WikiLeaks

[Pentegarn]

You didn't have to say it, I am just following your logic to the proper conclusion. Just think about what you are proposing for a moment.

What exactly do you think will be the result of all this?

If the individuals are to be punished, who will do it? The UN? Well according to you people who commit a crime, no matter where they commit it need to have it done in their country so it couldn't be the UN, as the US will not recognize their jurisdiction to do so. As I am pretty sure the US won't bother putting the politicians on trial who did these things, that would be a wash.

Well that would then leave current leaders that the world would demand pay. The current leadership however did not have a thing to do with what happened, so again, if we follow your axiom that a criminal face their charges in their home country only, you will get nothing as a result.

Now the world is even more pissed and at this point the UN steps in, they have only one thing they can do at this point, sanctions that likely would jack up the import taxes the US pays. The only people that will hurt though is the common man because those jacked up costs will get passed on to the consumer. The economy here is already hurting enough, we have people in numbers rivaling the amount there were in the 70s not making ends meet. What do you suppose will happen to those people when this demand for justice reaches this inevitable point?

People all over the world get away with all sorts of horrible things all the time, and the reason many of these things go unpunished is because the consequences of punishment have a ripple effect on those who have nothing to do with the crime in question. The world is not as black and white as a political leader gets punished and then that's it. Look at Iraq. Did Saddam need punished? The black and white answer is yes. But look how it actually shook out. Do you honestly believe it was better for an outside entity to force a punishment on a sovereign nation? The country is mired in civil war, rampant terrorism, and has no real organized security to speak of. All because Bush Jr. made a demand for justice that was not thought out to the inevitable conclusion it was bound to have.

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

What exactly do you think will be the result of all this?

That's actually a good question. What I think will be the result to 'all of this' is some more leaked information on large banking corporations, the eventual shutting down of wikileaks, and perhaps new laws in some countries preventing it from happening again and making it illegal. I would also say that the positive result is that more people around the globe will have less trust in the political and economic systems which supposedly serve their needs, and perhaps be more inclined to not take everything their government says or does as right and truthful.

If the individuals are to be punished, who will do it? The UN? Well according to you people who commit a crime, no matter where they commit it need to have it done in their country so it couldn't be the UN, as the US will not recognize their jurisdiction to do so. As I am pretty sure the US won't bother putting the politicians on trial who did these things, that would be a wash.

You know, I never actually brought up punishment, and I don't see it as a likely outcome anyhow. You're right in thinking that a trial in the US for anyone committing political or war crimes or some such would be a white wash.

No, I didn't say "people who commit a crime, no matter where they commit it need to have it done in their country" or thereabouts, I said that Assange hasn't done anything illegal, BUT out Prime Minister has insinuated that he has, calling his actions criminal, but not bothering to tell us what crimes. I said that if he has broken Australian laws then he should at least be told what the charges are and given a chance to defend against them, rather than just have the label of CRIMINAL stuck on him and hunted down for the US governments behalf. If, however, people do commit international crimes, such as war crimes, then I think that the UN is capable of handling the trial. Well, better than anyone else at the moment. This has gotten off topic though, as neither I nor Blasted Child have mentioned anything about bringing any criminals to justice.

Well that would then leave current leaders that the world would demand pay. The current leadership however did not have a thing to do with what happened, so again, if we follow your axiom that a criminal face their charges in their home country only, you will get nothing as a result.

I don't understand this. I will say however that US ambassadors, diplomats, spies, military generals and other ranks... I don't think they get voted in and out every few years. But I don't really know what you are saying here.

Now the world is even more pissed and at this point the UN steps in, they have only one thing they can do at this point, sanctions that likely would jack up the import taxes the US pays. The only people that will hurt though is the common man because those jacked up costs will get passed on to the consumer. The economy here is already hurting enough, we have people in numbers rivaling the amount there were in the 70s not making ends meet. What do you suppose will happen to those people when this demand for justice reaches this inevitable point?

Again, nobody is calling for sanctions against the US. I have no idea where you got this from. Let's just hope that you are against the sanctions against Venezuela and Cuba also, though. Perhaps even Nth Korea, since that definitely only hurts the working people.

