WikiLeaks: Important petition for all Australians and supporters of free speech

[wraith808]

How, specifically, is it a "handicap", and is that only true because of the way politics is conducted today? If so, can that change to remove this "handicap", or do you consider it a fundamental reality of international relations?

-JavaJones (December 13, 2010, 08:19 PM)

It is a handicap because of the way that negotiations are handled on such a scale (from a position of strength... where equal sharing of information is an equalizer), and I don't think there's any realistic way to remove this handicap as long as the conditions that I refer to exist.  People negotiate for their own well being in most cases- selflessness is unfortunately rarer than selfishness.

The thing is, I don't mind leaks if they expose wrong doing that should be made public, after appropriate measures have been taken to take it through proper channels and nothing has been done.  But leaking just because 'information should be free' is complete BS IMO.  Even the openleaks.org will still be a front, because they won't make *everything* public.  There's no way.  Unless they tape everything 24 hours a day while they work (which would then make the information useless because of information overload), there's no way.

-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 09:01 AM)

But would you really leave it up to Assange - or whomever actually leaks documents to him - to separate the wheat from the chaff and "expose wrong doing" only? Just who is the arbiter of wrong vs. right info that "should be made public"? The government that classified non-secret-related but embarrassing documents? Obviously that hasn’t worked.

-J-Mac (December 13, 2010, 09:49 PM)

*In your opinion* they are non-secret-related.  But, in the same way that your medical records are secret if you discuss them with your doctor, these diagnoses of the condition of patients- many times from within the patient's 'body', were given with the same expectation of secrecy.  And they can, and indeed probably will have negative effects on delicate national negotiations and situations.

[J-Mac]

Most certainly is NOT my opinion. Why are you assuming that? Have you even seen any of the documents? Do you have any idea of what their classifications are? Or are you just extending your "doctor-patient relationship top secret" presumption across all possible leaked documents? (A senseless analogy when in fact the actual classification of the documents is known!)

The 251,287 documents released are classified as follows:

• Just over half of the cables are not subject to classification.
• 40.5 percent are classified as "confidential".
• Only 6 percent or 15,652 dispatches as "secret".
• The release contains 4,330 messages which are "not meant for foreigners".

That's why I stated "non-Secret-related but embarrassing documents" in my previous post. That is what many of them are. Definitely more so than are "Secret".

Jim

[wraith808]

Most certainly is NOT my opinion. Why are you assuming that? Have you even seen any of the documents? Do you have any idea of what their classifications are? Or are you just extending your "doctor-patient relationship top secret" presumption across all possible leaked documents? (A senseless analogy when in fact the actual classification of the documents is known!)

The 251,287 documents released are classified as follows:

• Just over half of the cables are not subject to classification.
• 40.5 percent are classified as "confidential".
• Only 6 percent or 15,652 dispatches as "secret".
• The release contains 4,330 messages which are "not meant for foreigners".

That's why I stated "non-Secret-related but embarrassing documents" in my previous post. That is what many of them are. Definitely more so than are "Secret".

-J-Mac (December 13, 2010, 11:26 PM)

By definition, the cables are secret-related, even if not 'classified' rating.  A good write-up on what a cable is was done by Slate.

From that article:

Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance.

And no, I haven't trolled the release, other than a few documents and news media outlets such as NPR and such. (the very nature of the release means that to do so would take a lot of time I don't have, so I leave it to those that do).  But that's what I meant by in your (and the slanted view of those that report this) view- nothing as a slight.  But if the gatherers of the information deemed it to be placed in such regard, then who are we to say that they aren't, not knowing the full picture?

[J-Mac]

By definition, the cables are secret-related, even if not 'classified' rating.  A good write-up on what a cable is was done by Slate.

From that article:

Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance.

-wraith808 (December 14, 2010, 01:33 PM)

There is no such definition of cable classification, in that article or anywhere else. "meant to be" is what the article says, yet federal regulations call for any restricted communication to receive a classification designation. And 15,652 (6%) of the cables were indeed classified as Secret as noted in my last post. The rest were not.

And no, I haven't trolled the release, other than a few documents and news media outlets such as NPR and such. (the very nature of the release means that to do so would take a lot of time I don't have, so I leave it to those that do). 

Hmm..  And here I consider that people have "read" or "perused" the released documents. You seem to be implying that to do so is trolling...

