Wikileaks discussion

[Cappster]

So what do you think about the whole wikileaks situation? People make the argument that it has cost or will cost lives. Some say that transparency is the key to preventing a tyrannical government. I tend to side with the group that is for a transparent government on all levels. If government is the voice of the people, for the people and by the people then why shouldn't we be privy to business that concerns our lives?

[langleyparkjoe]

So what do you think about the whole wikileaks situation? People make the argument that it has cost or will cost lives. Some say that transparency is the key to preventing a tyrannical government. I tend to side with the group that is for a transparent government on all levels. If government is the voice of the people, for the people and by the people then why shouldn't we be privy to business that concerns our lives?

I personally think some info we as the public don't need to know bro.. and the info I'm referring too is stuff that'll get our boys and gals killed.. that's really all I'm talking about. If our service men/women are safe, well than go for it.

[Cappster]

So what do you think about the whole wikileaks situation? People make the argument that it has cost or will cost lives. Some say that transparency is the key to preventing a tyrannical government. I tend to side with the group that is for a transparent government on all levels. If government is the voice of the people, for the people and by the people then why shouldn't we be privy to business that concerns our lives?

I personally think some info we as the public don't need to know bro.. and the info I'm referring too is stuff that'll get our boys and gals killed.. that's really all I'm talking about. If our service men/women are safe, well than go for it.

I hear you Joe and I don't want our service members to suffer consequences, because of the leak either. I can, however, see the flip side to that argument in asking how many service members have died, because of the back door dealings the public has known nothing about? It is harder for politicians to lie when the truth is out there for us to see it.

[Countertrey]

So what do you think about the whole wikileaks situation? People make the argument that it has cost or will cost lives.

It will... most, we'll never hear about... but many will suffer.

Some say that transparency is the key to preventing a tyrannical government.

Bull. No government can exist under those conditions. Period.

I tend to side with the group that is for a transparent government on all levels. If government is the voice of the people, for the people and by the people then why shouldn't we be privy to business that concerns our lives?

Because, Never-never land simply does not exist.

ASSange is in hiding... he is a sexual perpetrator, along with being an arrocant narcisist who enjoys pretending a noble cause while playing with the lives of innocents... such as any Afghan foolish enough to be named and identified in his earlier dumps, as well as a snivelling coward. Hopefully, he vanishes permanently soon.

Don't think he's a coward? Note that he has not exposed any documents from Russia, China, Israel or Iran? They would find and kill him almost immediately.

Don't sweat it... there's even a place in this world for the naive... but, this is not about transparency... it's about criminal theft of data.

I'm not here to debate. I'm done with this thread.

[Cappster]

So what do you think about the whole wikileaks situation? People make the argument that it has cost or will cost lives.

It will... most, we'll never hear about... but many will suffer.

Some say that transparency is the key to preventing a tyrannical government.

Bull. No government can exist under those conditions. Period.

I tend to side with the group that is for a transparent government on all levels. If government is the voice of the people, for the people and by the people then why shouldn't we be privy to business that concerns our lives?

Because, Never-never land simply does not exist.

ASSange is in hiding... he is a sexual perpetrator, along with being an arrocant narcisist who enjoys pretending a noble cause while playing with the lives of innocents... such as any Afghan foolish enough to be named and identified in his earlier dumps, as well as a snivelling coward. Hopefully, he vanishes permanently soon.

Don't think he's a coward? Note that he has not exposed any documents from Russia, China, Israel or Iran? They would find and kill him almost immediately.

Don't sweat it... there's even a place in this world for the naive... but, this is not about transparency... it's about criminal theft of data.

I'm not here to debate. I'm done with this thread.

Okay, well, this is supposed to be a discussion, but if you want to say your peace and leave then it is what it is.

I will argue, for anyone else who may read this, that many lives have suffered under the veil of secrecy aka lies (Iraq and "WMD's" anyone?). If our government would have been more transparent and forth coming with information we may not have gotten into the mess that is (the republic of?) Iraq.

