The Danger of WikiLeaks: Why the organization could be doing more harm than good

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Baldur

 

Exactly why did this happen then? Did it happen because of wikileaks or did it happen because US had stupid 'policies'? Think twice before you answer

edit on 29/11/2010 by PsykoOps because: added reply to:

Both.

The US does have very stupid policies, and we're laughing because finally somebody has caught them out in it.

What government has the right to spy on the UN secretary general? Why do they support some dictators, yet shun some others?

reply to post by airspoon


I'd be interested in knowing what you think about my post, and how you respond. Unless you're scared I'll oust you?

Any chance you could provide some sort of coherent argument?

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by mustfarhan

 

You too are missing the point. In fact, you are so far off the point, I don't know where to begin, other than to say that you should reread the OP.

This isn't really about the idea of exposing the truth, so much as whether it is the truth at all. How do you know that Wikileaks is honest in their quest to expose the truth? Because they told you so? Even if they are telling the truth, it certainly doesn't mean that their source is. In fact, it should just be automatically assumed that the government would purposefully leak disinformation or misinformation, if WL itself isn't their operation to begin with.

As far as some secrets needing to remain secrets, that certainly is the case, though with very limited aspects of government operation. Are you trying to suggest that the locations of nuclear platforms or defense strategies should be made public? How about military maneuvers, giving the time, place, strength and goal? Would this not defeat the whole purpose of defense posturing? Why not then just get rid of the military all together? Do you really think that our freedom would last for more than 24 hours if our military just dissolved over night?

Lets look at this very real hypothetical scenario for instance:

The quantities, capabilities and specifications of nuclear submarines should be kept secret, otherwise potential enemies can use that information to defeat the purposes and effectiveness of these submarines. If they know for instance the diving depths of these submarines, then any enemy can simply adjust their depth charges to counter them or set up sub nets to that particular depth. They can also use electronics to interfere with the depth gage so that the sub implodes, considering that the frequencies of the electronics would be made public too. What about the locations of these subs, should that be made public too? We then lose our strategic edge for being able to respond to a nuclear threat.

The sad fact of the matter is that the world isn't all roses and regardless of whether our military is taken advantage of for nefarious purposes, it is still an absolute necessity to maintain that military, lest we quickly learn how to read and right Chinese or Korean.

Though with that being said, the danger of classified information such as that listed above, is only a small portion of the over-all damage that WL presents, as mentioned in the OP. Just the fact that WL is so easily compromised for disinformation, makes the organization extremely dangerous, at least for those seeking the truth, especially when many people buy into the idea that WL is providing transparency.

Lets just suppose that WL is sincere in their mission statement and by some unknown and odd reason the government decides to refrain from leaking disinfo to WL. WL still doesn't even scratch the surface of making the government transparent. Instead, they would only get the very top layer or the semi secret and relatively mundane information. So, instead of the people focussing on the damaging secrets that the government holds, they will be far too busy focussing on the mundane and relatively unimportant information (that may not even be true, with no way of authenticating) that is leaked through wikileaks, all the while believing that this is the full scope of secrecy.

Again, reread the OP.



--airspoon

Much of the technical stuff is not so far in the realm of the SIPDIS system, or at least I would presume that, although it might be the case that some technical stuff could be gleaned from the lower order of secrecy. BTW, if the stuff is mundane, (as is indicated by the guardian, I'm glad you have read some of the links to it ) then just let Wiki throw it out then, for us poor ignorant souls to nibble at, and perspire over. You seem to have a dizzyingly low opinion of "they" the people. mustfarhan was making his point as he sees it, you can't argue with his intellectual idea, since you are yourself making assumptions about Wiki, and I'm afraid he doesn't seem to agree with you...neither do I really, when it is patently obvious the cables are real, as are all the briefings that have been done by Hilary, et all, in damage limitation.

My thought on the subject from a different thread:


I think the government has taken an interest in the amount of conspiracy theorists that have emerged over the past 10 years. They're not only losing the battle with citizens at the moment; government approval has been way down for a while, their getting butchered. So therefor they must find another spokesperson. Someone who likes computers, likes conspiracies, and seems to be taking a stand against the same things we find so brutal and horrific. He's just like you and me, what better person to transmit false information through then exactly that type of man or to transmit certain information through to further the USA and it's allies endeavors. Although Julian seems like "the saint to open everyone's eyes", in the end he'll probable be more known as "the man that tricked the world". Hopefully the latter isn't the case but from where I'm sitting it just seems to damn fishy.

We have brought harm onto us, the TRUTH however it hurts, whatever harms it may bring, are less of a burden than lies, half truth, and reality engineering.

