Wikileaks

[turnandshoot4]

I've been reading more about this website and I don't know how I feel about it.

What does everyone think? Is what they are doing good or bad?
Why?

Here is the site for those who can't google for themselves.
Wikileaks - WikiLeaks

 

[irishfan]

If it were a fact based group that had a clear minded approach then it would be good but right now it is a joke.

 

[cyberwild360]

I voted bad. Reason being is that it's all fun and games till someone actually uses the site in a bad way. I see no good coming of this especially in a military mindset. Freedom of Speech and all that you can argue but I say bad juju.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Personally, I see it as a way for some people to grind their axes in public, regardless of the harm to others. The NYT isn't shy about airing the same crap when it's inimicable to someone they don't like; I don't see WikiLeaks being any different.

I wouldn't be sorry to see the WikiLeaks spokesperson disappear tracelessly - or even messily in public. People are going to die because of this last intel flap - and I'm not talking about our soldiers.

 

[ocsdor]

If it were a fact based group that had a clear minded approach then it would be good but right now it is a joke.

and, to add, same goes for ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, FOX, and Fox News.

 

[mrjarrell]

All wikileaks does is put documents out there that others would keep from public perusal. They've done it with government files as well as bad acting corporations. They are neither "good" nor "bad". They just release whistle blown files. Even their recent release had good info in it that is useful. We got to see that Pakistan is working against our interests. We've also got to see a lot of what the troops are doing, for good or ill. It allows the American public to see what the government didn't want us to see. Transparency IS a good thing.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

All wikileaks does is put documents out there that others would keep from public perusal. They've done it with government files as well as bad acting corporations. They are neither "good" nor "bad". They just release whistle blown files. Even their recent release had good info in it that is useful. We got to see that Pakistan is working against our interests. We've also got to see a lot of what the troops are doing, for good or ill. It allows the American public to see what the government didn't want us to see. Transparency IS a good thing.

Of course, if transparency is a good thing, it's better if those doing the leaking don't make it look like a one-way mirror. Didn't see any military data after 2009, so the evident intent was to embarrass the previous administration without embarrassing the current administration. And innocents civilians are going to die because of it. That makes everyone responsible for the leaks responsible for those deaths, as I see it.

 

[johnb62]

I am not convinced everything needs to be out there for public consumption.

 

[HighStrung]

All wikileaks does is put documents out there that others would keep from public perusal. They've done it with government files as well as bad acting corporations. They are neither "good" nor "bad". They just release whistle blown files. Even their recent release had good info in it that is useful. We got to see that Pakistan is working against our interests. We've also got to see a lot of what the troops are doing, for good or ill. It allows the American public to see what the government didn't want us to see. Transparency IS a good thing.

I disagree with this in some ways. Transparency is a good thing, yes. But war is war and fighting a war based on politics is not going to solve the situation. Thats exactly what transparency gets you in terms of the public knowing what our troops are doing. Those men and women have a job to do, and like it or not, it's not pretty. We can't fight a war with an arm tied behind our backs because the cry-babies stateside can't handle the truths about what it takes to win a war. You think our enemy cares about how their ethics are perceived from the civilians of those countries. Yes, I hate to hear about civilian casualties, but good water gets flushed with the turd. When our government makes military decisions based on their political agendas and the public's response, transparency is bad. War is a matter of getting the mission accomplished and getting your boys/girls home as quickly and safely as possible. The political correctness that comes from transparency has no place on a battlefield. Not when my countrymen are being killed while they are trying to keep my country safe. Sorry for the rant, just my $.02

 

[iamaclone45]

Exposing lies by our government.. Seems like a good thing...

 

[Arm America]

Nope, loose lips sink ships.

 

[cyberwild360]

Exposing lies by our government.. Seems like a good thing...

If that's all it did it would be a different story but some of those files have deployed units, their strengths, armorment, equipment.

Not all of those files are, "Hey look Bush lied about WMD's!"

