Wikileaks Part Deuce

Well maybe I am naive however, I personally feel that Julian Assange has done something good by exposing secrets that powerful officials want to keep secret, and for not so good intentions. I see wiki as a sort of checks and balances on the powers that be that we might not otherwise have in this country. With the internet comes free access to information and on bad government behavior.

The people who are most opposed to this site are the ones who don't want the dirty secrets to come out. Our government hides way to much from us as it is.

Secrecy breeds corruption and does little but foster suspicion from the whole world. Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

I agree with you. I also think the so called rape scandal was something implemented on him and never happened. I think the guy is smart. Way too smart and he will suffer for it. Unfortunately.

We already have a set of checks and balances that has been in place for over 200 years, we don't need the internet and attention grabbing Assange doing it for us. There's a fine line between making politicians weekend expenditures transparent and putting confidential military information online that may endanger US lives. Personally I don't think the general public is ready to handle complete transparency. Riots have started over basketball games do you really think it prudent to allow masses access to information never intended for their consumption? Information always comes at a price. Originally Posted by Sa_artman

I disagree. Potential military information is spread out already no matter what. What did not happen is that potential abusers of power were not handled correctly. I personally think its outrageous what happens and under what circumstances things happen. But i see the point in harming lives. I do see that and i agree with you. But Assange is no more attention seeking than anyone else. ANd yes - me the masses have the right to know certain things that happen in my government. I have a right to know what i support with my taxes and my votes. I am personally outraged that my country sells weapons to Iran. Its simply outrageous. Not because they sell it to Iran but because they sell it anyway.

I think Wiki is garbage. Personal or confidential should be kept that way. We all have our secrets. What if they leaked your info from here or elsewhere?

I think Wiki is garbage. Personal or confidential should be kept that way. We all have our secrets. What if they leaked your info from here or elsewhere? Originally Posted by MyKindaParty

so be it. why should the whistleblower be worse than the one who hides stuff for pretentious reasons? Having secrets is a way of manipulatins already.

I think Wiki is garbage. Personal or confidential should be kept that way. We all have our secrets. What if they leaked your info from here or elsewhere? Originally Posted by MyKindaParty

So does that means things like Teapot Dome, Watergate and Iran-Contra should been kept secret as well?

Is there a line where things should be public or private?

Who decides?

Cheers,
Mazo.

So does that means things like Teapot Dome, Watergate and Iran-Contra should been kept secret as well?

Is there a line where things should be public or private?

Who decides?

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Good point. Maybe everyone who breaks a law should have their name and pic broadcast on the news. Seems fair.

Good point. Maybe everyone who breaks a law should have their name and pic broadcast on the news. Seems fair. Originally Posted by MyKindaParty

OK, so now here's the really hard one:

One of the big WikiLeaks releases was the video of the US helicopter strike of 12 July 2007 in Iraq.

There are many, many international law and military experts who believe that the helicopter pilots and their commanders committed a war crime in that incident by firing on people coming to the aid of those wounded in the first attack. Two unarmed people trying to help a wounded man were killed and two children seriously wounded in the second attack that day.

The Geneva Convention specifically gives protection to those who "collect and care" for the wounded in a war zone "whether friend or foe" but the US government denies that there was a problem with the actions taken that day.

So what do you do now? Is it right to release the tape if you believe a crime was committed?

These are not easy problems . . . .

Cheers,
Mazo.

so be it. why should the whistleblower be worse than the one who hides stuff for pretentious reasons? Having secrets is a way of manipulatins already. Originally Posted by ninasastri

I my opinion yes they are. I simply was raised that way. I keep my mouth closed about what my neighbor does and pay the penalty for what I get caught doing. Whistleblower's typically are trying to get out of what they done such as Wiki's owner. Which of course is manipulation itself. Therefore as Thomas Jefferson said " What business is it of mine what my neighbor does?" The iran contra scandal and watergate had zero effect on my life.

So does that means things like Teapot Dome, Watergate and Iran-Contra should been kept secret as well?

Is there a line where things should be public or private?

Who decides?

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I am guessing those aren't government secrets, or you wouldn't be bringing them up.

