Forgot your password?

WikiLeaks Should...

Displaying poll results.
Keep doing what they're doing
  14715 votes / 40%
Put more effort indo redaction
  1552 votes / 4%
Stop entirely
  1698 votes / 4%
Stop focusing on government leaks
  882 votes / 2%
Stop focusing on US leaks
  2750 votes / 7%
Keep going, but stop with the drama antics
  9131 votes / 25%
Spill something on <person I hate>
  981 votes / 2%
Find a good place to hide
  4352 votes / 12%
36061 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks Should...

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 29, 2010 @07:44PM (#34381832)

    They need to stop with the drama, AND find a place to hide. Honestly, after this I'll be surprised every day that I don't see in the news that he's been assassinated.

    • by PieSquared (867490) <isosceles2006NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday November 29, 2010 @07:52PM (#34381902)
      Well that's the thing. With all the drama surrounding their releases, 'he' stays in the news. As long as he's there, it would be quite hard to kill him and not have everyone know what you've done. If they lose the drama and make every effort to become invisible, on the other hand, he can disappear without comment. Of course, the 'insurance' file also probably helps with that.
      • by Haeleth (414428) on Monday November 29, 2010 @11:02PM (#34383590) Journal

        As long as he's there, it would be quite hard to kill him and not have everyone know what you've done.

        That was true back when he was only pissing off one country at a time. But these latest leaks have embarrassed half the governments in the world! How would you ever know who to blame?

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 29, 2010 @11:16PM (#34383700)

          Whom. :)

        • by Z00L00K (682162) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:43AM (#34387122) Homepage

          The latest leaks is everyone's pants down one way or another so the persons who may lose the most there are the diplomats that works for a dictator or similar that has said something they shouldn't have said. They may end up in prison or get a capital punishment for insulting the great leader.

          The rest of the diplomats - they will get something new to chat about when future parties are thrown. Of course governments and leaders are having a fit - that's the game of politics for the public, but in the long run it won't be any serious international incidents. Some diplomats may have to relocate from popular assignments to less popular but that's about it.

          • by rochberg (1444791) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:13PM (#34406794)

            You've sort of hit on one of the things that has concerned me about these leaks. I generally support WikiLeaks's stated goal of exposing corruption. But people, especially here in the U.S., ignore the repercussions. For instance, there are many people that argue that anything done in the name of our democracy should be public. That way, we would have a fully informed populace that would use this information accordingly in the next election cycle. As the argument goes, if the citizens are unaware of the government's actions on their behalf, then the citizens cannot act to change the policies. It's a very noble ideal. But it's also deeply flawed.

            Information is not classified to keep U.S. citizens in the dark. Rather, it is classified (primarily...yes, there are abuses...but that's a different matter) in order to keep the information out of the hands of hostile entities (certain foreign governments and terrorist organizations). There is simply no possible way to have a fully informed populace without sharing the information with our enemies or those who do not share our values.

            So, yeah, it is a nice ideal to help the citizenry become aware of corrupt actions done by members of the U.S. government. However, we need to accept that there is a cost to this information. It is not free. Individuals in other countries may be imprisoned or killed. North Korea may act even more antagonistically now that they have reason to suspect that they do not have the full support of China. Iran may increase the urgency of their nuclear program now that it's publicly known that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been urging the U.S. to strike.

            In the end, there's always a trade-off. Yes, we U.S. citizens have more information about our government. However, so do other groups that may react in very bad ways. To suggest that political embarrassment is the only result of these leaks is utterly naive.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Honestly, after this I'll be surprised every day that I don't see in the news that he's been assassinated.

      Then you might get someone who ISN'T a douchebag to take over the site and then you've got big problems because the main issue of wikileaks isn't taken care of and now you've got blood on your hands and everyone would be pointing fingers.

      Its kinda like that story, I don't know if its true or not, but they say the Allies actually had planned out an operation with a reasonable chance of success to Kill Hitler - however by that time, Hitler was doing such a bang up job of losing the war that if one of his Gene

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by oldspewey (1303305)

        By what time?

        There is significant evidence to suggest Hitler was actually gifted with an impressive sense of intuition, and his strategic/tactical directives during the early years of the war (1939-1941) were close to spot-on. For example on the eastern front, a historical analysis suggests that during the initial blitzkrieg attacks on Russia, Hitler's specific veto decisions over his generals were correct, and led to spectacular successes.

