WikiLeaks - Hero or Troublemaker?

[Sophus]

More news on Assange:

Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.”

He is also being investigated in connection with accusations of rape and molestation involving two Swedish women. Mr. Assange has denied the allegations, saying the relations were consensual. But prosecutors in Sweden have yet to formally approve charges or dismiss the case eight weeks after the complaints against Mr. Assange were filed, damaging his quest for a secure base for himself and WikiLeaks. Though he characterizes the claims as “a smear campaign,” the scandal has compounded the pressures of his cloaked life.

When questioned about the rape allegations he walked out of a CNN interview.

[youtube:19tkupv3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_0-KUaQl7k[/youtube:19tkupv3]
Guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

[jduster]

assange is an attention-seeking demagogue who is divulging information which would outrage many simple-minded wishy-washy people.

[Will]

It turns out the Pentagon has admitted that no intelligence sources have been compromised by wikileaks, meaning the argument about putting people in danger, according to the Pentagon, is no longer valid.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/22/ ... el_leak_in

[Thumpalumpacus]

Will the US government censor Wikileaks with SDN? I hope not.

You may not know what the SDN list (Specially Designated Nationals) is but we´ll explain. It’s the US version of Iran and Chinas state censorship machine.

Conspicuous by its absence from this article was any mention of the complicity of the registrars in shutting down those sites.

[Sophus]

A new blizzard of leaked documents from WikiLeaks!  

They can't possibly be putting troops lives in danger this time around (can they?) so what shall the counter arguments come to now?

I hate to admit it but I seriously fear for Julian Assange's life right now.

[Asmodean]

Me, I think the secret keepers should have the right to preserve their secrecy.  

Doesn't matter if I know... doesn't matter if the old lady next door knows... But who can tell what someone can do, who is willing to use such leaks for gains of their own..?

[Sophus]

Me, I think the secret keepers should have the right to preserve their secrecy.  

Doesn't matter if I know... doesn't matter if the old lady next door knows... But who can tell what someone can do, who is willing to use such leaks for gains of their own..?

I think that depends on what the secrets are. But more to the point, if we are to call ourselves a Democracy shouldn't the voters be given transparency from their government?

[karadan]

This 'outrage' is severely misplaced in my opinion. It shouldn't be aimed at the whistleblowers but should be aimed at the government by the government. Most of this smacks of people being pissed off just because they've been shown to be the arrogant and bullish officials they so obviously are. Most governments are so concerned with hiding their own mistakes and agendas just to save face that when something like this comes out, their misgivings are always about 'national security' yadda yadda. It makes a mockery of this transparency they're so fond of. Anyway, many reasons for people to keep secrets is because they've done something wrong.

Hopefully Wikileaks will continue to make governments think twice before being such arrogant wankers.

[Asmodean]

I think that depends on what the secrets are. But more to the point, if we are to call ourselves a Democracy shouldn't the voters be given transparency from their government?

To make the answer short, no. There are many shades of democracy - from near dictatorship to near anarchy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Me, I think the secret keepers should have the right to preserve their secrecy.  

Doesn't matter if I know... doesn't matter if the old lady next door knows... But who can tell what someone can do, who is willing to use such leaks for gains of their own..?

I think that depends on what the secrets are. But more to the point, if we are to call ourselves a Democracy shouldn't the voters be given transparency from their government?

Diplomacy often requires discretion.  Governments are often unwilling to support something in public but will support the same thing privately: witness Saudi's discreet support of Israel in the late 90s as a regional counterweight to Iran.

There are times where stuff like this should be public.  Honestly, wikileaks appears no more nor less trustworthy than any government I've seen.

[Sophus]

Me, I think the secret keepers should have the right to preserve their secrecy.  

Doesn't matter if I know... doesn't matter if the old lady next door knows... But who can tell what someone can do, who is willing to use such leaks for gains of their own..?

I think that depends on what the secrets are. But more to the point, if we are to call ourselves a Democracy shouldn't the voters be given transparency from their government?

Diplomacy often requires discretion.  Governments are often unwilling to support something in public but will support the same thing privately: witness Saudi's discreet support of Israel in the late 90s as a regional counterweight to Iran.

There are times where stuff like this should be public.  Honestly, wikileaks appears no more nor less trustworthy than any government I've seen.

I feel as though there are some cases in which you would be right, Thump. One major problem I see, however, with most critiques of WikiLeaks doing is that all arguments are constructed of these very vague hypothetical scenarios. I don't see much analysis of specific cases and instances where leaked information from WikiLeaks is dangerous. Perhaps this is because they bombard us with all this information at once. It may be more to their benefit if they released secrets one at a time so we can all together focus our attention on the issue at hand. For instance, why should Hillary Clinton's spying in international code violation be excused?

This seems to be a tactic of the governments: to oversimplify the issue and focus on all of the scary yet unexplained possibilities of leaked classified information without focusing on what that information is.

I would seriously be in favor for signing a petition-like request of sorts asking that WikiLeaks release information in gradual small bits so we can actually digest it without the propaganda blowing everyone's circuits out. It would be much to their benefit.

[The Magic Pudding]

For instance, why should Hillary Clinton's spying in international code violation be excused

Is this coming from the Hilary Clinton is the Antichrist people?
I would be happy if governments were held to higher standards, but I'd be very sceptical if it started with Hilary.  How about the instigators of the Iraq war?

Among the targeted were Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and permanent security-council representatives from China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom

I'm sure those countries are squeaky clean, it's a shame I wore out my Rainbow Warrior tee-shirt years ago.

[Sophus]

Is this coming from the Hilary Clinton is the Antichrist people?
I would be happy if governments were to higher standards, but I'd be very sceptical if it started with Hilary.  How about the instigators of the Iraq war?

To the best of my knowledge, no. Slate is a very liberal magazine. It was also mentioned in that article:

To be fair to Clinton, she isn't the first secretary of state to issue cables telling U.S. foreign service officers to spy on other diplomats. According to the leaked diplomatic cables, Condoleezza Rice likewise instructed State Department diplomats to collect such intelligence, and I wouldn't be surprised if previous secretaries of state encouraged if not instructed their diplomats to push information-collection all the way to intelligence-gathering.

Among the targeted were Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and permanent security-council representatives from China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom
I'm sure those countries are squeaky clean, it's a shame I wore out my Rainbow Warrior tee-shirt years ago.

Does it take a WikiLeaks for everyone to suddenly try to justify the corruption from within one's own government? WikiLeaks does not discriminate and would as soon as publish any dirty secrets of these countries as well. Either way Hilary needs to be explaining her "justification" for this spying instead of trying to direct our attention on how awful these leaks are.

[Sophus]

WikiLeaks' next target is big business. Banks more specifically. I don't imagine there will be any outcry against this leaking of information. If there's anything that will get people's interest it's money, right?

[karadan]

If anything, these leaked cables have made some astonishing reading. Who'd have thought China wanted a united Korea?