So why can't a government exist under transparency? Can anyone answer this fro Tre since he is no longer with us? The better question for me is how DOES government exist under this notion of being big brother for us all?

Never Never land does exist and we are living in it. How do you think there is all of this "hope and change" every election about what a candidate is going to do for us when they all are the same? Wouldn't it help to raise the veil to see what is going on behind the scenes of the people who represent us? Please, can someone with an opposing viewpoint rationalize this for me?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Don't sweat it... there's even a place in this world for the naive... but, this is not about transparency... it's about criminal theft of data

I'm not arguing your view on the impact of the data stolen, but can you agree with me Trey we'd be better off if we had a government that didn't need to keep so much secret data? If we eliminated the IRS and social security and the need for government to track and verify our earnings through our lives. If we eliminated the war on drugs and the endless tracking of our financial transactions. And if we removed our military from foreign lands and had our government stop manipulating energy prices then there would just be a whole lot less need for the government to keep secrets.

[Countertrey]

Kaz... Big government sucks... but, this is not about big government. I have people that I care greatly about in harm's way... and this piece of slug excrement is playing with their lives to satisfy his ego.... Screw that, man.

this dude needs an ass muscle loaded with anectine... look it up.

the naive and ill informed coming about and trying to validate this turd's "motivation' are equally full of crap. Knock it off... this ass is not about "transparency". You know it. Stop playing "I'm more libertarian than you", cause I'm not playing back. This jerk is playing with many thousands of lives, and not just American lives, all so he can stroke his own ego. I can't wait until he's capped... and, he's pretty much made sure that there is a really big target on his back at this point.

You are a businessman... do you share all of your data when attempting to negotiate? No? What of "transparency"?

I am now seriously done.

[Cappster]

This jerk is playing with many thousands of lives, and not just American lives, all so he can stroke his own ego.

So are many of our elected government officials. I don't know much of anything about this guy's motives, but if the truth is there we must be on a quest to find it. It is unfortunate you have people you care about in harm's way, but who are the people that put them there in the first place?

I want to add that Kaz being a business man has nothing to do about government conspiracies. Business = private (unless on the stock market) and government = public. When we, the people, are investing (being taxed) into a business (government) we should be able to see what they are doing.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Kaz... Big government sucks... but, this is not about big government. I have people that I care greatly about in harm's way... and this piece of slug excrement is playing with their lives to satisfy his ego.... Screw that, man.

this dude needs an ass muscle loaded with anectine... look it up.

the naive and ill informed coming about and trying to validate this turd's "motivation' are equally full of crap. Knock it off... this ass is not about "transparency". You know it. Stop playing "I'm more libertarian than you", cause I'm not playing back. This jerk is playing with many thousands of lives, and not just American lives, all so he can stroke his own ego. I can't wait until he's capped... and, he's pretty much made sure that there is a really big target on his back at this point.

You are a businessman... do you share all of your data when attempting to negotiate? No? What of "transparency"?

I am now seriously done.

I totally agree with you that this guy's motivation has zero to do with truth and everything to do with stroking himself. I'm not sure how libertarian is a competition or how one can win it. And as I said, I'm not arguing with you on this specific point. I just think to really change things we need to step back and broaden the argument to why we're doing things and not just what should we do given that we are doing things.

I think our government has way too many needs to keep secrets and the more secrets they have the more secrets there are for people to find and expose. I think we do need to question that. I understand family in harms way, I've told you my bro and cus were both in the first Gulf War, I'm with you on "aggressive interrogation" because they are there even if I think we shouldn't be. I'd think you'd realize from all those discussions I'm really not against you on this. But I do think every time exposure of secrets comes up we need to question government's need to keep so many or we're headed for an infinite loop of hide and seek. That's all I'm saying.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I want to add that Kaz being a business man has nothing to do about government conspiracies. Business = private (unless on the stock market) and government = public. When we, the people, are investing (being taxed) into a business (government) we should be able to see what they are doing.