        His fatal failing, however, was his ego. As 1941 wore on, and the Ge

        • Hitler invaded Russia (admittedly in June) - do you really need more than that?
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by oldspewey (1303305)

            Whether I need more than that or not, there is more than that ... lots more ... whole books devoted to the subject of Hitler's invasion of Russia and the factors behind it.

            Without going into too much detail, the basic reasoning is (was) that Russia and Germany were going to find themselves at war within a decade (at most) in any case. Also, by conquering Russia early, Hitler felt he had a reasonable chance of keeping America isolated, tied up with Japan, and out of the war in Europe. He knew that America ar

    • by echucker (570962) on Monday November 29, 2010 @08:12PM (#34382080) Homepage
      I went with less drama, and less US. I know we've got plenty of dirty laundry, but it just makes them look like they have an axe to grind.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        At first blush I'd agree with you but isn't it the case that they got a huge trove of documents from that US Army guy, and they're just releasing what they got? I mean if they had received a fuckton of cables from Russia and didn't release them, that would be one thing. But the reality is they've just released what they received, and that they spent a lot of time on releases that had a lot of documents. Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

      • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @03:44PM (#34393190)
        Except for the fact if you really look at their entire document leaks they aren't US centered, in fact a lot of the leaks come from Asia. The problem is, an internet blacklist of sites in Thailand isn't going to make headlines.
    • by rachit (163465) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @04:58AM (#34386126)

      Definitely find a place to hide. When posting something truly interesting, someone's bound to be pissed off about it. In fact, I

      • by D Ninja (825055)

        While posting interesting things may result in pissing someone off, I have learned that insightful posts - ones that really understand the problems at hand - are what really

    • What drama? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @01:18PM (#34390602)

      What drama are we talking about? His legal problems? Because I doubt that he wanted them, and would probably stop them if he could. Or do you think he should step down simply because he was accused of a crime? That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. That would be making it too easy for people to shut down wikileaks (all they have to do make an accusation? anybody could do that.) and it would make him appear guilty (whether he is or not). You can't quit just because you ran into a little (expected) resistance.

      I think it's the various governments involved and the news media which are being dramatic, not WikiLeaks. Every time there's a new leak they talk about how millions of Americans will die as a result of the leak. Every news article seems to mention the rape and molestation charges, which really have nothing to do with the leak. Do you want the media and the politicians to be less dramatic? Keep dreaming.

      And please don't tell me that someone else would not be as much of a distraction. The news media can and will launch an ad-hominem attack against anybody.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ruke (857276)

        I think we're more specifically referring to Wikileaks' attention-mongering behavior - for example, shutting down the website for weeks and begging/threatening for donations before releasing the "Collateral Murder" video, or announcing planned leaks to the press weeks before releasing them. On one hand, I see how this is incredibly effective at garnering attention, which is probably the intended goal, but on the other, Julian Assange has been acting more and more like a paranoid drama queen over the past fe

        • 1. US authorities are pulling out all the stops to prosecute him (on what seem to be pretty obviously trumped up charges).

          2. They are also putting maximum pressure on other countries and international organzations to legally harass him.

          3. Numerous pundits are clamoring for him to be assassinated.

          I'd say he has ample justification to be paranoid. And regarding "attention-mongering behavior" - dude, the point is that this stuff is news that he wants people to read. Of course he tries to get people to pay atte

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gadzook33 (740455)
      It's funny...Julian Assange's location is a secret. But I guess that's different than everyone else's secrets.
  • Redact and post (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Creedo (548980) on Monday November 29, 2010 @07:53PM (#34381916) Journal
    Some of the information should be redacted to protect informants. But, in general, I agree with releasing these documents. I despair that anything will have an effect on the deafness of the American people to world events, their worship of American exceptionalism and their general lack of rational thought. And I say this as an American citizen.
    • by PPH (736903)

      In a perfect world, yes. But WikiLeaks has limited resources with which to do the redaction. If they could automate it (run the docs through a filter) that might fit within their resource limits. But filter what? The Pentagon/CIA/State Department certainly aren't going to give them a list of names for a search and replace process. Some AI might be able to pick out names. But "<redacted>, the president of Obscuristan" isn't going to fool many people.

    • by PhilHibbs (4537)

      This time, they've been quite smart about it. They released the documents to the mainstream press, who have the resources to go through it looking for both the juicy bits and the names to redact.