The one that plays with fire get burned, its that simple.
Do good you will get a plentiful harvest, do bad, you will get excrement for fruit, do worse than bad, well, you get the idea...

It will come, and we will remember forever.


If wikileaks is evil and a false front, then it will get it, on the other hand, if the US is evil and a false front, it will also get it, if not then there is nothing to worry about, is there?

"""The Danger of WikiLeaks: Why the organization could be doing more harm than good"""

We have a bankrupt government trying to do everything on the cheap. What better way to collect intel and data but to create this organization that appears anti-US.....anti-establishment.......where people all over the world will start sending data on every Government on Earth.

It's pure genius. Not only do we collect data for nothing, we find out who our rats are on the ship. Plus there are people dumb enough to donate money and material to the organization.

If I was running the CIA.....I would have created wikileaks. All the crap they've released about us was common knowledge to the rest of the world.

Originally posted by TheOneEyedProphet
We have brought harm onto us, the TRUTH however it hurts, whatever harms it may bring, are less of a burden than lies, half truth, and reality engineering.

The one that plays with fire get burned, its that simple.
Do good you will get a plentiful harvest, do bad, you will get excrement for fruit, do worse than bad, well, you get the idea...

It will come, and we will remember forever.


If wikileaks is evil and a false front, then it will get it, on the other hand, if the US is evil and a false front, it will also get it, if not then there is nothing to worry about, is there?

edit on 29-11-2010 by TheOneEyedProphet because: (no reason given)

Wrong. The world works through cause and effect, not magical 'good and evil'. The world is full of many grays, there is no 'black and white'. Evil wins against good, sometimes, so does good win against evil and grey win against all or none.

Every action has a reaction and intent is separate from both cause and effect. The end may not justify the means, but the morality influences the means, not the end.

You seem to be saying that because Wikileaks isn't able to get the whole truth then it is worthless or dangerous. I disagree. It is better to know at least some of the truth than none at all, as long as you are aware that it is just part of the picture. It at least gives you a foundation to build upon. It gives you a starting point for further inquiry, or a direction to go in.

There have been several revelations already that are noteworthy; for example, the directive to obtain biometrics on political leaders in the UN and elsewhere. This is a startling discovery. It leads to all kinds of further inquiry into the way the US government seeks to operate. That is not for nothing; nor is it necessarily particularly dangerous to the US. So far the Wikileaks drama is unfolding as a fresh approach to understanding the dynamics of world politics. It isn't the all encompasing truth, but I believe it is an opening chapter to the bigger picture.

I just don't buy into this argument that Wikileaks is a risk to national security.

Every country has its intel and its secret services and its spies. It is quite ridiculous, IMO, to think that anything released so far, with the possible exception of US collecting DNA on foreign politicians, is information other countries weren't well aware of via their own intelligence gathering.

I honestly think this 'national security' issue is one pedalled by TPTB to stop people leaking info which could be a threat to their own murderous and covert agenda.

The greatest threat to national security is the Government itself, and those who pull their strings. I mean look at what they have already done to society - and that's just the bit we know about.

This gang of criminals declared war on the people, on the people of the US and the people of the world, and war is not pretty. Wikileaks is part of the fight back. Perfect? no. But we have to dismantle this gang, and things like this are a step on the way.

reply to post by airspoon


what else can we expect from this failed creation
things are much worse than revealed in wikileaks
just look at our planet

Originally posted by Pervius
"""The Danger of WikiLeaks: Why the organization could be doing more harm than good"""

We have a bankrupt government trying to do everything on the cheap. What better way to collect intel and data but to create this organization that appears anti-US.....anti-establishment.......where people all over the world will start sending data on every Government on Earth.

It's pure genius. Not only do we collect data for nothing, we find out who our rats are on the ship. Plus there are people dumb enough to donate money and material to the organization.

If I was running the CIA.....I would have created wikileaks. All the crap they've released about us was common knowledge to the rest of the world.

Exactly. All of this was already known and accepted by people who understand the importance of rational evidence.

Did you actually read through the Leaks or did you just decide to make assumptions on how Wikileaks is a disinformational (like that? I pulled a Palin and made up my own word) organization?

There are no red flags here, my friend. Only harsh truth that will affect our country in the near future.

No way man! Wikileaks is the best thing in the world right now. The media is playing the, well we knew all this information anyway so look away everyone, nothing to see here angle. I think Assange has clearly annoyed TPTB with these leaks and should be congratulated for it...