People all over the world get away with all sorts of horrible things all the time, and the reason many of these things go unpunished is because the consequences of punishment have a ripple effect on those who have nothing to do with the crime in question. The world is not as black and white as a political leader gets punished and then that's it. Look at Iraq. Did Saddam need punished? The black and white answer is yes. But look how it actually shook out. Do you honestly believe it was better for an outside entity to force a punishment on a sovereign nation? The country is mired in civil war, rampant terrorism, and has no real organized security to speak of. All because Bush Jr. made a demand for justice that was not thought out to the inevitable conclusion it was bound to have.

I think we are beyond viewing the Iraq war as a strive for 'justice'. Perhaps weapons of mass destruction..? Anyway, again, nobody is talking about justice. We are talking about the rights of citizens to know what their government is up to. Should Saddam have been allowed to keep his torture secret and classified? The gassing of Kurds?

Should the Watergate scandal have been kept classified?

We're talking about the transparency of government, and you are bringing up arguments against punishing people.

[kahljorn]

Why have transparency of Government anyway? its not like people are smart enough to make use of the information. it'd probably just cause fake internet scandal after fake internet scandal and people would get all worked up about shit that doesn't really matter like, "DID YOU HEAR THE GOVERNMENT KILLED ALL THE PUPPIES IN EGYPT."

[Pentegarn]

First and foremost, I am enjoying this discussion immensely. A ton of good stuff was said in the last 24 hours and I am sorry I missed out on it till now

Originally Posted by Zhukov

That's actually a good question. What I think will be the result to 'all of this' is some more leaked information on large banking corporations, the eventual shutting down of wikileaks, and perhaps new laws in some countries preventing it from happening again and making it illegal. I would also say that the positive result is that more people around the globe will have less trust in the political and economic systems which supposedly serve their needs, and perhaps be more inclined to not take everything their government says or does as right and truthful.

While I maintain that not much of anything will happen to anyone, I think people already don't trust their government, so this whole expose aspect was pointless other then to provide specific examples. The only thing wikileaks did was give the world more reason to hate America, I won't go into why this hurts the common man as I covered my viewpoint on this earlier, but I will again reiterate that this is bad and at the very least, I don't see that anything good can come from this in respect to the common man.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

You know, I never actually brought up punishment, and I don't see it as a likely outcome anyhow. You're right in thinking that a trial in the US for anyone committing political or war crimes or some such would be a white wash.

No, I didn't say "people who commit a crime, no matter where they commit it need to have it done in their country" or thereabouts, I said that Assange hasn't done anything illegal, BUT out Prime Minister has insinuated that he has, calling his actions criminal, but not bothering to tell us what crimes. I said that if he has broken Australian laws then he should at least be told what the charges are and given a chance to defend against them, rather than just have the label of CRIMINAL stuck on him and hunted down for the US governments behalf. If, however, people do commit international crimes, such as war crimes, then I think that the UN is capable of handling the trial. Well, better than anyone else at the moment. This has gotten off topic though, as neither I nor Blasted Child have mentioned anything about bringing any criminals to justice.

But how can you say Assange starting all this is not an international crime while another kind of espionage is? Assange is the spearhead for this mess, and what he did is orchestrate an internet espionage ring. This isn't journalism, if he really wanted this info to be exposed because of an altruistic belief, then by all means he should have sent it to a media outlet. The fact that he made his own site supports my belief that he is a fame hog. I know you think that the results of this fame (his life being under constant threat) disproves my theory, but I disagree with that. People all the time get something they wished for without any foreknowledge of the consequences, only to realize that what they wished for was more hassle than they believed possible. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it is a proverb for a reason.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I don't understand this. I will say however that US ambassadors, diplomats, spies, military generals and other ranks... I don't think they get voted in and out every few years. But I don't really know what you are saying here.

These people you listed take their orders from our elected officials, and it is rare for a member of the military to go maverick (though it can happen, hence why we have Court Martials). Those elected offficials rarely last more than a term these days because as a country we have been swinging back and fourth politically every 4 years for the past decade.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I think we are beyond viewing the Iraq war as a strive for 'justice'. Perhaps weapons of mass destruction..?

