It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 answeredit on 29/11/2010 by PsykoOps because: added reply to:
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.