Why do Obama and Clinton opose Wikileaks latest...

[SilverTrain]

No, I mean the sheeple that would rather their government be corrupt than accountable...the ones who will bend over backwards when the feds use this as an excuse to start censoring the internet...

...and I haven't seen any reports of hackers publishing private account info...any sources I can read?

There are innumerable articles about it.

MasterCard Credit Card Numbers Leaked by WikiLeaks Supporters | MyBankTracker.com

 

[lucky8]

There are innumerable articles about it.

MasterCard Credit Card Numbers Leaked by WikiLeaks Supporters | MyBankTracker.com

Scroll down a bit...it says in very large print the numbers weren't real

 

[SilverTrain]

Actually there are plenty of US lies in the leaks.



None of it was news to anyone with half a brain. You don't get to simultaneously claim that terrorists are frighteningly competent and incompetent. As was pointed out by many newspapers, far more detailed info was already available publicly.

Besides, those to seek to do us harm have already gotten us to spend trillions fighting a fruitless war and destroyed our national budget for a decade. They're doing pretty good already.



Valuable intelligence is not shared over diplomatic cables. You're not good at this.

Government officials up to and including Secretary Gates have stated that there's nothing really bad in these leaks and that no leaks have harmed a single person.



Way to go yourself.

It's a lot easier to censor information when there's willing apologists who will help your propaganda for free. It's neat how Americans are all about freedom until the government tells them they shouldn't be.

Nothwithstanding the gross generalization that "Americans are all about freedom"......


I am, and have long been, wary of the fact that a great many of those who attain political/governmental power are already corrupt, or become so as a result of their power drunkenness. Similarly, I am often cynical about the prospects of ever having a government that truly serves it's broad constituency. I am fully aware of the high incidence of bald thievery, of the commission of gross atrocities, and the institutionalized cronyism that pervades our government.

I also welcome the sort of inverstigative journalism that blows the lid off a simmering cauldron of fraud, deceit, conspiracy, piracy, mayhem, or what have you. [Pentagon Papers, Watergate, etc.]

As noted above, Wikileaks is doing no such thing. In one sense, it's taking notes passed in class and reading them over the loudspeaker to the whole school. On the other hand, it's cynically, brazenly publishing a massive pile of sensitive "governmental" information for all the world to see for all time, and doing so under the auspices that this is "good" for everybody. It (and/or it's affiliates) is also engaging in what amounts to cyberterrorism. The ramifications are yet to be fully recognized. I don't like the prospects.

That said, I understand that some would cast Assange and Wikileaks in the role of hero. David, taking on Goliath, sticking it to the big, fat, corrupt, US of A. I understand that. But it's likely to be a brief "victory" for the rebels. With collateral, boomeranging ramifications for us all. We'll see.

I could, of course, be wrong and this is the greatest thing to happen since [insert your preferred allusion here].

 

[SilverTrain]

Scroll down a bit...it says in very large print the numbers weren't real

Mastercard says the numbers weren't real. Which of course they must in order to appease their worried clientele.

I guess we're believing the giant capitalist corporation. It's only giant capitalist governments we're calling liars?

Trying to keep up with the rules of the game.

 

[lucky8]

How naive can some people be (?) this "truth at all cost" bullshit. We're not talking lies, or cover-ups. There's a difference between a lie and non disclosure. A difference between what needs to be known and what doesn't.

Of what benefit, for example, was the publishing of locations the U.S. considered as likely targets of terrorist attack? Those who seek to do us harm must have laughed their asses off over that.

I could hear them chuckling, "Thanks Wikileaks. Now we know what the U.S. government knows of our intent, as well as who probably gave them that information." The leaks effectively nullified any intelligence gathered on that.

And if you're afraid of feds using excuses to "start censoring" the internet, then why give them one?? If increased interned scrutiny results, you'll be able to thank these Wikibozos AND their hack accomplices for it.

Way to go!

Well, the publishing of US locations is of really no benefit, or detriment, to anyone. It isn't a list of secret underground bunkers or anything like that, it's just a list of regions and facilities around the world that America has a vested interest in...so what? Anybody could make a list like that, they aren't secret locations.