Thank you, exactly stated. This is the objective, not a conflict in my views. Private industry acting in it's own interest in a competitive market requires their ability for privacy in competition which leads to our freedom. Government keeping secrets is a threat to our freedom. Again though per my comments to Trey I'm not saying I'm in favor of our keeping our current system and releasing secrets that threaten our troops, I'm for creating a situation where government doesn't need to keep them. Sending in our troops and then exposing them because of idiot politicians to harm isn't my objective.

[VetSkinsFan]

No entity operates with complete transparency. Not you or I, not a 1 man business, not Microsoft, not the Federal Government.

As for secrets for the government, they are necessary. And I'm one that believes that the general public doesn't need to know everything that goes on. The part I don't like is the human factor. We should be able to trust our government to act in our best interest, but we can't. And that's why I don't get too much in to politics. It's frustrating to know that the most sucessful politician is the one with the longest fork in his tongue.

[Irn-Bru]

But really CT, why don't you tell us how you really feel about Wikileaks and Julian Assange?

[Cappster]

No entity operates with complete transparency. Not you or I, not a 1 man business, not Microsoft, not the Federal Government.

As for secrets for the government, they are necessary. And I'm one that believes that the general public doesn't need to know everything that goes on. The part I don't like is the human factor. We should be able to trust our government to act in our best interest, but we can't. And that's why I don't get too much in to politics. It's frustrating to know that the most sucessful politician is the one with the longest fork in his tongue.

I, for one, am not asking for unadulterated transparency, but this game of back door deals, lies, deceit, and checkmating is a major cause for concern. I do think that if there is nothing to hide let the truth be shown. When the truth is hidden then we are following the slippery slope into tyranny and an oppressive government. If we continue to strive for openness and truth from our "leaders" it is a lot harder for them to operate and do these unethical acts in the name of "national security."

[VetSkinsFan]

No entity operates with complete transparency. Not you or I, not a 1 man business, not Microsoft, not the Federal Government.

As for secrets for the government, they are necessary. And I'm one that believes that the general public doesn't need to know everything that goes on. The part I don't like is the human factor. We should be able to trust our government to act in our best interest, but we can't. And that's why I don't get too much in to politics. It's frustrating to know that the most sucessful politician is the one with the longest fork in his tongue.

I, for one, am not asking for unadulterated transparency, but this game of back door deals, lies, deceit, and checkmating is a major cause for concern. I do think that if there is nothing to hide let the truth be shown. When the truth is hidden then we are following the slippery slope into tyranny and an oppressive government. If we continue to strive for openness and truth from our "leaders" it is a lot harder for them to operate and do these unethical acts in the name of "national security."

I see that as the same as the Geneva convention. Yes, we hold ourselves to that standard, but what opposition does? It would be the same with the policy you suggest. Moral victories aren't victories. Sad but it's necessary.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I see that as the same as the Geneva convention. Yes, we hold ourselves to that standard, but what opposition does? It would be the same with the policy you suggest. Moral victories aren't victories. Sad but it's necessary.

I agree with you about the Geneva convention, but for me wanting maximum transparency in our government has nothing to do with it. It's because I don't trust our government. It has nothing to do with what anyone else thinks of it.

[welch]

1. I'm not sure what the Geneva Convention has to do with this. We wrote the essentials of the Geneva Convention on issues like war crimes and treatment of prisoners, and the US position is a US Army tradition that dates back to George Washington's rules for how to treat captured redcoats.

2. Wikileaks on the wars in Iraq and Afganistan? We knew everything but the details, and only historians will care about the details. Anyone who thought carefully knew that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice were lying when they insisted that Saddam had poison gas and was near having nuclear weapons. The problem was that too many members of congress and the senate were willing to float on the public relations tide of late 2002. It was not a matter of transparency.

We already knew the full story in both countries. We did not need to know the names of people working with us. Example: a friend of mine has a son, an Army Ranger captain, who just returned from his ninth deployment. Four in Iraq, five in Afghanistan. His life depends on the locals he works with.