This is a separate topic altogether. Though as an aside Bush did keep saying repeatedly we are coming to inspect for years. The desert is a big place and there was plenty of time to bury and hide anything incriminating.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Anyway, again, nobody is talking about justice. We are talking about the rights of citizens to know what their government is up to. Should Saddam have been allowed to keep his torture secret and classified? The gassing of Kurds?

These things were public though. These things were the counterargument of people who were supporting the war when the WMDs were not there. This is exactly what I mean when i said look at what could happen. We had multiple 'reasons for justice' to go into Iraq, but as it turns out that was a huge mistake.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Should the Watergate scandal have been kept classified?

We had press with integrity in those days, or at least press without a glaring political agenda. You would be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how much stuff does not get revealed in a timely fashion, or just gets glossed over on page 10 of the NY Times because to bring attention to it does not fit the agenda of the news source.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

We're talking about the transparency of government, and you are bringing up arguments against punishing people.

Because I am talking results. It takes wisdom to see that everything has a result and takes even more wisdom to exercise caution when you act. Revealing everything would bring about a shit storm of epic proportions, I don't think you realize just how bad it would be, and there would be a world wide ripple effect as a result of sudden worldwide government transparency.

Originally Posted by Tadao

Of course everyone has a different ending, but most people only see what they can immediately put in their greedy little hands, and that is exactly what the world leaders count on.

I think this sentence is the best thing said on this topic. Things happen when you do something as simple as the "TA DA!" and pull back the curtain reveal on something as complicated as world politics. The big picture I laid out in my posts may not be exactly what happens, but something will certainly happen, and it is a good bet that something will bad for all concerned. The big picture is important and very few people want to look at it.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Why have transparency of Government anyway? its not like people are smart enough to make use of the information. it'd probably just cause fake internet scandal after fake internet scandal and people would get all worked up about shit that doesn't really matter like, "DID YOU HEAR THE GOVERNMENT KILLED ALL THE PUPPIES IN EGYPT."

There's a joke here wrapped around a very lucid point. Most people would look at the things in these reports and scream for justice without thinking what happens after the punishment. That's why I feel classified information should remain so in many cases, not all cases, but in many cases. Most people couldn't handle transparent government

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

But how can you say Assange starting all this is not an international crime while another kind of espionage is? Assange is the spearhead for this mess, and what he did is orchestrate an internet espionage ring. This isn't journalism, if he really wanted this info to be exposed because of an altruistic belief, then by all means he should have sent it to a media outlet. The fact that he made his own site supports my belief that he is a fame hog. I know you think that the results of this fame (his life being under constant threat) disproves my theory, but I disagree with that. People all the time get something they wished for without any foreknowledge of the consequences, only to realize that what they wished for was more hassle than they believed possible. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it is a proverb for a reason.

How is starting a website that allows whistle-blowers a safe way to get their information out to the public considered 'espionage'? Firstly, it's not spies that are stealing the classified documents, it's members of the government or military that are speaking out and have access to any documents anyway. Second, it's not wikileaks that is doing this, as has been said before.

Assange hasn't created an international online spy ring to steal military secrets. All wikileaks is is an avenue for whistle-blowers to get their information out there. You have to understand that before you can judge it.

Now, the reason why the leaked information hasn't been put through the standard media avenues is probably because they can't be trusted. I wouldn't trust most news stations or papers, so I can understand if someone would rather go through a website that has been created for that purpose, and isn't run by people with vested interests in government for whatever reasons.

The argument that he has created the website with the intention to become famous is just ridiculous. It has been running for years, and he's only in the papers recently. Nobody has heard of anyone else that runs wikileaks; are they in it for fame too?

These people you listed take their orders from our elected officials, and it is rare for a member of the military to go maverick (though it can happen, hence why we have Court Martials). Those elected offficials rarely last more than a term these days because as a country we have been swinging back and fourth politically every 4 years for the past decade.

I honestly can't fathom why you think that after a term of 4 years a person is immune to criticism, or perhaps even a garbled version of justice.

These things were public though. These things were the counterargument of people who were supporting the war when the WMDs were not there. This is exactly what I mean when i said look at what could happen. We had multiple 'reasons for justice' to go into Iraq, but as it turns out that was a huge mistake.