      What baffles me is that everyone is concentrating on Wikileaks. If A whispers a secret to B, and B whispers that secret to C and D, and C and D tell the whole world, who takes the share of the blame? In this scenario, B is Wikileaks, and they're taking all the flak. It's the mainstream media who have chosen to tell

  • quit with the gossip (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fusiongyro (55524) <faxfreemosquitoNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday November 29, 2010 @07:54PM (#34381922) Homepage

    I read through a summary of the leaked data they found and really, the only truly interesting thing I saw was Hillary ordering snooping on Ban Ki-Moon and other UN folk. The rest of it was largely diplomats shit-talking various leaders. I'm sure I missed other important stuff, but that's just another problem with this dump-truck non-journalism method of leaking they do.

    WikiLeaks are shooting themselves in the foot. I think a small, targeted release of sensitive data would do more damage than simply dropping a 16-ton brick of documents on the press and letting them figure it out. They're obviously optimizing for the "size" of the leak, as if that's what's important, rather than what is being leaked. And doing so only encourages more government paranoia and for them to find and patch their leaks. It also depends crucially on good journalists to sift through the shit and find the gold, which is not something I would trust a modern journalist to do.

    It would have been far more efficacious, IMO, to identify a small number of embarrassing documents amid the morass, redact them carefully, and release them slowly over a period of time. Not only would that let them control the story (the story would be the leak rather than the giant WikiLeaks data dump), it would also help obscure who exactly their leaks are and whether or not they've been caught or shut down. The way WikiLeaks has been operating, they're attracting too much of the wrong kind of attention and not enough of the right kinds.

    • by Rijnzael (1294596) on Monday November 29, 2010 @08:10PM (#34382066)
      Agreed on the point of less gossip. Leaks which indicate abuses on the part of the government--such as ordering surveillance of questionable legality or pressuring governments to not serve international arrest warrants--are what should be the highest priority as far as government leaks are concerned. I applaud WikiLeaks for releasing such information, as well as the Iraq War log. But from what I can tell, so far, this information is minimal in the most recent release. It seems that the bulk of this release solely seeks to portray the US in a bad light in a subject matter that's pretty wholly irrelevant (I expect every government uses similar such candid assessments of their foreign counterparts). I'd have wished to see more such evidence of abuse in this release, as they apparently have much more of that in the works [forbes.com].
      • by SwedishPenguin (1035756) on Monday November 29, 2010 @08:54PM (#34382560)

        Yeah the one about the international warrant was pretty damn interesting to me, that one doesn't seem to be garnering a lot of attention though.

        American intelligence agents have to be able to be held responsible for their actions, they cannot just go around kidnapping foreign citizens in their own countries and transport them to secret prisons, in this case a German citizen abducted in Germany and transported to Afghanistan. Apparently mistaken for someone else with the same name(!)

        If they wanted the guy, they need to go through proper channels and get him extradited for a proper trial. If they don't have enough evidence to get him extradited, they can't have him!

      • by theshowmecanuck (703852) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @12:49AM (#34384568) Journal
        What I found interesting is that the documents confirm one important point that we generally understand: the Arab world doesn't want to sort out its own problems, it wants the U.S. to fix them while they yell and complain about the U.S. putting their nose in the Middle East's business. Specifically, there were quite a number of cables from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, etc. etc. stating in general that America should bomb/invade/take care of Iran before they build nuclear bombs. Other countries want the U.S. to take care of their dirty business but don't want to tell others or defend America when it does intervene.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @04:22AM (#34385976)

          Iran, strictly (and even practically) speaking, is not the "Arab world".

          Iran is the Persian World -- they speak Farsi rather than Arabic, and they are mainly Shia rather than Sunni.

          There are substantial cultural, social and economic differences between the Arab states in the Middle East and Iran.

          The gulf (pardon the pun) between Saudi Arabia and Iran is as great as that between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

          • by wickerprints (1094741) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @01:21PM (#34390672)

            Yes, but note that the GP is still correct: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Yemen, UAE are all Arab states, and THEY are the ones asking the US to intervene with arms. Read the statement again and THINK what it actually means before you reiterate the old "Iran is not Arab" meme.

            That said, the whole reason why the Middle East is the way it is, is because there's all this oil there, and the rest of the world wants it. How far Russia, China, Europe, and the US are willing to go to exert their influence over these oil-rich countries, both politically, economically, and militarily, is the historical basis for why the entire area is so fucked up. If Israel never existed, they'd still be at each others' throats because they're like spoiled adolescents who have been given a million dollars to spend on whatever they want. So yes, Arab states want the US to intervene, but the US has allowed that strategic dependence to develop as a means of increasing their leverage in the region. Because if they aren't friends with the Saudis and support their fundamentalist monarchy, then there are plenty of other countries willing to be the Saudis' BFF, and the US doesn't want them buying weapons from, say, Russia or China.