3. Wikileaks diplomacy adds nothing significant to public knowledge, and merely throws up the ordinary private chit-chat from embassies back to Washington...Berlusconi is in Putin's pocket, etc, etc. It does nothing but harm. The leaks do not add to a discussion of foreign policy, they don't add useful knowledge...they add gossip.

4. By the way, I fully support the decision by a part of the Treasury Department to track all payments into and out of the US. Terrorist activity costs money, and I'd rather send in detectives to arrest bad guys than have to send the Army to occupy a country...Yemen, for instance.

If a government agency gets intrusive, my congressman, or state assemblyman, or city councilman, or, in general, a person I elect, can rip up said agency. Nobody controls the private corporations that collect, share, and sell information about me.

For example: Amazon tracks books I have browsed, and "offers" me a selection of books that fit their idea of me. EBay does the same.

Companies you wouldn't think about are collecting data about you. Some years ago, my component of GE got into the "salesforce automation" or "customer relationship management" business. I went to a big vehicle leasing company, which handed me the requirements for changing product's customer database. This outfit recorded social security number, plus religious affiliation, plus how actively religious you were, plus political affiliation, plus how active, plus spouse, plus similar religious and political information on the spouse. GE has a strong ethics policy ("if you wouldn't tell your mother, then come tell a company lawyer", as Chairman Jack put it), but we had technical disagreements with the prospect, so it never went that far.

Still: consider how easy it is to record and use that kind of data. Nobody can or does control them.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Anyone who thought carefully knew that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice were lying when they insisted that Saddam had poison gas and was near having nuclear weapons

Actually, no one has ever shown it was a "lie." How do you know Bush/Cheney knew WMD's weren't there? The French, Germans and Russians who had better intelligence in Iraq then we did said there were. Clinton and the Democrats who ran the Country 8/9 years prior to the start of the buildup said there were. Bush/Cheney certainly seemed to believe they were. How do you know they actually knew WMD's weren't there?

[Redskin in Canada]

Actually, no one has ever shown it was a "lie."

Please. Just ask Colin Powell. There is ample evidence of it.

Some Americans do a good job deceiving themselves and you are one of them, Kaz.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Actually, no one has ever shown it was a "lie."

Please. Just ask Colin Powell. There is ample evidence of it.

Some Americans do a good job deceiving themselves and you are one of them, Kaz.

Powell never said Bush lied. Your desire to believe Bush lied isn't proof. Well, I suppose it is to you and others with the same desire. But here's the problem.

The downside of the whole Bush like canard is that it actually lets the US government off the hook. It takes our whole policy of meddling in foreign affairs boil down to the fallacy that if Bush didn't lie then our policy was OK. Whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq, we should not be there or have been there. The US should not be the cop of the world. Other governments like that we do the dirty work and then take the political hit for doing it. That dynamic is enhanced by the "Bush lied" lie.

[Redskin in Canada]

To Ctrey and Welch:

I have thought long and hard to come to this thread. The only reason why I do is to provide some thoughts and perspective.

1) It is ludicrous to suggest that the confidentiality of any material can be ensured when up to 600,000 people (yes, for those who do not know up to 600 THOUSAND people) has access to that database.

2) Most material is classified at various levels in every country. What does that mean? It only means that the time lag between the information be known to people that should not have access will be LONGER the higher the level. All confidential material, like food, has an expiration date. So, confidentiality ONLY buys you time.

3) Most information that I have seen released to date is old news to the intelligence and diplomatic organizations of the world.

4) Among all the confidential information leaked, the least harmful is that which you KNOW that your potential and real enemies have acquired. Contrary to that, the most dangerous is that information which you do not KNOW that has been leaked.

5) The true danger of information leaks lies in the hands of those who can ACT based on that information. That is a very small number of organizations in the world with the real capability to act and we know who they are.