 

[gunowner930]

This is not about transparency. this is about some punk (bradley manning) that released sensitive information that has the potential to get people killed. I don't care about the helicopter video, the names of sources giving us information on bad guys being made public can cause major problems. Who will literally risk their head to give us information if we fail to protect their identity? classified documents are classified for a reason.

operational security>transparency of military operations

Sorry that's just the way it is.

 

[wtfd661]

People running it (and leaking to it) are nothing but traitorous pieces of and should be strung up in the town square.

The first one of our soldiers who are harmed because of this bull****, their family members ought to be locked into a room with the turd who runs it for about a half hour of so, so they can explain their feelings on it.

 

[jsgolfman]

I like Cryptome myself.

 

[Prometheus]

If that's all it did it would be a different story but some of those files have deployed units, their strengths, armorment, equipment.

Not all of those files are, "Hey look Bush lied about WMD's!"

Correct us if we are mistaken, but the latest data released was for 2009. I'm not sure exactly how relevant that data would be when it is, at a minimum 8 months old.

Maybe if it were against an actual military, with an actual intelligence department and a strategy beyond "IED's" and "mortars", then we could argue a forward extrapolation...

but a bunch of "insurgents"?

Transparency is a good thing. Transparency is a NECESSARY thing to a free society.

I haven't read even a fraction of the released documents, and I can guarantee no one on this site has read more than a fraction (at best) of them either.

I think the ones here raising the most stink are the ones who clearly point out their partisanship on the release... not some feigned attempt at "our military could have been put in jeopardy" mantra.

There is a far cry between current operational information and past years release of information. Again, I (nor any of you) have read the whole release, so maybe like the health care bill, there is something damaging to some still on going specific unit, in a specific place, that no one knew about until now... but I doubt it... unlike the obamacare fiasco.

 

[gunowner930]

Correct us if we are mistaken, but the latest data released was for 2009. I'm not sure exactly how relevant that data would be when it is, at a minimum 8 months old.

Maybe if it were against an actual military, with an actual intelligence department and a strategy beyond "IED's" and "mortars", then we could argue a forward extrapolation...

but a bunch of "insurgents"?

Transparency is a good thing. Transparency is a NECESSARY thing to a free society.

I haven't read even a fraction of the released documents, and I can guarantee no one on this site has read more than a fraction (at best) of them either.

I think the ones here raising the most stink are the ones who clearly point out their partisanship on the release... not some feigned attempt at "our military could have been put in jeopardy" mantra.

There is a far cry between current operational information and past years release of information. Again, I (nor any of you) have read the whole release, so maybe like the health care bill, there is something damaging to some still on going specific unit, in a specific place, that no one knew about until now... but I doubt it... unlike the obamacare fiasco.

I can assure you the "insurgents" think beyond IEDs and mortars, and they will exploit whatever they can. It has been reported that source names have been released in these documents. As I posted earlier that is not a good thing.

You are right about us not knowing everything at this point, but with 80,000 documents there probably is something that will be of interest to them

Transparency in a free society sounds great, but transparency has no place in combat operations.

My partisanship is as a former intelligence analyst in the Marine Corps. the same job Bradley Manning had in the Army. I'm well aware of the severity of his crimes and I hope he gets the maximum penalty for his actions.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

As has been mentioned earlier, the names of civilians who supplied intel to our guys are included in that data and the Taliban have already said they will punish "traitors". Aside from the fact that letting your intelligence sources get burned makes it hard to get anyone else to give you information, the leaks will cause people to be raped, tortured, and murdered. Some of those will be the families of people who provided information; that's the way the bad guys work. While I believe in the rule of law and the UCMJ, my heart says Bradley Manning and his ilk, if convicted, should be staked out on an ant hill in Afghanistan, covered in honey, and left to rot. Pour l'encourager les autres

 

[Stickfight]

Rather than find fault with wikileaks for publishing it, I fault the military for not securing it.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Rather than find fault with wikileaks for publishing it, I fault the military for not securing it.

If you put your important documents in a vault with only vetted employees having access to them and they show up on ebay, who do you blame, the vault owners or the employee who stole them? Does the party that buys them, knowing they are stolen, have any responsibility?