Wikileaks, Protector of freedoms or terrorist organisation? Options

[Mcoot]

I'm sure you've all seen the media blitz surrounding the 'Wikileaks' organisation in the last few days.

It stems from their release of 250,000 secret cables from various US embassies, revealing information about the United States' diplomacy efforts.

The American government have criticised the website, and various congressmen have called for Wikileaks to be declared a 'terrorist organisation'. Various right-wing pundits have called for its founder, Julian Assange to be assassinated or brought on charges of espionage and treason (though he can't be charged with treason as he is an Australian citizen, not an American one). The US government has stated that the information 'endangers Americans', though no proof of this has been offered.

Interpol has issued a warrant for his arrest on 'Sex Crimes', stemming from an alleged incident where he had non-consensual sex with two women in Sweden.

In my opinion, this last bit seems mighty suspicious. The original charges were brought just as Wikileaks leaked a large number of documents pertaining to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were released, and these arrest warrants have been brought during another large leak. I honestly think that this is a ploy to tarnish Wikileaks' reputation. It is possible that he really did commit those crimes, but if so he committed them at times that were very convenient for certain governments.

In addition, the Wikileaks website has been repeatedly brought down by Distributed Denial of Service attacks. After its hosting kicked it out, it sought refuge in Amazon's hosting. American officials had talks with Amazon, who then booted Wikileaks out of their hosting. This has continued, and as of now, wikileaks.org is unaccessable, though it can be found through domains such as wikileaks.ch and wikileaks.de.

This raises the question: is Wikileaks a terrorist organisation, leaking secrets that will harm the United States? Or is it protecting free speech?

In my opinion, Wikileaks is important. It protects free speech and should not be taken down just because it exposes secrets the government would not like seen. That there is such an outrage by governments over it shows that the ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of information, and scrutiny of the government are not being upheld.

What are your opinions?

[literarygoth]

I had wondered, and raised a curious eyebrow myself when I heard the news of the charges brought against Julian Assange. It does leave one open to wonder; did he really do it, or not?

The drama surrounding the information posted by Wikileaks is like pouring fuel on a flame. Make a huge scene about it, and people are going to be even more curious as to why you're making such a huge stink about it in the first place. If the government has nothing to hide, then why the dance and drama crap?

Granted it's not really a secret that most large government institutions have collected vast amounts of information, whether gathered covertly or not, or that they've made comments/decisions about other nations and their policies behind said countries' backs. Even Canada had (has) it's own version of the CIA, although reportedly disbanded several years ago. At one point in the World's politics espionage of a sort was deemed necessary, and was never really totally abandoned. Most 'peace' treaties/agreements are signed with one hand behind their backs, crossed fingers and a cheeky grin. Politics is a sticky and intricate web. I'm not surprised that officials would be upset by Wikileaks, leaking their information, but well - freedom of speech?

I do agree that the common people have the right to know what's going on with their government. Although allowing people to see through the government as transparently as though peering into a window isn't necessarily a great idea either. Often times people see what they see and run with it - even though they haven't witnessed the whole thing. This is the exact same concept that renders eye witnesses to a crime second rate evidence.

However, I'm of the mindset of - if the government - any government - has any information or decision that they don't wish to be heard outside their respective buildings, then don't leave a permanent record of it where it can be found and ultimately reported to a place like Wikileaks. Otherwise freedom of speech reigns supreme.

[Sparrowsmith]

Are the police allowed to enter your home and go nuts?
No, they need a warrant.

That's pretty much all I have to say. The government shouldn't have anything to hide, but even if they do it's hypocritical to uncover it outside of the law. Trust is a two way street. Innocent until proven guilty.
You have no right to steal a government's secrets unless you already have sound suspicions.

And this is why I'm divided. I don't believe a government should be allowed to keep secrets, but I certainly don't want my secrets found out. I think we have to accept that unless a country's people are perfect then they should respect their government's privacy, lest the government decide to stop respecting the privacy of the population.