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Are you saying that they shouldn't have leaked this part which proves Hillary gave illegal orders? This is exactly the reason why such leaks should be made.

You are comparing your country's laws with the United States. When it comes to how the United States deals with other nations, the intelligence agencies dig into foreign diplomat backgrounds as common practice. It is legal in our country. It is also a very supported practice.

We do not answer to a global government. How things are done in Finland (or in the United Nations) do not reflect the United States laws and practices.

edit on 29-11-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Spying is not legal. That's why US puts foreign spies in jail, and that's why other countries put spies in jail.
Intel gathering is done all over the world, but once a spy is caught they are in big trouble. Collecting DNA is a whole other order of things, and one can only speculate why they might want this ---- and it doesn't look good, This is against ALL treaties between allies, unless the allies have given their explicit consent for their DNA to be taken and recorded on the US database. If that had been the case, Hillary wouldn't be sending messages asking diplomats to obtain this.

Imagine, for example, not long ago, Israel faked the identities of some innocent European citizens and tried to frame them for a murder which had been carried out by Mossad.

Imagine if the DNA samples, finger prints, credit card details, passwords, etc which are being collected by US agents are then being passed to Israel, which I suspect they are. Imagine the use that could be made of them.

The release of this info by Wikileaks could well be saving innocent lives by making this info known to the public and other governments.

I am of the opinion that this might be one of the most vital and important, if not the biggest, part of the leaked documents and that it has done the world a huge favour.

However, in a Democratic republic (which is what we have), the government should be completely dependent upon the will of the people. We don't simply elect our politicians to make decisions for us, so much as we elect our politicians to make decisions by us. A monarchy, aristocracy or despotic dictatorship, is one in which a governing body or governor makes decisions for the people, in spite of and independent of the public will. Instead, we elect our leaders to make our decisions or to represent our will. However, any adult with an intelligence level worth its weight in salt, knows that people have to be well informed to make good decisions, thus we have to severely limit what is and what isn't kept secret, lest we not make good decisions.

Here's, clearly resumed, the unfathomable blindness of citizen-thinking in the so-called democracies.

Yes, according to democratic principles the government SHOULD be totally dependent on the will of the people, but in the facts, no. Any major government in the world takes decisions by itself, i.e. through a bureaucracy that is only in parts elected (when really elected). They work like an oligarchy. When these bureaucrats take power, they can just decide whatever they want independently from the will of the people, and then move to something else in their personal, or common, agenda when they leave office. Look at the Bushes and their gang, or the Soetoros, that's exactly what they do. But these are just puppets, advocates of a oligarchy that's deeper and older than their own regime. It's no surprise why so many politicians actually come either from Law school or economics. They are experts at defending big capitalist interests, and this is just what they do when they take a seat. Should the people make assemblies, or other form of LEGAL pressures (as lobbying is not legal), then it always comes down to what this power elite will decide. Look at the 911 Commission. No matter the facts, no matter if claimants were families of the victims, that doesn't matter to the State-appointed bureaucrats of the Commission.

You want a clear, proof of this, OP? When was it the last time that any government body asked your agreement on any bill or resolution, as a citizen? Hard to remember, right?

If no real pressure is brought upon the power elite to change their minds or reconsider their choices, nothing will change. And how to exert that pressure? Well that's part of the joke. All you can do, according to democratic principles, is either to wait until the next elections and do whatever you can to get your candidate elected, and hope that he's gonna fulfill his/her agenda, and not fall within a larger corporate/financial agenda that's out of your reach (what usually happens, for some reason).

In that matter a COLLECTIVE PROJECT like Wikileaks (as this is not an "organization") is doing exaclty the right thing, since EXPOSING what this power elite has been doing puts direct pressure above their heads, making them insecure about their wrongdoings, since they might be one day or another exposed publicly.

The global diplomacy and the "intelligence" community has been behaving like an untouchable upper caste for decades by now, and that kind of thing is only forcing them to be careful of their practices on the long term and make themselves more accountable. In that Wikileaks is keeping the government accountable for what they do, and without accountability you've got NO responsible government, only a tool for the highest bidders. This is just good old investigative journalism for the digital age, brought up against the big wigs, since the big wigs are the most dangerous people around.

But I might be trying to reason a mindless, brainwashed person here, so I just hope I didn't wasted my time...

Great thread!

I kind of view Wikileaks is being used to create a new level of classified information. The new classification is "public," which means it has been carefully chosen by the government to be released specifically for all of us. The government cannot start their new path, whatever it is, without all of us knowing a little of the prelude first. They want us to be a little more informed, and think we know most of what they are dealing with.