            The day that the human race is free from oil and finds a suitably cheap and efficient renewable energy source is the day the Middle East can go fuck themselves.

            • The middle east has been the way it is for far longer than mined oil's been a commodity. Unless you're going to try and make the claim that freakin' Caesar was after the stuff...

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Wyatt Earp (1029)

      Alot of the "juice" that has made the headlines from this round have been talked about and rumored for years.

      North Korea and China trading technology to Iran, arms to Hezbollah in ambulances, and most of the other stuff has been circulating for ages.

      Chipping prisoners like a horse was funny, the American reply that horses don't have good lawyers was chuckleworthy.

      But all in all I agree with you completely, Wikileaks doesn't really have a good idea of how to optimize these leaks - Mitrokhin and Andrews did m

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Darkness404 (1287218)
        Except for the fact that does nothing to actually help anyone. In a democracy it is required for people to have accurate, unbiased and timely information to decide on things. The War in Iraq/Afghanistan are large costs both monetarily and in terms of human life. Without accurate information, how is the voter supposed to make an informed and rational decision on whether it is worth it to continue? If we don't have information like what WikiLeaks have released, people are simply divided on two fronts either t
        • Wikileaks has released nothing to answer any of the questions you posed.

          • If there was nothing of value to voters with data that hasn't already been available, then it isn't of value to ZOMG TERRORISTS!!111!11 either so continuing to release it is a non-issue.
      • by nbauman (624611) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @01:05AM (#34384702) Homepage Journal

        Yes, but Mitrokhin based his books on his own handwritten notes from the archives, not copies from the archives themselves.

        As a result, historians are still arguing over how much of it is true.

        For example, he claimed that I.F. Stone was a KGB agent. We have no way of verifying that claim by seeing exactly what the archives said. Maybe he was. Or maybe Andrews thought he was. Or maybe a KGB agent exaggerated. When it first came out, I read through the claims and counter-claims, and I wasn't convinced.

        I've spent a lot of time checking claims against original documents, and often people read what they want to read.

        There's no substitute for source materials.

    • The rest of it was largely diplomats shit-talking various leaders. I'm sure I missed other important stuff, but that's just another problem with this dump-truck non-journalism method of leaking they do.

      You hit the mark there. But let me use a more appropriate metaphor, spam journalism. And the solution: sharpen your filtering skills, say, by using Google or your old fashioned Unix tools (e.g. grep) after you download the info dump.

      This spam or "dump-truck" journalism has parallels in the Internet as a whol

    • by bcmm (768152)

      I read through a summary of the leaked data they found and really, the only truly interesting thing I saw was Hillary ordering snooping on Ban Ki-Moon and other UN folk. The rest of it was largely diplomats shit-talking various leaders.

      Literally 0.1% of the archive has been released to the public. It is being staggared to avoid overwhelming the press and causing them to miss important stories. Time will tell if we get stories this big every week, or if the initial release was the best stuff.

    • You did not find the confirmation that the younger leaders in China don't like NK and that they don't really see the son of Kim Jong-Il as a likely successor?

      While most of the stuff are things those who pay attention can guess at, having it in writing makes it much more acceptable for more people to accept.

    • WikiLeaks are shooting themselves in the foot. I think a small, targeted release of sensitive data would do more damage than simply dropping a 16-ton brick of documents on the press and letting them figure it out.

      Assange's primary motivation seems to be his general dislike of government secrecy, not to out specific secrets or bring down specific people. So his goal is to get as much information out in the open as possible and let the press and the public figure it out.

      It's the press's job to analyze the information and make it digestible for the public, to point out what is most relevant and why. Unfortunately most of the press are not very good at it any more.

  • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday November 29, 2010 @08:23PM (#34382184)
    I think what Wikileaks is doing is great for the country and I support them wholeheartedly in their release of information that the US government won't release. The idea of Wikileaks having "blood on their hands" is hilarious. I forgot the part where Wikileaks said there were WMDs in Iraq and we needed to invade it. I forgot the part where Wikileaks shot civilians, abused prisoners, etc. I do think Assange needs to stop being a drama queen though. Just release the damn documents, there is no need to take your website down for 6 months crying about a lack of funds, keep hyping up all these releases, etc. We get enough drama bullshit from the "mainstream" news thank you very much.
  • Come on folks... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gmac63 (12603)

    Please tell me that a simple PFC could steal this kind of information. You can't be serious. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but if I were, this would have the Kennedy Assassination beat by a long mile.