So you ARE saying that gassing Kurds and torturing civilians should have been kept classified? Best that nobody found out?

Because I am talking results. It takes wisdom to see that everything has a result and takes even more wisdom to exercise caution when you act. Revealing everything would bring about a shit storm of epic proportions, I don't think you realize just how bad it would be, and there would be a world wide ripple effect as a result of sudden worldwide government transparency.

Ok, results. You are worried that so many horrible things will be uncovered by wikileaks about the US government that the rest of the world will have to do something. You're worried that that 'something' would hinder your life or many other US citizens lives. I don't want to have to say it, but fuck - what if nobody found out about the holocaust? Best to leave that sort of thing under wraps, because it being made public knowledge would probably cause repercussions on normal German citizens. Yeah, it's the holocaust, I used it as an example, sue me. But this is your argument; keep things secret, possibly horrible things (especially the horrible things), because if people found out there would be trouble. If this is your argument then I think I am done here.

[Pentegarn]

You are young Zhukov, one day when you get older, you will understand the concept of the greater good, as opposed to the idealistic and unrealistic view you take on the world.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

How is starting a website that allows whistle-blowers a safe way to get their information out to the public considered 'espionage'? Firstly, it's not spies that are stealing the classified documents, it's members of the government or military that are speaking out and have access to any documents anyway. Second, it's not wikileaks that is doing this, as has been said before.

Firstly, you don't have to be an official spy and put that down on your w2 to commit espionage. If you are guilty of it you are guilty of it. trying to paint what they are doing as something else doesn't change what it is. Mob bosses don't commit most of the murders that are done on their behalf, but they are still responsible for said murders. The same is true here.

Which brings me to this; these things on Wikileaks, they aren't wikileaks' responsibility? Had wikileaks never been invented these things would never have been posted. Actions have consequence, as I have repeatedly said. You want these whistle blowees to take responsibility for what they wrought, yet you dismiss wikileaks' hand in the issues that will come as a result.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Assange hasn't created an international online spy ring to steal military secrets. All wikileaks is is an avenue for whistle-blowers to get their information out there. You have to understand that before you can judge it.

An accessory is an accessory, hemming and hawing about it changes nothing, trying to put a positive spin on it does not undo the damage it will cause, you have to realize this before you can defend it.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Now, the reason why the leaked information hasn't been put through the standard media avenues is probably because they can't be trusted. I wouldn't trust most news stations or papers, so I can understand if someone would rather go through a website that has been created for that purpose, and isn't run by people with vested interests in government for whatever reasons.

The media has issues, but individuals are the solution. Be a journalist of integrity and report the things properly without bias. But this has to be tempered with wisdom

Originally Posted by Zhukov

The argument that he has created the website with the intention to become famous is just ridiculous. It has been running for years, and he's only in the papers recently. Nobody has heard of anyone else that runs wikileaks; are they in it for fame too?

His actions support my view. Perhaps these others are just smart enough to know anonymity is their only protection from what is to come. In other words, maybe only Assange was moronic enough to stick his head up and have his look at me moment.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I honestly can't fathom why you think that after a term of 4 years a person is immune to criticism, or perhaps even a garbled version of justice.

I honestly can't fathom how you took that out of what I said. I said you can't punish current leaders for the actions of past leaders, it is a ridiculous concept. Why not make Jeffery Dahmer's relatives go to jail since he died and before serving his sentence while you are at it? What I actually said is there would not likely be anything done about it. There are a myriad of reasons for this. At best you would get a trial where high priced lawyers would get the people off on a technicality. The UN is smart enough (I think) to know if they try to push some sort of world trial on the US that the US (the primary financial contributor and most charitable of the UN nations by the way) would simply withdraw from the UN.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

So you ARE saying that gassing Kurds and torturing civilians should have been kept classified? Best that nobody found out?

Not at all, I said look at the result. If that is what you took from doing so then the question I think should be is that what YOU are saying?

