Wikileaks: Support or Against?

Good to release it.

Overrated as to importance, most of this stuff is a collective yawn.

bit of news wrote:

When they don't like the message the messenger is always the target.

Support 100%.

The world has always been controlled by keeping the masses in the dark.

I can not believe that people, who are part of that mass group, want to shut down the source of any information.

Why do they think that we are to stupid to make our own decisions while they are qualified to make them for us?

Those are the one's in the 70 I.Q. division in my opinion.

Diplomacy is classic game theory as each side attempts to both maximize the information it has and minimize the information of the other side. In that sense, it might harm the US if any of the information was not widely known to others who might have conflicting interests. So far it does not look that way but there is a ton of data no out there. It is far more damaging on the PR side, and creates a lot of extra work for diplomatic staff - so no wonder they are pissed.

Likely the diplomatic staff do think that the population is too stupid to make decisions on diplomatic matters, the same way you could take a random person off the street and put them into your job and they would likely make some very poor decisions because they do not have the knowledge or experience you have.

Justice Stewart says it perfectly in 1971:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZC3.html

diplomatic strategy aside, the information that has been supplied by united states government sources proves that barack obama and hillary clinton are zionist war criminals.

Totally support Wikileaks.

Not saying that government operations should be completely tranparent all the time, but I also believe government hides WAAAAAAYYYYYY too much because it is corrupt and fears incrimination. In reality, there are probably a scant few "secrets" that are held truly in the best interests of the country.

If there was ever a legitimate reason for classified and confidential information, then it seems the government would take more secure steps not to risk leaks. Translated, Wikileaks is not to blame. The blame falls, once again, to our utterly inept government.

Im just wondering if anything like this has happened before? A mass leak of documents no one but those with top secret clearance has seen?

Also do you think this can shape the government in future endeavors? from elections in our country to support of another?

obama is a war criminal wrote:

diplomatic strategy aside, the information that has been supplied by united states government sources proves that George W. Bush and his entire administration are zionist war criminals and should be prosecuted.

Fixed it for you.

Excellent citation. Interestingly, this opinion is not far off of Wikileak's goal--to force the involved parties (the U.S. Government, other governments, corporations, etc.) to make better decisions about what information is important enough to protect, and what information must be shared.

I don't see that many people are understanding that as "bad" as some of the consequences of the leaks might be, there are some significant "good" things that will happen as well. For example, there are already some serious diplomatic shifts underway with regard to North Korea, by China due to what was contained in the leaks. Some analysts think these leaks could open the door to a reunification of Korea that would be acceptable to the U.S, Japan, China, and other countries in the Pacific Rim.

Wikileaks is not all good, or all bad, but it is definitely a positive thing for the average person.

common wrote:

Wikileaks is not all good, or all bad, but it is definitely a positive thing for the average person.

How is that a good thing for the average person?

Definitely a good thing. It's important for Americans to realize what they are funding and what is being done in their name.

In the empire of lies truth is treason.

By their nature, these information leaks are biased toward damaging parties with negative intentions toward the average person. Take two banks. Both have 1000 internal loan policy documents leaked. One bank has been following the law to the letter, and one has been using illegal, predatory practices. Are the reputations of both banks going to be damaged equally when the leaks are made public? Are the customers of both banks (average persons), as a whole, going to be helped or hurt by the leaks?

It may hurt some people who accepted the loans, but it will help others to avoid that bank, and it will help still more people when other banks are dissuaded from taking the risk of getting caught doing illegal things. Just one example, but that's my general point.

i dunno man. i don't see very much similarity in your bank situation and the Wikileaks situation. I don't think that Wikileaks is the right way to handle this.

For instance, what do you think about Wikileaks exposing the possible diplomats-turned-into-spies? Does no one see how harmful that could be to any U.S. officials in other countries?

None of us knows exactly what is going on in these high-level politics. There was a saying when we were little kids: "Stay out of grown folks' business". We don't know everything but want to act and have an opinion about everything.

I do not mean that we should have a total blind eye to the government, but I'm saying that I'm not sure if Wikileaks is the right way to handle this if you have a problem with the government's activities.

Okay, take that example. Some of our diplomats are now considered spies. What are the consequences? Getting a diplomat killed? Highly doubtful. The real consequence is our diplomats are no longer trusted, and they lose credibility. This is the goal of exposing leaks--to force parties (in this example, the U.S. diplomats) to account for their behavior, positive or negative. In order for our diplomats to regain credibility and trust, they have to be more open, more transparent, etc. in order to accomplish their goals. If we are acting in an unfair or abusive fashion, it forces us to change our behavior.

If the leaks show we are already acting in good faith, being fair and truthful, trust and credibility increase, which allows us to further our goals and agendas.

It appears that much of what was released was not intended to create transparancy and accountability but to embarrass the US government. For that reason, I am against.

Unfortunately, some will die due to the information leaked by US Government employees. The calculated hope is that in the end fewer will die as a result of the truth being released about the crimes of the Obama Administration.

gOOD-- It is confirming a lot of things that people have doubted, and the damage caused by it will be minimal. Would I want all info all the time to be available to the public? No -- but an occasional unexpected release of the info will keep diplomats on their toes.

Save Lives wrote:

Unfortunately, some will die due to the information leaked by US Government employees.

Who has died because of Wikileaks?

Bad, it is treason.

Now, if they just kept to leaks of unclassified material...

Total transparency is not always a good thing. Even with those you love, would you really want them to know everything you've said about them in every situation?

No one is going to be perfect in their job, but I think we have to afford diplomats the ability to selectively share information as necessary to best represent the interests, short and long term, of the country. It's childish to think everything will be better if we're just completely open and honest with everyone we meet. Part of growing up is knowing there is a time and a place for everything.

Wikileaks just crapped out all this information, most of which does little but destroy relationships which have taken years to develop and may take years to rebuild. This leak does not bring the world any closer to singing Kumbaya.