[Harryb412]

Kinda like what Sparrowsmith said.
I'm not a murderer or anything, I don't have anything to hide, but I'd be annoyed if some guy walked into my home to look around and told everyone everything about what I did.

Also, I'll be amused if I see any staff that support Wikileaks.

[Naridar]

It's different from barging into someone's home. In a democracy (which the US claims to be), WE, the people, elect the government, thus they're required to take full responsibility for their actions. If they refuse to tell us what they have done with the power WE have given them, they have no right to expect we're going to give it to them again. Wikileaks is trying to patch this enormous hole and trying to shut it up (especially using such a transparent excuse as sexual abuse) is an outright violation of free press and the Freedom of Information act.

[DerKomet]

Well I'm sure that it won't come up as a surprise that I am in favor of Wikileaks or any of those sites that expose stuff the government shouldn't do behind the peoples backs. I in part agree with what sparrowsmith and harryb12 said so far... which has me wowed I gotta say.

[literarygoth]

Agreed with Harry, Sparrow and Anti - it's a double edged sword.
There's things that the general populace don't need to know, but then the government is just as accountable for it's actions as any person living under the laws of the nation.

@Naridar - all the democratic nations in the world - more specifically Canada, the US, Britain and Australia, are more technically Capitalist / Democrat nations, and aren't truly Democratic in nature.

[BasharTeg6]

I don't know what sort of "secrets" you guys are talking about that Wikileaks supposedly exposed. From what I've gathered it's mostly a political firestorm. What Wikileaks did was basically this:

You talk some smack about your coworkers when you don't think they are around and have a good laugh. Only someone stuck a sound recorder in the nearby potted plant and now know everything you say. In fact, everyone knows what you said because they put it up on Facebook. How embarrassing.

The public gains absolutely nothing from hearing what certain high officials have said about other people. There are no freedoms upheld by this. The only thing Wikileaks has accomplished is a change in the dynamics of diplomacy - people will stop speaking to each other around potted plants. It's a good thing no military secrets were exposed, otherwise some of our soldiers might pay for it with their lives.

I'm all for transparency in the government. That's great. But when it becomes an issue of national security, where innocent people will start dying off because of exposures like these, I start to have a problem.

[evindom]

I feel wikileaks is in the wrong, not for WHAT they did but HOW they did it. I'm all in favor of greater transperancy in government but publishing a huge number of classified documents online without any thought for the possible consequences was really irresponsible. The vast majority of those documents dealt with day to day operations and intelligence gathering in a incredibly dangerous area of the world. There are people who are putting there lives on the line every day doing sensitive, deep cover operations who were potentially exposed because of the websites actions. The people they were gathering intel on, many of whom are mass-freaking-murderers now have access to their names and detailed reports of their methods. This is a bad thing. A lot of good people, both working in the military and from the local population could die and probably are dying right now because some idiot teenager who worked in an office and had no day to day interaction with the people he was screwing over what-so-ever decided to betray his sworn word and give classified documents to a website, which then posted all of the documents online with neither thought nor care for those they were putting in harms way. That is taking freedom of the press entirely to far and is well within conventional definition of espionage.

[Mcoot]

I feel wikileaks is in the wrong, not for WHAT they did but HOW they did it. I'm all in favor of greater transperancy in government but publishing a huge number of classified documents online without any thought for the possible consequences was really irresponsible. The vast majority of those documents dealt with day to day operations and intelligence gathering in a incredibly dangerous area of the world. There are people who are putting there lives on the line every day doing sensitive, deep cover operations who were potentially exposed because of the websites actions. The people they were gathering intel on, many of whom are mass-freaking-murderers now have access to their names and detailed reports of their methods. This is a bad thing. A lot of good people, both working in the military and from the local population could die and probably are dying right now because some idiot teenager who worked in an office and had no day to day interaction with the people he was screwing over what-so-ever decided to betray his sworn word and give classified documents to a website, which then posted all of the documents online with neither thought nor care for those they were putting in harms way. That is taking freedom of the press entirely to far and is well within conventional definition of espionage.