But that's what I meant by in your (and the slanted view of those that report this) view- nothing as a slight.  But if the gatherers of the information deemed it to be placed in such regard, then who are we to say that they aren't, not knowing the full picture?

OK, "nothing as a slight", and yet you call my view "slanted" along with others who report this? Slanted compared to what? Your view? Which I guess is "normal" or "standard"? Please explain.

On second thought, I think I will end my input here as it seems to be getting a little too personal for you. Politics and religion and all that; guess it's true!

TTFN

Jim

[wraith808]

On second thought, I think I will end my input here as it seems to be getting a little too personal for you. Politics and religion and all that; guess it's true!

-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)

We'll start with this, and my response to an earlier thread.  I don't know where you got the 'personal' slant to things, but to each his own, especially since I said earlier:

We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this.

-Renegade (December 13, 2010, 09:25 AM)

Perhaps you're right.  But I continue to try to see the point.

-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 11:04 AM)

But if this truly was a question, rather than just a rhetorical post as your last part made it seem to be, I'll answer, and you choose to read or not, and continue to debate or not.  I'm having no problems with it, so it's up to you...

By definition, the cables are secret-related, even if not 'classified' rating.  A good write-up on what a cable is was done by Slate.

From that article:

Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance.

-wraith808 (December 14, 2010, 01:33 PM)

There is no such definition of cable classification, in that article or anywhere else. "meant to be" is what the article says, yet federal regulations call for any restricted communication to receive a classification designation. And 15,652 (6%) of the cables were indeed classified as Secret as noted in my last post. The rest were not.

-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)

That part I quoted was from the article, so to say it's not there is... puzzling.  What a 'cable' (and I put it into quotes for the very reason that it is called into question) is, is a classification (or to make it clearer, a nomenclature, perhaps?) that refers to e-mails that have information in them, and is stored for those that have security clearance to be able to access.  That was the part that I referred to.

And no, I haven't trolled the release, other than a few documents and news media outlets such as NPR and such. (the very nature of the release means that to do so would take a lot of time I don't have, so I leave it to those that do).  

Hmm..  And here I consider that people have "read" or "perused" the released documents. You seem to be implying that to do so is trolling...

-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)

What?!?   Ummm... ok.  Maybe it's my fault.  Again, for the sake of clarification, maybe if I had used the word trawled (which indeed is an alternate version of troll?)  I would have thought that context would have made the intent clear, but I guess not?

But that's what I meant by in your (and the slanted view of those that report this) view- nothing as a slight.  But if the gatherers of the information deemed it to be placed in such regard, then who are we to say that they aren't, not knowing the full picture?

OK, "nothing as a slight", and yet you call my view "slanted" along with others who report this? Slanted compared to what? Your view? Which I guess is "normal" or "standard"? Please explain.

-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)

Slanted as in looking at only one view?  Again, it seems not to be me that is taking things personally.  I consider non-slanted reporting to be unbiased, which I have heard (NPR and other news outlets) that report both sides of the story.  But many outlets are reporting on this as if then ends justify the means, and take any wrongdoing out of this whatsoever.  As I stated on another thread, I don't think that Assange has done anything that he should or could be prosecuted over.  I wouldn't have done it, and I don't think it was right... but it wasn't illegal by any means.  But illegal no.  But laws were broken in obtaining these documents, and I think that whomever was responsible should be held accountable.  And I think that whatever legal remedies can be taken to get this information should be done.

Security clearance is required for a reason, and is not optional.  It's not something that you're forced into- you can choose not to take the position if you don't agree with the agreement.  But once you do, you're bound by it, and should take it seriously- as seriously as any breaches of it should also be taken.

[JavaJones]

Wraith, do you think Daniel Ellsberg should have gone to prison for what he did then?

- Oshyan

[wraith808]

Wraith, do you think Daniel Ellsberg should have gone to prison for what he did then?

-JavaJones (December 14, 2010, 10:36 PM)

Let me ask a question in return; one that follows my previous statements.  Was there any legal wrongdoing exposed by the Pentagon Papers?  And had he signed any national security agreements?  The answer to those two questions should reveal my stance on the issue.

Spoiler

There was persecutory misconduct on the case to a level that I've not seen much, so I'm glad the trial went the way it did; any other outcome would be a miscarriage of justice.  But once you start weakening the definition of security clearance, and leave it in the hands of individuals to decide, you might as well not have it, IMO.  At the end of the day, the rule of law should prevail.

