net and other medias.

That sound cool to you, bro?

 

There is also the question of how that helicopter video got to wikileaks, the US government certainly doesn't release videos killing women and children. So somebody inside did it, for 1 of 2 reasons that I can think of.
1. He thought it was wrong. And now more people are dying because he did that, that video surely angered somebody enough to join the cause. There's terrorist training camps everywhere, do these people just wake up one morning and think "hey, I'll go mortar those danish soldiers patrolling the camp, some are women but fuck it I dont care"? They have their reasons and seeing their civilians killed is a perfectly good reason in my eyes, what did the US do when its civilians got killed? Yup, it went to war. Same thing.
If this is the case, how many of his countrymen have died because of him? I dont know, I hope hes had a good hard think about his morals now.

2. Money. Somebody got paid to do it, who would pay? Well, who would benefit the most by that video been released? Yeah Osama and pals aint short of a bob or two. Money makes the world go round and everything can be bought at the right price. Its excellent propaganda against the US, and only helps the terrorist cause.
Im pretty sure the government are already looking into wikileaks funding, I would and I know nothing.

So in my eyes releasing that video has done more harm then good. It would be much better kept away and released at a later date. Its a good example of why some things should be secret, its for the greater good.
As for the harmless documents, I dont know if they could be used or not, to be honest I dont know enough about them and if they are harmless then OK.

The US should sort out their own security and maybe nothing would get to wikileaks in the first place, that should be the priority for them.