'How' they did it? They offered to meet with a representative of the Department of State to provide limited censoring of names etc. - they refused. Not to mention the government has yet to provide evidence of a single death or injury linked to the leaking of WikiLeaks documents.

If you read the documents you will find names redacted here and there. They aren't harming American soldiers - only the American government's credibility.

[BasharTeg6]

'How' they did it? They offered to meet with a representative of the Department of State to provide limited censoring of names etc. - they refused. Not to mention the government has yet to provide evidence of a single death or injury linked to the leaking of WikiLeaks documents.

If you read the documents you will find names redacted here and there. They aren't harming American soldiers - only the American government's credibility.

It isn't just the lives of soldiers that are put at risk, but the US Government's interests as well. Take the exposure on what the US considers "valuable assets." This is basically a list of targets which would cause significant impact to the US if they were compromised or destroyed. Some of them, like communication centers and weapons factories, are somewhat obvious, but there are more subtle things revealed that, until now, didn't need high security because of their anonymity. These are smaller companies and corporations which provide economic backbone to the US and/or the War on Terror.

Exposing these sites make them not only more vulnerable to attack, putting peoples lives at risk, but can cause an increased economic impact on the US because now it has to increase security at these places. The cost of security is significant, but so is the cost of reduced efficiency (something you might note from long airport security lines in the US.)

[theBreadSultan]

Are the police allowed to enter your home and go nuts?
No, they need a warrant.

Actually this is a misnomer created by tv. - the police can enter your home without a warrant - This power is not limited to the police - there are currently (in the UK) over 1000 agencies that have the right to enter a home without a warrant and in many cases without notice.

anyway - Wikileaks -
I worry that no one here questions whether wikileaks is what it (and the media and our governments) say it is.
we seem so quick to accept the media version of events. A series of events that if you actually say it out loud - is straight out of a Hollywood film.

Private Bradley E. Manning, While based at Contingency Operations Station "Hammer" in Iraq, was troubled about the high levels of Civilian casualties - so made a copy of a classified video - showing the gunning down of civilians in Iraq, and downloaded 150,050 US cables and passed on one confidential file called "Reykjavik 13" as well as the video. - (according to the Charge sheet)
However 6 months later - international man of mystery Mr Julian Assange - claims he has received 250,000 cables. and will release them. -
The US is powerless (despite their $150million a year offensive cyber warfare budget - and largest intelligence budget in the world) to bring down the illusive Mr Assange.

or, the millions pumped into disinformation, propaganda and deception - have paid off.

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the public believes is false”.

Im not decided 100% but there are many many "plot-holes" in the story of wikleaks - and the biggest concern is:

What is wiki-leaks becoming?
An unaccountable yet also 100% trusted source.

the media, and the masses will believe that whatever "document" wiki-leaks publishes will be the real article - but because sources and donations are secret - we have no way of knowing

[Sparrowsmith]

Actually this is a misnomer created by tv. - the police can enter your home without a warrant - This power is not limited to the police - there are currently (in the UK) over 1000 agencies that have the right to enter a home without a warrant and in many cases without notice.

the media, and the masses will believe that whatever "document" wiki-leaks publishes will be the real article - but because sources and donations are secret - we have no way of knowing

You're basically insulting wikileaks for being unreliable, yet failing to realise that you rarely put forward citation (unless prompted to do so) on staggering claims.
like

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the public believes is false”.

Anyway, I do agree that wikileaks is not exactly 100% reliable... But the Government has made it that way.
When a bunch of 'crazy' people start throwing around rumors that 9/11 was pulled off by the government, or that the president is a lizard, the government laughs it off and produces some valid documents.

But when one man releases 'secrets' they absolutely blow up.
Like, they actually fall apart.
They take down the websites public funding and attack him relentlessly.

People don't react to bullshit with that kind of response. That's how people act when they're absolutely screwed.
of course, maybe they're faking. But why would any government want us to believe what those documents say?

Governments are completely incompetent. It's about time people realised that. Wikileaks was made true the second it was closed down. No one has ever silenced a lie before.