The main issue is accountability. For example, Gaddafi's pressure and threats to get the Lockerbie bomber released, or China's cyber attack on Google. People need to know that manipulation of the system is rampant, and back-room deals are far more common than suspected. Official government information like this is the only way to prove it to the masses. Accountability is an especially important factor in democracies where we elect our leaders based upon what they say and do. If you're going to release the bomber because you're afraid Libya will cut-off trade, just say so. We don't need an orchestrated lie spread through mass media outlets. If governments lie about things like Lockerbie, what else are they hiding? I promise you there's more than just Watergate....

 

[lucky8]

Mastercard says the numbers weren't real. Which of course they must in order to appease their worried clientele.

I guess we're believing the giant capitalist corporation. It's only giant capitalist governments we're calling liars?

Trying to keep up with the rules of the game.

Whether they were real or fake no one will know, but Wikileaks isn't responsible for it either way. They have no affiliation with the group, and therefore are not liable for its actions. I'm confident the courts would agree...

If they were real it's definitely a shame that someone would do that, but we both know crimes just like this happen everyday. Operation Payback supports the Wikileaks movement, but their actions are not in conjunction. It's a separate non-organization of people that know how to hack and share relatively similar political views. I bet most don't even know how to hack actually. The ddos attacks were done through a program that anyone could download and use, so it's not like we have a huge tight-nit organization of computer hackers in collusion with Wikileaks sitting in a war room trying to figure out how to destroy the world. The real threat to governments is the idea this has sprung forth...and this time they're really scared...

what this has really shown is that if they want you, they'll find you

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

As noted above, Wikileaks is doing no such thing. In one sense, it's taking notes passed in class and reading them over the loudspeaker to the whole school.

What a silly thing to say. Either you don't really know anything about the Pentagon Papers or Watergate, or you're being disingenuous. You can't consider those "good leaks", and consider what WL is doing different.

Not to mention, Daniel Ellsburg has publicly supported Wikileaks.

On the other hand, it's cynically, brazenly publishing a massive pile of sensitive "governmental" information for all the world to see for all time, and doing so under the auspices that this is "good" for everybody.

Actually, they haven't published a massive pile. They've been making it available to media sources, who have redacted and refused to publish certain pieces.

Having said that, transparency is good for the public. It is not the job of Wikileaks to spare the powerful some embarassment.

It (and/or it's affiliates) is also engaging in what amounts to cyberterrorism. The ramifications are yet to be fully recognized. I don't like the prospects.

Anonymous is in no way affiliated with Wikileaks. It's an amorphous and capricious offshoot of 4chan comprised of a pile of angry nerds who do what they want.

That said, I understand that some would cast Assange and Wikileaks in the role of hero. David, taking on Goliath, sticking it to the big, fat, corrupt, US of A. I understand that. But it's likely to be a brief "victory" for the rebels. With collateral, boomeranging ramifications for us all. We'll see.

I could, of course, be wrong and this is the greatest thing to happen since [insert your preferred allusion here].

It's already a victory for the public, as they get a better view of their government. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[SilverTrain]

What a silly thing to say. Either you don't really know anything about the Pentagon Papers or Watergate, or you're being disingenuous. You can't consider those "good leaks", and consider what WL is doing different.

Charm will get you everywhere! Accusing me of being silly, disingenuous and telling me what I can and can't do: ditto.


Not to mention, Daniel Ellsburg has publicly supported Wikileaks.

And?


Actually, they haven't published a massive pile. They've been making it available to media sources, who have redacted and refused to publish certain pieces.

Why even try and argue about this? File under "worthless wastes of time". Or in the "I just like arguing about everything" folder.

Having said that, transparency is good for the public. It is not the job of Wikileaks to spare the powerful some embarassment.

Who said it was? This can go in the "whatever" file.



Anonymous is in no way affiliated with Wikileaks. It's an amorphous and capricious offshoot of 4chan comprised of a pile of angry nerds who do what they want.

So it IS Wikileaks, then. Just with a different name.

It's already a victory for the public, as they get a better view of their government. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

Yay, more condescension.