Leaking the information through a third party gives us a feeling as if we are the detectives uncovering their secrets, but really it's just a way to get us interested and excited about the information that is being leaked. Leaking the information this way also backs up the government's official stances on Al-Qaeda and Iran. For instance, if the CIA came out and said, "We have gathered intel that directly connects Osama and the Taliban to Iran," virtually everybody on this board would disregard it as false war-mongering. But if the CIA leaked the information to a third party with an increasingly trust worthy reputation in the eyes of the public, the majority of us might eat it up. And if they perhaps released a few scripts of dialogue between agents in the field and headquarters we'd all be more inclined to believe the story.

I think the real tell with Wikileaks will be when they start releasing other government's dirty laundry instead of the U.S.'s. That's when I believe we will know for sure that it is a front. Perhaps the CIA has uncovered important intel on other countries that could cause them serious harm, but they can't revel it themselves because it would hinder the ability of their moles to keep gathering information.

I think we will have a better indication in the next few days and coming weeks.

I have no interest in anything WL.

Because they run themselves like People Magazine or TMZ.

Big News! Coming Soon! Be SURE To Watch!

WL Big Announcement!: There's Another BIG Announcement - Coming Soon! Be SURE To Stay Tuned!

WL Hero Julian Faces Danger!

World Leaders Fear WL Big Announcement!

WL Announces Another Announcement! Breaking News!

Alternative Media Hero Caught In Sex Scandal! Be Sure To Tune In!

WL Announces Super Important Breaking News! Tune In Tomorrow for the first installment which will discuss the future WL installments of Announcements!

WL Is Down! WL Is Back Up! With a New Announcement!

WL is Down Again!

Tune In Tomorrow For Another Episode of As The World Turns!

Be SURE to catch TMZ which immediately follows!

It's all FREAKING GARBAGE. All of it.

Now one might say that WL has been cast in this light by its detractors. Yes, it has. But look at how WL Itself operates. No one has discredited WL more than WL itself.

It operates the same way as "Tabloid Journalists" do.

If they had solid info and really wanted to inform the public - they would do so. Why don't they do this? Why the big freaking circus?

One can only conclude that they're a Dis Info outlet, or "The Big Hero" JA is out for himself. Maybe he's trying to make himself into the next Geraldo Rivera or Jerry Springer.

WL makes Alex Jones look like Edward R. Murrow.

I'll admit before I post, I have not read more than the title and a few paragraphs of your post.

However, I would like to insert my two cents worth: I think that any organization that can keep checks and balances on our government IS good for our country.

In the past, it was the official "press" that was supposed to be doing that. Well, we've all seen in the last 10-20 years how corrupt the press has gotten, now that they are all owned by corporations. Nobody investigates anything serious anymore. Instead, it's all gossip, gossip, gossip. There haven't been any good investigative journalism stories in God-only-knows how long.

So now we have independent journalists (bloggers? media outlets?) picking up where the press dropped the ball.

Is wikileaks owner Julian Assange a journalist? No, he's just releasing information.

But is he as effective as a good investigative journalist?? Yes.

So, I've been reading some of the stuff that has come out...and I tell you, I'm glad that SOMEBODY is letting us know these things, such as:
-Saudi Arabia wants us to blow up Iran (but want us to take the blame for it)
-NK sold Iran nuclear arms and missiles (despite Iran's protests that they have no nuclear weapons)
-we think Hamid Karzai is paranoid (so why have we put him in power??)

This is good information to have.

Checks and balances. Checks and balances. If the press had not done such a terrible job the last 10-20 years and dropped the ball, we wouldn't need things like wikileaks.

And, the fact that we CAN"T seem to contain state secrets anymore is just as troubling as the secrets that were revealed. Our government is inept in more ways than one, it seems.

reply to post by airspoon


Awesome post. I happen to agree with your second point that WL is operating as disinformation. I believe it is their purpose at this point after having established credibility with truth seekers, and conspiracy types out there, to now put out the disinformation to make a legit argument for an attack on Iran. I believe this is mainly about helping support a military strike on Iran.

Interesting the saudia arabia financiers financing terrorists al quida and wasnt it 9 saudias found to be the hijacking teams in the 911 twin towers !!
Didnt the saudis open a flight zone top of saudi arabia for isreali jets to bomb iran sometime last may or june

Great post and interesting discussion!

One thing good coming from this "dump" is that we get to understand better who are the real shills. They are the ones that are pumping this without any discussion of the likelihood that this is a controlled (CIA/MOSSAD) dump. DrundeReport and Alex Jones, for example, are either shills or dummies!