6) It will be expensive and potentially embarrassing to fix the unwanted PUBLIC UNTIMELINESS of these leaks but let me break the news to you: all security information changes from day to day, month to month and year to year. Classified information is a moving target by definition and so changes that made classified information potentially harmful were going to be changed anyway (mode of operation, personnel, etc) so that enemies cannot ACT on it.

One last thing:

Management of confidential information has never been, is not, and will not be EVER 100% secure for ANY country in the world. All you can do is to try to minimise and delay the inevitable.

And so, take comfort in the fact that the country with the largest human and technological capability to acquire confidential information from ALL OTHERS is ...

... the United States of America.

Just a wild uneducated guess.

[Redskin in Canada]

Powell never said Bush lied.

Nobody said that he did. Nobody would have expected to hear that from Powell.

Your desire to believe Bush lied isn't proof. Well, I suppose it is to you and others with the same desire. But here's the problem.

There is enough information in the public domain about government investigations on this matter in the US and other partners, including the UK.

The downside of the whole Bush like canard is that it actually lets the US government off the hook.

You are a smart person but ideaologically simplistic. No, the lie thing does not let anybody off the hook.

It takes our whole policy of meddling in foreign affairs boil down to the fallacy that if Bush didn't lie then our policy was OK.

You may wish to think so from a US perspective. For the rest of the world, US foreign policy is extremely complex confronting extremely complex situations scattered all over the world and sometimes not disconnected between one another. US foreign policy faces near impossible dilemmas and the need to act in very sophisticated (and apparently contradictory) ways.

Whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq, we should not be there or have been there.

IF that was the truue motivation, you would be right. But everybody knows that WMD were NOT the true driver. There were other foreign and security objectives in mind, worth in the minds of the highest members of the executive branch, to do so.

The US should not be the cop of the world.

I would agree but ... What makes you believe that such a war was a cop action against a rogue dictator and not a strategic calculation designed to achieve other objectives?

Other governments like that we do the dirty work and then take the political hit for doing it.

The US controls the outcome of events at a very high human and economic cost. But that control is paramount to ensure the supremacy of US interests and some argue even its own security and the security of its allies. It is a far more difficult argument than a simplistic isolationist conservative argument which, by the way, has a long deep rooted tradition dating back to the mid-19th century and finding its strongest manifestation before the USA entered WW II.

Such isolationist policy does not answer the following question for good or bad from a US or others perspective: Is the USA and the rest of the world willing to leave the initiative and control of several events and geopolitical scenarios to others? I do not think so. It is very unlikely when you are the only superpower left in the world.

That dynamic is enhanced by the "Bush lied" lie.

Notreally. This is only a manifestation of a more deeprooted motivation. Ah! by the way, I do not know about you but around the world the charge is not that the President lied. The argument apparently made by many is that the entire Executive Branch of the entire government lied, including its head.

[Redskin in Canada]

Companies you wouldn't think about are collecting data about you.

Naaaaaaahhhhh ... just kidding, right?

Like American Express, Visa, Mastercharge, and banks?

How about Microsoft, facebook, Google, AOL, and Yahoo?

Airlines and other forms of transportation? You are kidding !

My company IT department and home internet provider too?

How about information contained in my web browser after ERASING all the cookies and temporary files?

There used to be secrets when only two people gotto know. That MIGHT be true, as long as electronic transactions are not invoilved directly or indirectly.

And then there are contacts, co-workers, friends and neighbours ... You are beginning to worry me.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Powell never said Bush lied.

Nobody said that he did. Nobody would have expected to hear that from Powell.

Actually, no one has ever shown it was a "lie."

Please. Just ask Colin Powel

On the rest, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my points. I disagree with your portrayal the "rest of the world" is monolithic in view and right about everything. The US is the only superpower, yet we're naive and don't know what's really going on. Makes you wonder how we accomplished it being so innocent and unaware of the reality everyone gets but us. Clearly Bush did believe what he said about Saddam and WMD's, which makes it not a "lie." What I object to is that it's irrelevant and the debate about it being a "lie" detracts from the real issue.