"A better view of their government"? Publish every word uttered or written by anyone involved in governance, then. That would be even better, right? Think about it.

Look, I put forth my opinions, and clearly stated I could be entirely wrong. So, a line by line, condescendingly preachy attack on my statements is not really necessary.

You could have just said you're smarter* about everything. Ever. and left it at that.

*And bigger, stronger, faster.

 

[b.c.]

Nothwithstanding the gross generalization that "Americans are all about freedom"......


I am, and have long been, wary of the fact that a great many of those who attain political/governmental power are already corrupt, or become so as a result of their power drunkenness. Similarly, I am often cynical about the prospects of ever having a government that truly serves it's broad constituency. I am fully aware of the high incidence of bald thievery, of the commission of gross atrocities, and the institutionalized cronyism that pervades our government.

I also welcome the sort of inverstigative journalism that blows the lid off a simmering cauldron of fraud, deceit, conspiracy, piracy, mayhem, or what have you. [Pentagon Papers, Watergate, etc.]

As noted above, Wikileaks is doing no such thing. In one sense, it's taking notes passed in class and reading them over the loudspeaker to the whole school. On the other hand, it's cynically, brazenly publishing a massive pile of sensitive "governmental" information for all the world to see for all time, and doing so under the auspices that this is "good" for everybody. It (and/or it's affiliates) is also engaging in what amounts to cyberterrorism. The ramifications are yet to be fully recognized. I don't like the prospects.

That said, I understand that some would cast Assange and Wikileaks in the role of hero. David, taking on Goliath, sticking it to the big, fat, corrupt, US of A. I understand that. But it's likely to be a brief "victory" for the rebels. With collateral, boomeranging ramifications for us all. We'll see.

I could, of course, be wrong and this is the greatest thing to happen since [insert your preferred allusion here].

I'm inclined to agree with your overall take on it, and those who beg to differ will just have to respect our opinions.

As I've already stated, there are some things of a diplomatic sensitivity that are best left unaired because of the negative effect certain revelations can have on an ongoing process, a process that very well might be the forging of some kind of compromise, the continuance of some relative peace, even if tenuous, or the making of alliances.

In an office setting, or in our personal lives, we certainly don't want everything we've ever said (or even thought) about friends, family members, or coworkers made public. Our own lives would be one dicey situation if it was.

Why then is it so difficult for some to understand how this holds true on an international level?

 

[dandelion]

You dont think that after a little adjustment, we would be a lot better of with more honesty both in the office and world?

 

[b.c.]

You dont think that after a little adjustment, we would be a lot better of with more honesty both in the office and world?

Yes, we would. And as I (and others here) have stated, we're not against "more honesty". We're talking a difference between "truth" and that which needs to be known.

Example: If your boss is planning on cutting paychecks by 10% next fiscal period and is hiding that fact, that's something that his employers would need to know.

On the other hand, if "Doris" said to "Jean" that her best friend "Paula" has a double chin, eats too much, and should lose some weight, it might be true, but who needs to know that?

As for that "little adjustment" you spoke of, expect this: no change in the behind the scene diplomatic maneuvering and deal making, but a LOT of change in who says what to whom and in what gets documented.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Yay, more condescension.

"A better view of their government"? Publish every word uttered or written by anyone involved in governance, then. That would be even better, right? Think about it.

Look, I put forth my opinions, and clearly stated I could be entirely wrong. So, a line by line, condescendingly preachy attack on my statements is not really necessary.

You could have just said you're smarter* about everything. Ever. and left it at that.

*And bigger, stronger, faster.

I'm sorry that you're hurt that someone disagreed with you. Better luck next time.

If you're to post stuff that may be incorrect, do not be surprised if people try to correct you.

 

[dandelion]

On the other hand, if "Doris" said to "Jean" that her best friend "Paula" has a double chin, eats too much, and should lose some weight, it might be true, but who needs to know that?

I would have thought Jean would have seen this for herself and if Doris says Paula ought to be a model, then Paula might well question Doris' judgement and decide not to trust her.

