What is your opinion on WikiLeaks?

Post Reply New Topic

Replace "Osama Bin Laden" with "Salman Rushdie" and you get a new way to see what's really going on.

We've become the enemy.

if they don't attack me personally they can do what they want i don't care.

you wanted opinons...

what about indirectly?

like how would they do that can you give me an example?

there actions causing the government to get twitchy (i.e over reacting/closing the barn door after the horse is out) about what's on the internet (see: tsa body scanner)

I'm amazed at how many people think this guy is a 'good guy'.

He's not a journalist, he's a convicted hacker who has nothing left in his life, other than to continue his 'hack the planet' mentality.

Actively seeking classified documentation concerning a governments military practices is considered espionage - something that's still considered serious enough to be put to death for in many countries.

For all those idiots that are downloading his 'insurance' file; they should consider the fact that merely possessing classified material (if not authorized) is tantamount to aiding and abetting in the distribution of 'stolen government property' across state and national lines - which is a felony!

As for the so called 'Collateral Murder', the first responders (soldiers) stated that there were several AK47's and a RPG laying on the ground among the body parts of the 'Reuters' journalists that were killed. Why exactly would a journalist need a RPG?

Assange is an idiot.

Put it this way, if Bradly Manning didn't pass all of the information that WikiLeaks has been throwing around, then where did the (Hacker) get it?

If Manning did give the information (treason) to a foreign national (Assange) and Assange was directing him to do so, that makes Assange the 'Handler' of Manning (that's an intel term). In short, he's committed espionage against the USA - and then thrown it out through his website. What an idiot!

What do I think of the guy and what he's done? I think he has no idea what he's doing, he has no idea who he's compromising, and he doesn't care about the consequences to anyone other than his own ego.

Redacted information does not prevent against situational analysis - essentially reverse engineering the situation in an effort to identify individuals concerned. Assange is not an intelligence analyst. Manning was the lowest level intel analyst. As in, neither Manning, nor Assange have the professional experience necessary to effectively redact any form of int sum - they have effectively killed quite a few intelligence operatives.

You should also remember, those operatives you are congratulating Assange for compromising (not to mention their wives, husbands, kids, siblings, parents and so on) do what they do for very little money, in very dangerous situations, with little to no recognition - all so that you can sleep soundly at night, comfortable in the knowledge that some fanatic is extremely unlikely to detonate a WMD on your street corner.

You can't expect your country (wherever you are from) to keep you safe from crazies in the world, while supporting the crazies in the world who oppose how your country keeps you safe.

Do our governments kill bad guys? Yup.

Unless we are the one's tasked with killing the 'bad guys' we shouldn't really complain about 'how' they are killed.

+100 for free speech. The information should be in the public domain, especially if the government isn't smart enough to keep it secret.

As for the guy who got caught? He is royally screwed.

OK, let's go with 'The information should be in the public domain' theory.

Post your bank account details, along with your name, DOB, place of birth and your SSN.

Then, let's wait and see how you feel about the 'no more secrets' philosophy of life.

I generally think transparency in government is a good thing. Uncontrolled leaks like Assange is doing are not the optimal way to reach that goal, but it is the only option since the government will not allow itself to be held accountable for blatant criminal activity.


RPG? That was a camera tripod, which is pretty normal for a journalist to have. The soldiers didn't have a good view and were way too twitchy.


The US defense secretary has stated that no agents or informants have actually been compromised by the leaks, and in fact every national defense department that has looked at the documents has concluded that there is no one they need to protect as a result of someone being compromised by the leaks.


Do our governments engage in illegal undeclared wars in Yemen? Yup.
Do our governments engage in illegal espionage against the UN and our allies? Yup.
Do our governments violate the terms of treaties they have signed by facilitating the use of barbaric and outlawed weapons? Yup.
Do our governments torture and violate basic human rights? Yup.
And this is just the beginning. Only a small fraction of the documents have been released as of yet.

You have not a clue what you are talking about.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04 ... he-ground/

I know precisely what I am talking about. I've seen that video.

And even your own source acknowledges that those were civilians, including journalists, who were killed. You have to be mildly crazy to dispute that.

McCord stated "However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there."

I'm crazy?

Whatever.

"Orwell" My source isn't a source, it's a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT.

Learn to read, for the love of god.

It amazes me (although I should be used to it by now) how many idiots have a slant on war without having the first clue what it's like to actually go to war.

You speak about war as if you read about it in a book.

You viewed the HUD feed once. Pilots are trained over thousands of flight hours, not to mention 'threat recognition' - however, you with your 'cool aid' in hand, sitting comfortably at your screen typing away with both of your brain cells rubbing together for warmth - yes you have a handle on what it is to go to war and make calls based on ROE.

If you feel that you can do a better job than the pilots, join up. Put your money where your very large mouth is.

Then when some spotty little nerd wants to hack into systems that contain data about your operations, risking your life as well as that of everyone you know and love, we'll see how you feel about the situation.

Why don't you stick to comic books and internet porn, as you know nothing about combat.

Respectfully, I don't think you understood my reply. The "no more secrets" part is not a philosphy of life, it is a philosophy of government. What I meant was, in my opinion the public has a right to the information that was leaked by the Wiki Leaks guy under Freedom of Speech. Sorry for any confusion.

Fair enough, no offense taken.

Freedom of speech (first amendment) doesn't cover national security and cases of espionage.

Or, another way to view it is; freedom of speech is a right, however, viewing (possessing) classified documents is not a right. Therefore, to speak about classified documents you don't have a legal right to read/possess is after the fact.

Fixer: Are you denying that those were Reuter's journalists? Their corpses were identified. Literally no one disputes that they were journalists.

For the record, I don't really blame the soldiers who were involved in that incident. It appeared to them that they were looking at insurgents. It was an honest mistake in a tense situation, but it was a mistake nonetheless. Civilians died. The "collateral murder" video (that is a terrible name for it) gives a gruesome depiction of how bad war is, but policy-wise the leaked cables are much more interesting. Those document actual criminal activity on the part of government agents.

I note that you did not respond to my other points. As far as any defense agency in the world can tell, no agents have been compromised by the leaks. Many of these documents are not a matter of "national security," but rather a matter of "crimes have been committed by the government's orders and we don't want to be held accountable."

And please refrain from the personal attacks.