Regarding the isolationist, I'm not an isolationist, I'm a libertarian. I am for limiting government and foreign policy is no exception. I believe US citizens/businesses should be driving our "foreign policy," not politicians. In that way we'd be building a stronger world economy since business only gets done when it's beneficial both ways. Foreign governments are as corrupt or more then the American one. Deals between bands of criminals is no solution to liberty and just leads to a more militaristic world as they rattle their sabers. The "Bush lied" campaign just plays right into that as it protects liars and avoids the real debate.

[Redskin in Canada]

Powell never said Bush lied.

Nobody said that he did. Nobody would have expected to hear that from Powell.

Actually, no one has ever shown it was a "lie."

Please. Just ask Colin Powel

Conduct, not words. Actions actually do speak louder than words.

On the rest, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my points. I disagree with your portrayal the "rest of the world" is monolithic in view and right about everything.

Not -everything- just the general agreement about intended deception.

The US is the only superpower, yet we're naive and don't know what's really going on. Makes you wonder how we accomplished it being so innocent and unaware of the reality everyone gets but us.

I never made a naiveté argument. I believe that the opposite is true if you read my post again.

Clearly Bush did believe what he said about Saddam and WMD's, which makes it not a "lie."

This is wrong but I will not argue.

What I object to is that it's irrelevant and the debate about it being a "lie" detracts from the real issue.

Perhaps, it distracts from what you perceive as being the main issue. Your perception is not shared by many, nor it should.

Regarding the isolationist, I'm not an isolationist, I'm a libertarian. I am for limiting government and foreign policy is no exception.

This view has a long history and deep roots in the history of the USA. It has failed to persuade both most people and most experts because its effects in history have not resulted in serving best the interests of the USA.

Do not make any mistake, several countries would love to see the USA enclose itself within a shell and walk in to fill-in the role. Control is a highly coveted and a very profitable and effective tool. I am not advocating for the USA to continue a path or another. I am only telling you why a change is unlikely.

I believe US citizens/businesses should be driving our "foreign policy," not politicians.

Forgive me but I do not understand. Are the elected members of all branches of government not citizens and experts precisely elected to fill-in this role? Once they are elected, they are not citizens anymore?

But if what you truly mean is a foreign policy driven by incompetent, unprepared and poorly informed idealogical amateurs, then you know that it ain't gonna happen.

In that way we'd be building a stronger world economy since business only gets done when it's beneficial both ways. Foreign governments are as corrupt or more then the American one. Deals between bands of criminals is no solution to liberty and just leads to a more militaristic world as they rattle their sabers. The "Bush lied" campaign just plays right into that as it protects liars and avoids the real debate.

An insecure world is a weaker world.

Kaz, I wish the world would be as pure as being able to fit any given ideological scheme to solve its problems. The bad news are that, regardless of the political tendency, the issues of national security are not as simple for ANY government of ANY political tendency to be solved with a single political line.

But let me give you a couple of simple examples to illustrate the above point:

1) North and South Koreas.

and

2) the looming Iran nuclear crisis.

(I leave the international fight on terrorism aside for the moment.)

Do you really think that a isolationist/libertarian lassaiz faire citizens/business driven foreign policy will address these issues in the short or long term leaving a power vacuum?

Kaz, ideology casts a large shadow on your views. These ideological driven views, like other religious views, when taken to the extreme become secure formulas which lead to irresponsible actions and very grave miscalculations. History has proven that point time and time again.

But just to stay on topic, it becomes crystal clear in these leaks that the US government whether under Republicans or Democrats is nowhere anywhere remotely near to follow any tea party "positions" relating foreign policy.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Kaz, ideology casts a large shadow on your views. These ideological driven views, like other religious views, when taken to the extreme become secure formulas which lead to irresponsible actions and very grave miscalculations. History has proven that point time and time again.

You love throwing that word "ideology" in. Belief in the individual making their own choice is "ideology?" Belief in individuals making their own choices is "extreme?" Belief in individuals making their own choices is "dangerous?" I think you have all this backwards.