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Ok, results. You are worried that so many horrible things will be uncovered by wikileaks about the US government that the rest of the world will have to do something. You're worried that that 'something' would hinder your life or many other US citizens lives. I don't want to have to say it, but fuck - what if nobody found out about the holocaust? Best to leave that sort of thing under wraps, because it being made public knowledge would probably cause repercussions on normal German citizens. Yeah, it's the holocaust, I used it as an example, sue me. But this is your argument; keep things secret, possibly horrible things (especially the horrible things), because if people found out there would be trouble. If this is your argument then I think I am done here.

Let me ask you this, what good does hurting the innocent for crimes committed by the guilty do?

[Blasted Child]

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

You are young Zhukov, one day when you get older, you will understand the concept of the greater good, as opposed to the idealistic and unrealistic view you take on the world.

I don't think it's naive to ask for transparency. What kind of bitter and jaded world-view does one nurture to believe transparency is not worth fighting for?

I think it's more idealistic to believe that all politicians are always doing their best to serve the people, and that they're best left alone without any scrutiny.
I think it's extremely naive to buy into their stories about how wikileaks is actually hurting innocent people, instead of focusing on how world leaders are gambling with thousands of lives in the most cynical way.

Surely, all sorts of media and propaganda machines will now brainstorm up heart-breaking stories about witnesses that have been exposed and dissidents on the run and whatnot, but let's look at the big picture.

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

Firstly, you don't have to be an official spy and put that down on your w2 to commit espionage. If you are guilty of it you are guilty of it. trying to paint what they are doing as something else doesn't change what it is. Mob bosses don't commit most of the murders that are done on their behalf, but they are still responsible for said murders. The same is true here.

The guy is not a spy. Wikileaks isn't a front for an international espionage group. They are not cyber hackers. You wont be able to find any evidence of this and it's so outrageous that I haven't even heard and governments accusing him/them of this. It's the last comment I am making on the subject unless you can find some evidence for him hacking and stealing.

Which brings me to this; these things on Wikileaks, they aren't wikileaks' responsibility? Had wikileaks never been invented these things would never have been posted. Actions have consequence, as I have repeatedly said. You want these whistle blowees to take responsibility for what they wrought, yet you dismiss wikileaks' hand in the issues that will come as a result.

Saying that the information would never have been leaked had it not been for wikileaks is a bit of a stretch. The people that chose to be whistle-blowers would have most likely found another avenue, in my opinion. And, yus, I do think that wikileaks has some responsibility in the matter, they are the ones that are making it easy to leak info, and they are the ones making it easy for the public to read into. I haven't said anything along the lines that whistle blowers need to take responsibility for the consequences or anything along those lines whatsoever.

An accessory is an accessory, hemming and hawing about it changes nothing, trying to put a positive spin on it does not undo the damage it will cause, you have to realize this before you can defend it.

An accessory to spies? You say that Julian Assange is a spy, that wikileaks is an espionage ring, and then on the other hand you say that is assisting spies. There hasn't, as far as I am aware, been any evidence uncovered to suggest that any of the leaked information that has been posted on wikileaks, has been obtained by stealing it. If you can't find some evidence to back up the claim for spying, then leave it alone.

The media has issues, but individuals are the solution. Be a journalist of integrity and report the things properly without bias. But this has to be tempered with wisdom

Well that's a whole different kettle of fish, and if you want to start a thread about the media then go for it. I will say, however, that there is no way that individual journalists can stay unbiased, since even if they did their news company wouldn't run their stories or would have them fired. Still, not on topic.

His actions support my view. Perhaps these others are just smart enough to know anonymity is their only protection from what is to come. In other words, maybe only Assange was moronic enough to stick his head up and have his look at me moment.

I really think you are grasping at straws here. IS he a spy or is he just trying to get famous? Is it both? It's ridiculous any way you look at it. How do his actions support your view that he is just in this to get famous? Famous for WHAT END? He's not making a billion dollars off of this, he's not appearing on talk shows. It's ridiculous.

I honestly can't fathom how you took that out of what I said. I said you can't punish current leaders for the actions of past leaders, it is a ridiculous concept. Why not make Jeffery Dahmer's relatives go to jail since he died and before serving his sentence while you are at it? What I actually said is there would not likely be anything done about it. There are a myriad of reasons for this. At best you would get a trial where high priced lawyers would get the people off on a technicality. The UN is smart enough (I think) to know if they try to push some sort of world trial on the US that the US (the primary financial contributor and most charitable of the UN nations by the way) would simply withdraw from the UN.