[mouser]

wraith I urge you to watch the documentary on Ellsberg -- even if you don't find yourself agreeing with him at all, it might be useful to see how a former marine and loyal government supporter found himself slowly transformed over the course of a few years into a whistle blower willing to go to jail.

[JavaJones]

Wraith, I don't really understand your answer. Can you be more direct? How does your answer apply to the case at hand with Assange and Wikileaks as a whole?

- Oshyan

[wraith808]

Wraith, I don't really understand your answer. Can you be more direct? How does your answer apply to the case at hand with Assange and Wikileaks as a whole?

-JavaJones (December 16, 2010, 12:04 AM)

You didn't ask me about Assange.  You asked me about Ellsberg.  The two cases are completely different, and an answer to one couldn't be applied to the other.

[JavaJones]

Ah, I see, and I rather disagree. The reason I asked the original question was because I felt it was relevant to the current consideration about Assange. While they are not by any means *the same* situation, there are strong similarities. Ellsberg himself has said so, which to me is rather compelling.

- Oshyan

[wraith808]

I don't see the similarities.  Assange distributed information that he was given by a third party, and was never bound by national security agreements, and is indeed, not even a citizen.  Ellsberg was bound by national security agreements, and only because of that pledge did he have access to the documents, that he then distributed to the third parties.  The third parties would be the equivalent of Assange, not Ellsberg.

[JavaJones]

The similarities are in how the government is responding. I'm more trying to just understand what your perspective is though. It *seemed* like you were against people breaking their national security agreements to reveal confidential information. Is that correct? If so does that hold true in the case of Ellsberg? I don't think we'll ever totally agree here, I just want to understand what your actual position is, and it seems rather murky at present to me. Maybe just a summary of your stance.

- Oshyan

[mahesh2k]

I see what Justin Assange is doing as an act of heroism.

Personally i don't care if he gets replaced with someone else or gets sued by government, what i care is - Wiki leaks attempt to bring things out. That's what matter more than Justin.

[wraith808]

The similarities are in how the government is responding. I'm more trying to just understand what your perspective is though. It *seemed* like you were against people breaking their national security agreements to reveal confidential information. Is that correct? If so does that hold true in the case of Ellsberg? I don't think we'll ever totally agree here, I just want to understand what your actual position is, and it seems rather murky at present to me. Maybe just a summary of your stance.

-JavaJones (December 16, 2010, 02:34 PM)

If you break the law, then you should be prosecuted.  The means do not justify the ends.  In the case of revelation of legal misconduct, and the inability to report such wrongdoing through the channels that are set up for such things, there can be some leeway.  But we are a country of laws, and they are created for a reason.  In the case that laws are not broken, such as in Assange's case, it becomes more of a moral issue, than a legal one.  Whomever was responsible for the leak is the only one that can be held accountable for breaking their relevant oaths.  But Assange made no such oaths, and thus has done nothing of legal consequence.

[JavaJones]

I see what Justin Assange is doing as an act of heroism.

Personally i don't care if he gets replaced with someone else or gets sued by government, what i care is - Wiki leaks attempt to bring things out. That's what matter more than Justin.

-mahesh2k (December 16, 2010, 02:47 PM)

Absolutely, though I appreciate the willingness of him and those like him to put their life and freedoms on the line for what I see as a very good cause. Ultimately this is just like file sharing or any other distributed, crowd-driven system; it's a Medusa, chop off one head and another one takes its place. It's difficult or impossible to stop given sufficient motivation by the crowd. And I think these are examples of modern-day revolutionary action. It's a "sign of the times", an indication we've gotten to a certain level of dissatisfaction with government and the status quo, that we have this kind of thing happening regularly and on a large scale.

- Oshyan

[JavaJones]

The similarities are in how the government is responding. I'm more trying to just understand what your perspective is though. It *seemed* like you were against people breaking their national security agreements to reveal confidential information. Is that correct? If so does that hold true in the case of Ellsberg? I don't think we'll ever totally agree here, I just want to understand what your actual position is, and it seems rather murky at present to me. Maybe just a summary of your stance.

-JavaJones (December 16, 2010, 02:34 PM)

If you break the law, then you should be prosecuted.  The means do not justify the ends.  In the case of revelation of legal misconduct, and the inability to report such wrongdoing through the channels that are set up for such things, there can be some leeway.  But we are a country of laws, and they are created for a reason.  In the case that laws are not broken, such as in Assange's case, it becomes more of a moral issue, than a legal one.  Whomever was responsible for the leak is the only one that can be held accountable for breaking their relevant oaths.  But Assange made no such oaths, and thus has done nothing of legal consequence.