    I'm not in the military but I have been in plenty of military datacenters. They just don't let PFCs in unless they are cleaning the floors.

    I bet this kid didn't even exist. I bet the 'leak' was intentional. Wouldn't surprise me.

    • by OverlordQ (264228)

      I'm not a conspiracy theorist but if I were [...] I bet this kid didn't even exist. I bet the 'leak' was intentional

      One of these things is not like the other . . . .

    • by ZosX (517789)

      There is a growing group of people that think wikileaks is really all smoke and mirrors and that it has become a disinfo arm of the government. I find it rather hard to believe that a pfc could get a hold of all these cables and everything else myself. That being said, something does smell pretty fishy here.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Posting anon for obvious reasons, but:

      Yes, a lot of people that are straight out of high school have access to information that could potentially be dangerous in the wrong hands. I was 18 when I entered in to one of the armed services, and I was immediately given a secret clearance after background checks. Part of my job was accounting for crypto/sensitive/classified items for the F-15 aircraft. I had access to TCTO information modifying those parts due to threat changes, avionics updates and firmware upgra

    • If this is still stuff Manning leaked, he was a Sgt before getting busted back down. Its possible they cleared him as a Sgt before he got busted and didn't remove it.

      • by itwerx (165526)

        > Its possible they cleared him as a Sgt before he got busted and didn't remove it.

        Damn unlikely, getting any kind of negative action like that almost always gets all clearances yanked automatically.

    • Re:Come on folks... (Score:5, Informative)

      by itwerx (165526) <itwerx@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @03:21AM (#34385624) Homepage

      As a one-time A1C (USAF equivalent to a PFC) I can say from personal experience that far more sensitive information than that is quite often accessible to lower ranking personnel. That's not to say they aren't vetted first, but we don't have mind-reading machines yet and at that age the simple process of maturity, (and exposure to enough crap like this :), can bring about radical changes in perspective. Most people have enough (or are given enough) perspective even at that age that they can be trusted with sensitive information, but no screening process is perfect. If there's anything surprising here it is that A - we don't get more leaks like this, and B - that the screening is actually as effective as it is, (those are not mutually exclusive).

  • I think that the US should stop chasing Wikileaks. All this saber-rattling about them is just sound and fury.

    Wikileaks owns you, US. Run up the white flag and retire.

  • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Monday November 29, 2010 @09:06PM (#34382664)

    Put more effort indo redaction

    Wow. Just wow.

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      That's just a capitalization error. Clearly that option was to indicate that the extra redaction effort should be outsourced to India.

  • by LoudMusic (199347)

    It's pretty early for this poll, but I'm amazed at the current results. Their focus on the US government has generated some powerful reaction, but there is lots of good dirt to be spilled on corporations and organizations from around the world. I guess they just make available what is given to them.

    • The US government is the Corporation, or rather, the other way around. Look closely to your foreign policy blunders and chances are, you will find some corporation lobbying or profiting from it. With regards to Wikileaks "targeting" the US, you will have to accept that the US government, on the whole had stopped being a force of good on the world stage, probably right after the fall of the Soviet Union. Hence, it is the "best" target for this sort of thing. Not to say other countries don't deserve to be tar

  • Whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoninIN (115418) <don.middendorf@gmail.com> on Monday November 29, 2010 @09:23PM (#34382836) Homepage
    I think at this point we should just come to accept that we're governed by the dollar, for the dollar and with absolutely no concern for anything else. We had an "extremist right wing" president who was completely beholden to the moneyed interests of oil, and the military industrial complex, we replaced him with a "radical left wing" president, and most of the core fundamental policies didn't change. Sure we see a slightly greater competency, and some of the people in charge can now count to 11 on their own, but in the end we're still killing random people around the world with remote controlled airplanes, bowing down to big oil and big money. So what wiki-leaks does is pretty much irrelevant.. Much sound and fury signifying nothing. The outrage, the controversy, they're simply diversionary tactics, shiny objects to distract those few who are still paying attention. Ship sailed, game over. Democracy is as dead as the climate, sorry future generations. Some of us tried, or maybe not, until it was too late. Sorry either way.
    • Re:Whatever. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tom (822) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @06:01AM (#34402130) Homepage Journal

      It was one of the many places where the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy is right on target: The presidents job is not to execute power, but to distract from it.