But what about the Manhattan Project, the Enigma machine, Operation Overlord, Operation Chromite, or troop deployments for Operation Desert Storm or subsequent military engagements? Or the technology behind the SR-71 and B-2?

One of the big WikiLeaks releases was the video of the US helicopter strike of 12 July 2007 in Iraq. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

That video, when first relesed, was edited to omit the men carrying the RPG and the AK-47s. Now who is being dishonest?

OK, so now here's the really hard one:

One of the big WikiLeaks releases was the video of the US helicopter strike of 12 July 2007 in Iraq.

There are many, many international law and military experts who believe that the helicopter pilots and their commanders committed a war crime in that incident by firing on people coming to the aid of those wounded in the first attack. Two unarmed people trying to help a wounded man were killed and two children seriously wounded in the second attack that day.

The Geneva Convention specifically gives protection to those who "collect and care" for the wounded in a war zone "whether friend or foe" but the US government denies that there was a problem with the actions taken that day.

So what do you do now? Is it right to release the tape if you believe a crime was committed?

These are not easy problems . . . .

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

If I saw someone killed on the street sure. As for military and being from a family with 4 WWII veterans including my father the answer is no I would not. Even though Dad got screwed by them. If you are a member of the military the answer is usually easy. There are a few that differ but not many. It's kinda like who decides what is a war crime during war. Who is it fair to Kill? Why is it fair to kill them? If we see it as fair to kill should civilians who have no clue as to what it is like to be here judge us for it?

I agree with you. I also think the so called rape scandal was something implemented on him and never happened. I think the guy is smart. Way too smart and he will suffer for it. Unfortunately. Originally Posted by ninasastri

Without a doubt that was created in an effort to get him and arrest him. I don't think people are that dumb? Oh wait.. maybe some are! *shakes head* Some will just believe anything.

That video, when first relesed, was edited to omit the men carrying the RPG and the AK-47s. Now who is being dishonest? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are.

I'm not talking about the first attack on the reporters. That was clearly inside the rules of engagement and consistent with Geneva principles.

I'm talking about the second attack - the one the US constantly refuses to even talk about.

The second attack was on two people who drove up to the scene in a mini-van. They saw a wounded man on the road, got out, and started trying to help him into the van to take him for care. For that they got killed and the two kids in the van seriously wounded. Those people weren't armed and the US has never even suggested that they were.

I've seen two basic camps on this second attack: 1) it's a war crime, and 2) let's change the subject.

I agree with you that the first attack was in bounds. No question there. It's a sad fuck up that the civilians were killed in the first attack but I don't see anything illegal about it.

Firing on people coming to aid the wounded, though, is way, way outside the lines of Geneva and I've never heard anybody argue that what happened in the second attack didn't cross those lines. Whenever you bring it up people just say - as you did - "well, there was an AK-47 there . . . . "

Cheers,
Mazo.

So does that means things like Teapot Dome, Watergate and Iran-Contra should been kept secret as well?

Is there a line where things should be public or private?

Who decides?

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

.
Yep as I B said those aren't government secrets. Simply government officials who got caught breaking the law. Though I would have enjoyed Ashley Dupree's pics even if it were a government secret leaked by Wiki.

.
Yep as I B said those aren't government secrets. Simply government officials who got caught breaking the law. Though I would have enjoyed Ashley Dupree's pics even if it were a government secret leaked by Wiki. Originally Posted by MyKindaParty

Iran-Contra was, in fact, a government "secret". In fact, most of the material surrounding the actual arms transactions is still classified. We won't fully know what happened - and whether Reagan was or was not aware of it - until the archives are declassified in 20-30 years or so.

The initial transactions of the Teapot Dome scandal were also kept secret under the guise of government interest. At the time the oil fields were initially leased the Secretary of Interior sealed the non-competitive bids he gave out on the leases in an attempt to hide his involvement the affair. It's one of the things that led to open-bid contracts in government.

Finally, Watergate was all about secrecy. Nixon didn't get in trouble for burglary, he got in trouble for using the resources of the government to try and hide what was going on.

All of these incidents involved the use of government secrecy mechanism in one form or another. All of them also involved individuals who leaked information to the media in order to end the corruption. Seems pretty on-point to me.

Cheers,
Mazo.


Cheers,
Mazo.