[theBreadSultan]

Just because politicians are incompetent - doesn't make government civil servants stupid. - so I think to say wikileaks couldn't possibly be a Government con-job because governments are incompetent is a ridiculous argument. - futher more such an operation is not only well within the capability of an organisation such as the C.I.A, but it is also within the C.I.A. mandate

Bringin it back to William Casey

Casey oversaw the re-expansion of the Intelligence Community to funding and human resource levels greater than those existing before the preceding Carter Administration; in particular, he increased levels within the CIA. During his tenure, restrictions were lifted on the use of the CIA to directly and covertly influence the internal and foreign affairs of countries relevant to American policy.

If wikileaks is a C.I.A. disinformation campaign then it fits in perfectly with this mandate.
And lets not forget when a government department such as the C.I.A or M.I.6 or even DEFRA is given a mandate - that amounts to
1. money
2. An obligation to carry out the mandate.

its not a case of:
"hey guys if you want you can directly and covertly influence the internal and foreign affairs of countries relevant to American policy.....you know, if you feel like it"

ok i'm going through your points in reverse order -

But why would any government want us to believe what those documents say?

So far all revelations have advanced US foreign policy -

If i am working for Nike and i tell you that you should not buy Puma shoes because they are made in sweatshops - you will take that information with a very critical eye.
however if i am working for say - UNICEF - and i tell you that PUMA use sweatshop child labour to make their shoes - you will believe me.

The outlet of information is in this day even more important than the source - thats the media age for you - files proving a UFO leaked via the daily star (a paper famous for not letting facts get in the way of a good story) - you wont even finish reading the headline. put that same article word for word in the Guardian and you will read it.

Wikileaks is now becoming an infallible source - This gives it a lot of power - lets say the next document to come out exposes a politician as being corrupt and having loyalties to Russia - chances of him being re-elected - NONE

this means that wikileaks has the power to seriously interfere with the democratic process, Thus the anti-US agenda party is found to be corrupt -

You're basically insulting wikileaks for being unreliable, yet failing to realise that you rarely put forward citation (unless prompted to do so) on staggering claims.

here is the key - if prompted i will - however i see no reason to endlessly cite things that are in the public domain.
if I quote gravity as being 10N i'm not going to link this fact - nor am i going to even bother acknowledging that this is a rounded figure, unless that is relevant. - people should look into things themselves a little before expecting everything to be spoon fed to them.

most of the time when someone "demands" a source for a fact i have given, it is a simple as typing the "fact" into google and there it is. People should do this themselves first.

anyway - I've written quite a bit -
I'm not presenting any evidence or signs that wkileaks is a government front - yet ;-)

Just think about it - because no one on this thread has even CONSIDERED the thought of wikileaks being a front - so perhaps it should be considered

[Sparrowsmith]

I'm afraid it's just a case of Occam's razor.

Is there an entire group perfectly orchestrating wikileaks without a single member ever having any reason to betray the cause (be it for money, fame, morality, other) or is someone revealing secrets about the government.

It's a known fact that number of people involved in any scheme, the less successful the result.
And by scheme I mean a conspiracy of sorts. Anything that has to be kept secret.

It just makes sense that the number of people involved therefore must be small, and that therefore wikileaks cannot be a government wide control campaign.

[theBreadSultan]

re you saying you believe wikileaks to be what the mainstream media portrays it to be?

if so why?
what evidence do have to support this?

[Sparrowsmith]

None so much.
Just logically makes sense, as I showed using Occam's razor. The fact that 99.99% of respectable and reliable sources claim it to be what it says on the package, and the alternative has never been observed.

[theBreadSultan]

well I was hoping you could do a little better than that - but if your only going to stand by your last post i shall address that directly.

First up you say it [wikileaks] is logically as portrayed in the media.
well logically it could be a C.I.A. disinformation campaign.
each is equally logical and possible.
Thus to say that it is one and not the other based on "logic" makes no sense as each is [I would say] equally logical.
Each is an equally simple explanation - in fact i would argue that wikileaks being a C.I.A front is a simpler explanation that makes the fewer assumptions

This brings me nicely to my second point.