-wraith808 (December 16, 2010, 02:57 PM)

You mean the *ends* don't justify the means? How many laws do you know of that you perceive to be unnecessary, unfair, or downright morally wrong? I can think of quite a few. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's "right". Does it need to be followed? Yes, if you don't want to be arrested and prosecuted. This is tricky stuff though, because legality doesn't equate to morality or "rightness"; legality should not be a universal shield behind which any wrong or right can be obscured. A right can still be right, even if illegal, and a wrong can certainly still be wrong even if legal. What is anyone to do when they see a right being punished or a wrong going unpunished due to issues in the current legal system? Petition their congressman? Good luck with that. When the system has a selfish interest in the status quo and maintenance of power, it's hard to trust it to enact meaningful change. So what options are left?...

- Oshyan

[mahesh2k]

It's a "sign of the times", an indication we've gotten to a certain level of dissatisfaction with government and the status quo, that we have this kind of thing happening regularly and on a large scale.

+1

[wraith808]

You mean the *ends* don't justify the means? How many laws do you know of that you perceive to be unnecessary, unfair, or downright morally wrong? I can think of quite a few. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's "right". Does it need to be followed? Yes, if you don't want to be arrested and prosecuted. This is tricky stuff though, because legality doesn't equate to morality or "rightness"; legality should not be a universal shield behind which any wrong or right can be obscured. A right can still be right, even if illegal, and a wrong can certainly still be wrong even if legal. What is anyone to do when they see a right being punished or a wrong going unpunished due to issues in the current legal system? Petition their congressman? Good luck with that. When the system has a selfish interest in the status quo and maintenance of power, it's hard to trust it to enact meaningful change. So what options are left?...

-JavaJones (December 16, 2010, 03:01 PM)

Yes, I did... it was a mistype.  It happens sometimes.  I never said that all laws were right, nor that legality equates to morality.  I only said that the Rule of Law must be maintained, or what is the use of having laws?  And I said that legal channels should be followed whenever possible.  The reason that people that bring the true wrongdoings that cannot be taken through correct channels are termed 'heroes' are for having the fortitude to risk everything standing against injustice- and they do so in pursuit of that same Rule of Law.  To apply it without regard cheapens the risks and sacrifices those that expose true criminality make, IMO.

[JavaJones]

Er, well yes, I agree. So... what are we arguing about again?

- Oshyan

[wraith808]

LOL... I guess nothiing? 

[Renegade]

We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this.

-Renegade (December 13, 2010, 09:25 AM)

Perhaps you're right.  But I continue to try to see the point.

I don't think that there needs to be any "wrong" committed for a leak to be useful. They expose attitudes and actions. Some actions are neither good nor bad, but are of interest as they can have wider implications.

I'm thrilled at the prospect of having a truly open society with transparency in government. We need it. Badly.

-Renegade (December 13, 2010, 09:25 AM)

If there were only one government, or if all governments played by one set of rules, or if the people that governed weren't human with human frailties, I'd agree.

But barring one of these occurrences, living in a world with multiple governments run by humans with very real human failings and ambitions, the only way that could happen is to the detriment of the government that adopted this stance.  Not from the people that want to work with the government, but those that do work against it.  What it seems is that people don't realize or conveniently forget when such things come up that naughty men that plan evil deeds still run about.  And that's just to speak of the known enemies; at certain times allies can be worse than our enemies.  And to enter into dealings with such people with everything that you know, and even worse, everything that you don't know in full public view is to handicap yourself.

-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 11:04 AM)

I am still very conflicted over that issue. *SHOULD* we try to make things as we think they *SHOULD* be? OR, *SHOULD* we deal with things as they *ARE*. C. S. Lewis pointed out very well how there is an infinite divide between IS and OUGHT, and that there is no method to get between them logically.

So, we have a VERY difficult issue there. Deal with things as they are, or attempt to make things as they "should be".

I think Wikileaks is trying to make things as we believe they SHOULD be, while you're arguing that we need to deal with things as they ARE. Both are valid perspectives, but getting between them is logically impossible. (Which is why I said that I don't think we'd ever see eye-to-eye on the issue.)