As for that "little adjustment" you spoke of, expect this: no change in the behind the scene diplomatic maneuvering and deal making, but a LOT of change in who says what to whom and in what gets documented.

Ah well thats the point. This little lot wasnt supposed to escape. What you are saying is that there will be less 'behind the scenes' activity, because the 'scenes' get smaller every day and less able to hide anything. Which is good.

 

[b.c.]

I would have thought Jean would have seen this for herself and if Doris says Paula ought to be a model, then Paula might well question Doris' judgement and decide not to trust her.

Ah well thats the point. This little lot wasnt supposed to escape. What you are saying is that there will be less 'behind the scenes' activity, because the 'scenes' get smaller every day and less able to hide anything. Which is good.

Actually, if you read again, I've said no such thing. I've said the same diplomatic and international give and take will occur (what you term "behind the scenes activity"), but that there will be less documented evidence as to who said what about whom.

Whether this is "good" or not remains to be seen.

The point of my analogy was that there are some things best left undisclosed.

 

[dandelion]

The evidence currently is that electronic media mean it is much harder to keep communications secret, yes. But the inevitable result of this is that there has to be less actual secret communication. Someone might even have to prioritise whether the prime minister or presidents favourite biscuit is a state secret. This debate is not about vital state secrets, although those who oppose these leaks dress it up as that. It is about trivia and information which is embarassing or harmful to the careers of individuals. It is about whether politicians actually do what they claim to be doing or simply practice hypocrisy. There are vast swathes of information which is held secret which should not be. Anyone who wants to persuade me there is justification in secrecy has to first demonstrate a legitimate reason for that secrecy and responsible use of it. We have neither. We have extreme examples used to justify the unjustifiable.

I would go so far as to say there needs to be a reversal of most secrecy policies, so that there is a presumption that all government communications are public unless a case can be made to make that they need to be private. Replace the typical 30 or 50 year rules on releasing papers with a 6 month rule. All ministerial papers released the day the minister resignes. All papers of the last administration released 6 months after they leave office, and so on.

 

[798686]

Julian Assange is a cheeky twat, imo. He's banging on about his liberties being infringed, because details of his sex life were made public, and his right to privacy should've been respected. Er.....?

Is it just me, or should he perhaps see the connection between this and what he's recently been doing?!

 

[luka82]

Julian Assange is a cheeky twat, imo. He's banging on about his liberties being infringed, because details of his sex life were made public, and his right to privacy should've been respected. Er.....?

Is it just me, or should he perhaps see the connection between this and what he's recently been doing?!

Why? Are you scared he has some info on you? :biggrin1:

I don`t like the guy, he seems to be a real ass, but I do not oppose what he has done.
And as far as his privacy is concerned, well he is a celebrity-you gain some, you lose some! :smile:

 

[COMountainGuy]

Exactly right. They're all just figureheads. The people who have the REAL power hide in darkness behind the scenes where the masses rarely look. Like the Wizard of Oz said, "Pay absolutely no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

More baseless, hypothetical fear mongering designed to destroy free speech, de-ball the Constitution, and enable unlimited government power over every detail of our lives. Why is fascism so "in" these days with about a third of the population??

Thanks Big Red....you saved me the grueling effort of saying this.


As for the original question...Obama opposes because the CFR told him to. Hillary? It was about six months ago that Hillary publicly stated that the CFR runs the country and, in fact, "tells us what to think and how to feel about the future".

I'll try to find a link....if they have not been removed by the Stasi....errr.....I mean Thought Police.

http://www.wvwnews.net/printer.php?id=7536

Before someone derides this particular source, they should realize that dozens of links exist that directly quote Clinton herself. There was even a YouTube video complete with her speech last time I looked.

 

[798686]

Why? Are you scared he has some info on you? :biggrin1:

No - I'm annoyed that he hasn't, miserable bastard. All of my publicity plans go down the drain, lol. :tongue:

 

[helgaleena]

I like 'em leaky. :tongue: Just keep the bedpans handy.

He has a page on OKCupid under the name HarryHarrison. He's into stealth impregnation, characterizes it as 'danger'. Not very sporting of him, but I guess he figures deniability is an asset for any offspring of his. Tsk.