      The people who really rule our countries are the ones behind the politicians. The administration. Not the official ministers and heads-of-whatever, but the guys who run the ministries, and in many cases have done so for a decade or two. There are a few well-known cases here in Germany where a continuous policy despite two radical government changes can be traced directly to those guys.

      The ministers and presidents and other politicians only read the reports of those guys to the journalists at the press conference. They are not important. Obama's main mistake was thinking he could change how Washington works. Turns out Washington has more experience in bringing upity presidents in line.

  • by MrQuacker (1938262) on Monday November 29, 2010 @10:14PM (#34383262)
    Where the hell are the all the files on extraterrestrials? I don't care what they're secretly doing in iraq, give me the useful stuff I *do* want to know about.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @02:20AM (#34385224)

    Wikileaks is doing exactly what our news outlets should be doing but have refused to for quite some time: dig out the truth and present it to the public, without bias, commentary, or spin.

    At least in theory, citizens of the US live in a democratic republic. Such a political institution requires it's citizens to be able to make clear decisions based on fact. Without accurate information such a system will eventually break down.

    The fact that Wikileaks makes some of our government institutions and corporate entities nervous just proves that light needs to be cast on those institutions' activities. After all, according to the mantra of the Bush administration, if you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide.

    I commend Wikileaks as they are providing a necessary service that our society sorely needs at this point.

    I suggest that Wikileaks actually continue with the drama. They've created a number of very powerful enemies. At this point, staying in the spotlight is about the only thing that protects them and allows them to continue to perform their work.

  • Have any of the people claiming a US focus actually looked at what has been previously leaked? Or are you basing your false opinion on what you have seen in US media?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by poity (465672)
      Those previous leaks -- of which a handful were true foreign leaks, the majority of which were CRS originating from the US congress -- are now no where to be found.
      Go on the wikileaks site and try to find anything on another country, you will fail. Focus on the US, there's your proof.
    • by jgtg32a (1173373)
      I'm aware that there have been plenty of leaks on other countries and organizations.

      However, Julian doesn't seem to wave those around and editorialize them in like he does to the leaks from the USA.
  • Missing Option (Score:5, Insightful)

    by taucross (1330311) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @03:54AM (#34385842)

    Go further than what they're doing.

    Their measure of success is how many people they make uncomfortable. The way I see it, anyone who is scared of exposing their government has something to hide. Didn't your mother ever tell you that honesty was the best policy? That it's important to be honest, particularly when it's the most difficult? This kind of frank and open communication can only be a good thing.

    Nobody should be acting like Wikileaks is the problem - their willingness to shoot the messenger speaks volumes about their fear of the government. Or somebody else's government. I say, let the government fear the people!

    • Re:Missing Option (Score:5, Insightful)

      by petes_PoV (912422) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:30AM (#34387998)

      Didn't your mother ever tell you that honesty was the best policy

      Yeah, but she was lying. The best policy is to not get caught. The next best is to have someone else to blame, then credible denial, then legal loopholes and blaming the previous administration. Only after all of those have been exhausted do we get anywhere near telling the truth - and even then you have to peel away all the misdirections, obfuscations and decoys - like layers off an onion.

  • I liked wiki leaks at first but not it just looks like a really juvenile game of lets see what we can get our hands on and embarrass everyone by publishing. Bradley Manning is a criminal pure and simple not a serious whistle blower. Julian Assange is stupid enough to be used by Bradley, who is a idot to begin with, completely deluded or just a jerk; I am not sure which.

    A real whistle blower in my opinion at least is someone who knows of a continued deliberate covered up activity that is either illegal, im

    • by Pentagram (40862)

      Most of those State Department cables while embarrassing are not criminal not unethical in anyway and leaking them does nobody any good.

      I'd agree that these leaks are not terribly damaging to any government (at least of those released so far). There are a few that may expose unethical behaviour (e.g. the kidnapping case) but some actually make the governments involved look better in my eyes.

      Example 1: evidence of Gordon Brown attempting to intervene in the Gary McKinnon extradition case. I had no idea he had done so.

      Example 2: evidence of China's decline of support for North Korea. I suspected China's support was a bit half-hearted but coul

"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in the cigarettes?" -- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970

 



Forgot your password?
Working...