I think that deciding which perspective to use needs to be done on a case by case basis, which isn't a very useful paradigm.

Back to the highlight above...

Those human problems complicate things horribly. I flip on the issue often, swinging from one radical to the other in different cases. I'm not for capital punishment, but I can see instances where it would be needed, and others where it is unforgivable. Ugh. How to decide?

I think at some point it's usually better to side with OUGHT rather than IS. In the Wikileaks case, I think this is the best approach.

When I think of the IS case, I can often only come up with violent solutions to problems, e.g. Assassinating key individuals who cause great evil. (You see the problem there... Yuck.) I can't help but think Machiavelli and Hobbes had it right.

In any event, that's part of what I see as a root issue on the topic.

[wraith808]

I think that things are just not black and white. 

I'm very much personally on the scale of deal with things as they ought to be (leading by example, etc), at least with people that I have a personal stake with, until proven that I can't deal with them on that level.  I try to make a judgement call at the point when a person is about to cross that threshold, and then, either keep them on the other side, or cast aside all doubts once they are on the other side. 

That line becomes more discerning and farther out as it affects more people.  If I make a wrong assessment about something dealing with me, it affects me, so I'm a bit looser.  As the scope of potential damage increases, my leeway becomes smaller (i.e. I'll take chances with myself, that I would never take with my family).

But on a meta-level, I just don't see how that can work with so much at stake.  These decisions affect so many people, that to take that kind of chance seems rather reckless IMO.  I think that's one of the reasons for the extent of WWI and WWII.  People didn't want to err on the wrong side, and thus gave Germany a lot more leeway than they ever should have, especially in the case of WWII.  The other countries played by one set of rules, while Germany played by another.  To take that further, even when things got dirty, there were some lines that were not crossed.  I think that is an important distinction to make.

But I ramble...

[Renegade]

I think that things are just not black and white. 

I'm very much personally on the scale of deal with things as they ought to be (leading by example, etc), at least with people that I have a personal stake with, until proven that I can't deal with them on that level.  I try to make a judgement call at the point when a person is about to cross that threshold, and then, either keep them on the other side, or cast aside all doubts once they are on the other side. 

That line becomes more discerning and farther out as it affects more people.  If I make a wrong assessment about something dealing with me, it affects me, so I'm a bit looser.  As the scope of potential damage increases, my leeway becomes smaller (i.e. I'll take chances with myself, that I would never take with my family).

But on a meta-level, I just don't see how that can work with so much at stake.  These decisions affect so many people, that to take that kind of chance seems rather reckless IMO.  I think that's one of the reasons for the extent of WWI and WWII.  People didn't want to err on the wrong side, and thus gave Germany a lot more leeway than they ever should have, especially in the case of WWII.  The other countries played by one set of rules, while Germany played by another.  To take that further, even when things got dirty, there were some lines that were not crossed.  I think that is an important distinction to make.

But I ramble...

-wraith808 (December 17, 2010, 09:51 AM)

Germany is an interesting case. Incidentally, they just finished paying back WWI reparations a little while ago.

But WWI was sparked by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and not much would have stopped that. But there was no "right" or "wrong" in WWI, unlike WWII where Germany was simply evil. For Germany, WWII was justified as getting back for WWI injustices, and nothing would have stopped Germany then. Yalta was a mess. But it laid the foundation for half a century of tenuous peace.

In WWII, Hitler would not allow the use of chemical weapons on the battle field as he thought it was inhumane/dishonorable/whatever. Kind of messed up as he had no problems using it elsewhere.

Nobody wanted another war, and letting Germany run all over Austria and the east (until Poland) was a lot of slack. (Austria welcomed Germany, so there was no real issue there.) The sitzkrieg wasn't really by choice as the allies had no real power to do anything at the time (debatable, but close enough).

I'm rambling there, and I'm not really seeing the relevance of WWI & II there. Are you suggesting that Wikileaks could spark something like another world war? I can't see anyone letting that happen. There's too much at stake. Chemical and biological weapons are in play, and they would be used by someone. Nobody wants to see that, except for the lunatics that would use them.

But espionage is always ongoing and never stops. THIS time the espionage is for EVERYONE and not just for a "side", though it is against a side, the US. I hope there is more of it against other "sides" for everyone.



Wikileaks has done a lot of good already though.