You said that there is no point bringing crimes of a government to light, because they will be out of office in at least 8 to 4 years anyway. Who is saying that present leaders need to be punished for past leaders though?!! As far as no legal action being taken against 'present or past leaders' ... is that the point? To get US military courts to bring tortures to justice? No. To get big banks to pay back all the tax they dodged? No. It's to show people how their world and their society runs, behind their backs. You can't seriously believe that just because nobody is going to arrest high ranking military personnel, that any crime they commit should just stay hidden. That's insane.

Not at all, I said look at the result. If that is what you took from doing so then the question I think should be is that what YOU are saying?

"If that is what you took from doing so then the question I think should be is that what YOU are saying?"

I can't understand what you just said

You DO think that the torture of Iraqi civilians by the Iraqi government should have been made public, but the torture of Iraqi's by the US government has to stay secret. Right. Please explain to me how the consequences of A outweigh the consequences of B.

Let me ask you this, what good does hurting the innocent for crimes committed by the guilty do?

Soo.... it WAS a bad thing for the holocaust to come to light? I'm not saying ANYTHING about punishing innocent people, you seem to think it's the logical conclusion to uncovering war crimes or environmental and economic crime. It's not. Has it been in the past? It has, but nobody is suggesting it now, are they? No.

Here are some leaked documents, and I want you to tell me if it would be better if they were all just left alone and kept classified.

Bank Julius Baer: Grand Larceny via Grand Cayman - How the largest private Swiss bank avoids paying tax to the Swiss government

The looting of Kenya under President Moi - $3,000,000,000 presidential corruption exposed; swung the Dec 2007 Kenyan election

The Monju nuclear reactor leak - Three suppressed videos from Japan's fast breeder reactor Monju revealing the true extent of the 1995 sodium coolant disaster

Inside Somalia and the Union of Islamic Courts - Vital strategy documents in the Somali war and a play for Chinese support

CIA report into shoring up Afghan war support in Western Europe, 11 Mar 2010 - This classified CIA analysis from March, outlines possible PR-strategies to shore up public support in Germany and France for a continued war in Afghanistan.

The Independent: Toxic Shame: Thousands injured in African city, 17 Sep 2009 - Publication of an article originally published in UK newspaper The Independent, but censored from the Independent's website.

Secret gag on UK Times preventing publication of Minton report into toxic waste dumping, 16 Sep 2009

How German intelligence infiltrated Focus magazine - Illegal spying on German journalists

Stasi still in charge of Stasi files - Suppressed 2007 investigation into infiltration of former Stasi into the Stasi files commission

Changes in Guantanamo Bay SOP manual (2003-2004) - Guantanamo Bay's main operations manuals

Fallujah jail challenges US - Classified U.S. report into appalling prison conditions in Fallujah

Dili investigator called to Canberra as evidence of execution mounts - the Feb 2008 killing of East Timor rebel leader Reinado

Como entrenar a escuadrones de la muerte y aplastar revoluciones de El Salvador a Iraq - The U.S. Special Forces manual on how to prop up unpopular government with paramilitaries

Claims of molestation resurface for US judo official

Report on Shriners raises question of wrongdoing - corruption exposed at 22 U.S. and Canadian children's hospitals.

Church of Scientology's 'Operating Thetan' documents leaked online - Scientology's secret, and highly litigated bibles

Internet Censorship in Thailand - The secret internet censorship lists of Thailand's military junta

Eutelsat suppresses independent Chinese-language TV station NTDTV to satisfy Beijing - French sat provider Eutelsat covertly removed an anti-communist TV channel to satisfy Beijing

Whistleblower exposes insider trading program at JP Morgan - Legal insider trading in three easy steps, brought to you by JP Morgan and the SEC

http://www.wikileaks.ch/about.html


In summing up you are basically saying that Julian Assange is a spy who is just out for fame, rather than any altruistic reasons, and that any crime committed by the worlds governing bodies should stay hidden, especially the US ones, because nobody is going to bring them to justice, and if they did then world stability would fail.

If it's not what you are saying, then please sum up in a sentence or to what it IS you are saying.