Is there an entire group perfectly orchestrating wikileaks without a single member ever having any reason to betray the cause (be it for money, fame, morality, other) or is someone revealing secrets about the government.

there are quite a lot of organisations that are full off people who keep secrets - the C.I.A. is one of them.
yes people are susceptible to M.I.C.E (Money, Ideology,Coercion, Ego) however the very same principles can and are used to keep people in line.

secondly not everyone who works for the company needs to know they are doing so.
as far as the cleaners are concerned they are just cleaning an office.
Equally, were wikileaks a government front it is perfectly reasonable to assume that some people would be led to believe they are working against the government - not for it. (this has been done many many times before)

you say 99.99% of sources claim it to be what it is.
That would be the mainstream media - who go off a press release - thus are invariable 1 source
or if you want to look at it differently (6 sources)
and would seriously go against any statement that white washes the mainstream media as reliable and truthful

again for one making a case based on assumptions - calling the mainstream respectable and reliable - is a very big assumption.
(But thats off topic - a thread about the Media would be a good thread tho)

Also what i find interesting is that the man behind cryptome.org a site that has leaked some seriously heavy weight secret documents, Left wikileaks and implied that it is part of the CIA
there are other very serious sources that have linked the C.I.A to wikileaks -

again i'm not presenting any bias - yet -
nor am i 100% either way. however there is a case to be made against wikileaks - and i shall be making it shortly -
however i don't want to come across as dogmatic - so i am encouraging debate on this.

[Sparrowsmith]

I suppose while we are being skeptics I'll say that I never believe anything 100%. As an empiricist I always accept that I could be wrong. With this in mind I'd really only say I'm 70% sure that wikileaks is what it says on the package.
I simply feel it's less likely that wikileaks is a CIA disinformation campaign than what the media portrays it to be.
I would not say they are equally as logical. Not until the benefits that wikileaks brings outweigh the HUGE costs involved in setting up such a network of people to play double agents with their own country.
Until wikileaks has caused more good than bad for the CIA, and such great a good that it outweighs the cost, and such a great good that it's worth the risk of jeprodisring and entire government's respectability.

So far I haven't seen positive repercussions of such a magnitude. I have seen some benefits to America, but not enough to justify such a risky move.

And actually I scarcely rely on the news for anything. I take events and that is all.
I rarely agree with the media actually. I see a protest of some kind and, while the media spins it one way, I argue for the other side. Ultimately I only believe that the event itself has happened, and not any of the bias attached to it.
I know that Anonymous launched an attack on several websites and companies that severed ties with wikileaks. I doubt a group as notorious as Anonymous would jump in if they had any doubts.
Not that I necessarily support Anonymous, I find them incredibly juvenile. That's not the point though, the point is that they acted out in favour of wikileaks.
Anonymous are the last people you'd expect to be fooled by the media.

Other such protests and supports exist for and against wikileaks that only adds to its credibility. Everyone (to my knowledge) is acting just as you'd expect them to. Regarding Cryptome, John Young later withdrew that statement and followed it up by saying that Wikileaks was dangerous and could not protect its informants, and that he simply doesn't trust it, and wouldn't trust it with valuable information It should also be noted that he made the original statement in 2007, long before the shit hit the fan.

I do have to point out that media in the UK has never been as biased as media in the U.S.
I can't watch U.S news because it physically makes me feel sick how biased it is.

[theBreadSultan]

I think you may be underestimating the US "Black" budget and overestimating the cost to run wikileaks as a disinformation campaign.

for a start most front organisations tend to turn a profit as does wiki-leaks
again most employess wont know that they are working for a front company.

I worked for on once - they got a bit pissed off when i figured it out and made me sign some stuff - they also made other people who i worked with sign it just in case i had told them (which i didn't) - they had no idea why it quite funny -

as for what has been the pay off:

http://www.iranreview.org/content/view/6340/40/

consider where this credibility comes from -
I think other people being fooled doesn't count.

if a magician fooles an entire audience - doesnt mean its actually magic