It has exposed (or cast suspicion on) Julia Guillard, the Australian douche Prime Minister, for the lying, conniving witch she is. It has also allowed her the opportunity to open her mouth and prove that she's brain damaged. On numerous occasions. She'll do it tomorrow again in all likelihood.

Wikileaks has exposed Shell dealings in Nigeria.

Wikileaks has brought to light MORE BP disasters.

It's doing a lot of good in exposing all over the place.

While it is somewhat reckless as you point out, I think it will simply force people to behave better.

[wraith808]

Germany is an interesting case. Incidentally, they just finished paying back WWI reparations a little while ago.

But WWI was sparked by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and not much would have stopped that. But there was no "right" or "wrong" in WWI, unlike WWII where Germany was simply evil. For Germany, WWII was justified as getting back for WWI injustices, and nothing would have stopped Germany then. Yalta was a mess. But it laid the foundation for half a century of tenuous peace.

In WWII, Hitler would not allow the use of chemical weapons on the battle field as he thought it was inhumane/dishonorable/whatever. Kind of messed up as he had no problems using it elsewhere.

Nobody wanted another war, and letting Germany run all over Austria and the east (until Poland) was a lot of slack. (Austria welcomed Germany, so there was no real issue there.) The sitzkrieg wasn't really by choice as the allies had no real power to do anything at the time (debatable, but close enough).

-Renegade (December 18, 2010, 06:20 AM)

Well, I'm not saying it could have been stopped.  But what I'm saying is the damage could have been mitigated somewhat, had people acted first, and especially dealt with Germany on a different level, rather than as everyone else.  Like you said, they were given a lot of latitude.  Germany knew its plans- no one else did.

From Diplomacy By Henry Kissinger, speaking of Joseph Goebbels (Hitler's propaganda minister) secret briefing in April 1940:

"Up to now we have succeeded in leaving the enemy in the dark concerning Germany's real goals, just as before 1932 our domestic foes never saw where we were going or that our oath of legality was just a trick... They could have suppressed us. They could have arrested a couple of us in 1925 and that would have been that, the end. No, they let us through the danger zone. That's exactly how it was in foreign policy, too... In 1933 a French premier ought to have said (and if I had been the French premier I would have said it): 'The new Reich Chancellor [Hitler] is the man who wrote Mein Kampf, which says this and that. This man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march!' But they didn't do it. They left us alone and let us slip through the risky zone, and we were able to sail around all dangerous reefs. And when we were done, and well armed, better than they, then they started the war!"

I'm rambling there, and I'm not really seeing the relevance of WWI & II there. Are you suggesting that Wikileaks could spark something like another world war? I can't see anyone letting that happen. There's too much at stake. Chemical and biological weapons are in play, and they would be used by someone. Nobody wants to see that, except for the lunatics that would use them.

-Renegade (December 18, 2010, 06:20 AM)

Nothing like that... just that dealing with other countries that don't have the same goals as you in the open way described hoping that they will follow suit is folly to the highest degree.

But espionage is always ongoing and never stops. THIS time the espionage is for EVERYONE and not just for a "side", though it is against a side, the US. I hope there is more of it against other "sides" for everyone.

-Renegade (December 18, 2010, 06:20 AM)

I'll agree with the always ongoing and unstopping nature of espionage, but I will say that the espionage was not for everyone as stated.  It was for everyone other than the United States government.  Just because you release the findings, doesn't reduce the harm it does to the country in question.  To an extent it also was not for some of those mentioned, as it hurt their ties, or made them take public action to save face when perhaps they wouldn't have, and undermined efforts (especially in Russia) to the detriment of those working for more normalized relationships.  It lent authenticity to the 'See, there's no use in trying a different approach' crowd.

I'm not saying that Wikileaks hasn't done good.  It's just very reckless and very indiscriminate, it seems in pursuit of either notoriety to increase it's profile, or an obliviousness to the risk vs reward of releasing certain information.  I'm encouraged that they seem to have redacted those things that the government was able to get the Times to redact because of the harm that they can cause- which leads me to believe that they have some sense of propriety on that subject.  But the biggest issue with fanatics of any stripe, whether for or against the need for secrecy on some regards in the government, or indeed on any topic, are that this recklessness can cause their purpose to become skewed.  I'm hoping that this is not the case with Wikileaks as it seems to be (successfully) positioning itself as the de facto goto for these kinds of leaks.  There is potential for great good, but also great harm, and it's a fine line to expect anyone to walk.

Rambling again... so I'll cut it short here