Kolya on 7/12/2010 at 23:04

---

Why not just stay with that? Or you could assume that because I mentioned the biggest German news magazine, which happens to be involved in the topic, I must be some mindless drone who needs to be taught by posting a handful of private conspiracy blogs. Thank you, I'll read them later.

demagogue on 7/12/2010 at 23:07

---

And my whole point was the release of the security target's memo had nothing to do with whistle-blowing (whistle-blowing what? The corruption of this strategic bridge?) and everything to do with Assange & Co. covering their asses by using the information not as a coercive tool to make government policy better, but as a coercive tool to strengthen their individual position against lashbacks. Once control of the information becomes part of what helps Wikileaks and not what helps the public, they're in a conflict of interest and the game changes.



This is where I think we disagree. Reality 101: Nobody is neutral. Every organization has partisan interests that can sometimes hurt the public interest if there's no check. They've already gone on record that they are ready to use the information for decidedly non-neutral reasons even if it severely hurts the public interest. Is releasing all 250K diplomatic cables wholesale in the public's best interest? Wikileaks has a conflict of interest between protecting themselves and the public, and when push comes to shove the public can't trust them.

Governments are full of secretive assholes, no doubt. But they also have checks to deal with them: whistleblowing laws & regulations, administrative panels, courts of law, political hearings, "Freedom of Information" procedures, democratic elections. When we can't trust them, we go to a judge and bring the fucking hammer of the law down on them. Wikileaks has: their word for it. When we can't trust them, we're fucked, because they hold all the information to do damage to us, and there's no external check to stop them, much less democratic accountability. They set their own standards and pretend that the democratically legitimated laws and regulations on what defines classified status in the public interest don't apply to them, nor any actual enforceable responsibility to act in the public interest for that matter.

Edit:


My point was that that leak shows he's not 100% committed to the public interest with what gets released. The NYTimes put it, it was "A shot across the bow" to show his position of power, carefully picked not to have anything really dangerous but making it clear that there are dangerous memos in his possession and he's ready to use them. That's why I thought it hurt is credibility as a disinterested white knight ready to help the public at all costs.

Kuuso on 7/12/2010 at 23:30

---

You could say that about most of the stuff they've released. There's so much irrelevant cables there that serve absolutely no purpose, but they're released anyhow to paint the picture how goverment works in full. Sure, leaking "strategic hot spots" might have no usage, especially when the info is something anyone could dig up in a few minutes. I see how you're saying that they've released these to show off their power. I think it's just a matter of media and US goverment hopping on to the most controversial cables to stir up hate against Wikileaks even though there's no real reason for that. If they hadn't released it, it would have been far worse - they would have gone against their ideology.
Nobody is neutral, but I'm more than happy to see an another player in the field. We can't ultimately trust Wikileaks, but neither we can the politicians and systems in place. This is the whole point of media - to be the watchdog of politics. It is up to the reader to deduct what is correct and what is not based on the evidence provided. Wikileaks is airing dirty laundry no other media would have aired, they're doing their job as a part of media perfectly even though they might be tinged to a direction or another.

I admit I'm just disillusioned by the US goverment, but I just don't trust the system. I have way more trust in Finnish goverment even though our political leavage is miniscule compared.

What this whole argument comes down to is how power works. A system works, when there is a next level to supervise the lower one. The problem is that there's always bound to be the highest level that goes without checks. There's loads of ways the nations circumvent the problem, most notably Montesquieu's separation power to legislative, executive and juridiciary. The problem is that political parties et al have long functioned in all of these. It's been long known that media serves as the fourth power that keeps check on all the other powers. Vice versa, the other powers keep media in check so they obey the laws.

Nowadays mainstream media is so centralized to certain companies and people that dissecting real information has become a real task, but more importantly, they've become fully integrated into the politics. Even more importantly, they've been bought out and silenced. This is why I welcome Wikileaks with open arms. It's hardly perfect, but it's motives lie somewhere else than making money.

Taffer36 on 8/12/2010 at 00:11

---

How? If it is true that the targets are indeed not particularly secret, then the leak is not dangerous in any way. As far as I know, it has been incorrectly interpreted as appearing to be dangerous. Moreover, I think your interpretation of that particular cable is misinformed because it comes from various government officials speaking on their own terms with biased and emotional interpretations of it. You bring up a very good point about the "thermonuclear device" ordeal, and that's where the majority of moral incongruity directed at Wikileaks should come from, IMO.

Also, the NYTimes are amongst the group of news organizations that are, in fact, publishing a vast majority of the cables BEFORE wikileaks does. One point that is often missed is that Wikileaks attempted to work with the US to properly censor the cables. Failing that, they went to various news organizations (including the NYTimes) and DID indeed remove important names and things of that nature. Then those organizations published most of the cables first. All-in-all, you either condemn every single organization that has published ANYTHING about the cables, or you condemn none of them. Again, the primary reason (if not only reason) to single out Wikileaks is the "thermonuclear device."

Edit: People aren't discussing it at the moment, but I've heard murmurings of outrage over potential deaths from these cables. I don't see how these cables would lead to deaths, but haven't read particularly much on the actual cables so I'd be happy to learn more.

shellac on 8/12/2010 at 11:15

---

What's really noticable in this thread is the knee jerk reaction when somebody proposes a view that doesn't go conform with "the widely accepted facts" and "what's on TV". People immediately shout "conspiracy nut!".
Ofcourse there is really weird stuff like:
-"ufos flew into the world trade center!"
-"the oil spill will cause the whole american continent to sink!!" etc.
These can be called desinformation, the purpose is to ridicule and thin out the facts, and thereby turn off people with "common sense" from dealing with such topics at all.

Applied in repetitive patterns over time this has the effect of conditioning, also called brainwashing.
It's mass psychology, no less: everyone has their beliefs and views, and these are important for their mental stability. Nobody really likes to have these beliefs challenged, because that would mean insecurity and the need for new orientation.
It also works awesomely over the internet, which most users see as harmless fun (and not as a possibility of objective information), and where someone proposing dissenting viewpoints can be quickly and conveniently brushed off as a troll or conspiracy nut or someone who has the nerve to teach others.
What people fail to see is they can live in denial only for as long as the facts don't affect their lives directly, but sooner or later, maybe even around ten corners, they will.

The "conspiracy blogs" are some of the few possibilities left (to people who haven't given up thinking for themselves) for free information. And as mentioned above there's alot of fantastic and obscure stuff (desinformation), which makes things harder and more time consuming.
Don't you wonder why so many countries regulate and control the internet, or atleast strongly try to do so? Ofcourse they say it's for a greater good, i.e. to stop child pornography (germany), but these laws are so "elastic", they can and will be expanded anytime and applied to the liking of those in power. To shut off adverse and inconvenient opinions, sites, discussions, groups.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pipileaks incident would be used once again as cause to call "for more control over the internet, so such incidents won't happen again, which endager our security and peace, our way of life!".

"Free press is the freedom of 200 rich people to publish their agenda" -Paul Sethe, co-founder of the „Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung“, 1965