WikiLeaks - irresponsible journalism

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by derrick drew, Jan 15, 2011.

  1. derrick drew Member

    Sorry for the double post...

    could a mod please delete this thread and leave the other?

    Thank you

    Mod Edit: Since this thread has responses and the other does not, I am instead deleting the other one and pasting in your comments here. Note: In the future, please use the report button to request changes--we're more likely to see requests there.

    We the people, the public are the force of goodness in our world. Good works can no more take a hold over corruption and evil than through the very hearts and actions of the people who live upon the face of our planet. Yet when journalism takes an irresponsible view to freedom of the press, then the powers that give voice to the freedom of information, take away the virtuous aspect of the voice.

    I am all for someone pulling information out of private sources to open the channel for the people to oversee and defeat the wrongful abuse by the government to cover up or illegitimately control without responsibility. Yet when I see the wrongs committed by Wikileaks in publicizing information that does nothing but harm the public, then I must condemn their greed for notiriety and publicity scandals. Anyone that would defend them in their recent irresponsible actions under the guise of protecting our freedom to information is acting foolishly rebellious just to stand behind their own personal podium and rant moronically.

    If you happened to be shopping one day and just happened to be present when a friend's son got caught trying to shoplift, yet the store and the police decided to let the matter go since it was a menial item and let him off with a warning, it would be a foolish act for you to run to the boy's parents and "squeal" on him just for the purpose of getting him in trouble, under the guise of being a responsible friend protecting their own personal right to know about it. If they came to you and asked you directly if you knew anything ablout it, then it would be a different matter maybe.

    In the same manner, Wikileaks being a "squealing Fink" to merely tell people "I know something you don't know" when that something does nothing but harm innocent people, then their action speaks louder than words.

    There is no purpose served in releasing information containing private memos and reports by emissaries and ambassadors of the Untied States who made private comments that would be taken as insults by other country's political offices. We obviously have severe problems in places like Pakistan, but leaking private information containing information that would defeat our purpose to resolve issues with that country in combating Taliban influence, serves nothing other than Wikileak's own personal gain.

    If someone claims freedom of press and information acts to fraudulently permit them to leak information that does nothing other than harm the public safety presented by the security of such information, then Wikileaks SHOULD be regarded as a terrorist threat source if their actions promote a defeat in our policy with Pakistan (or Iraq, or Afghanistan) that is held so closely to brittle negotiations against our purpose as we battle the Taliban.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Anonymous Member

    Citizens don't feel terrorized by wikileaks, only governments do. More harm to citizens is done in the name of "public safety" than anything wikileaks would ever release.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Anonymous Member

    Please provide an example of "Wikileaks in publicizing information that does nothing but harm the public"

    and an example of Wikileaks posting "something does nothing but harm innocent people"

    The public has a right to know what their unelected government officials are doing and saying in their name, warts and all.

    Who exactly is gaining? What are they gaining?

    You don't understand the word fraud. Let me help you:

    fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

    Please explain where exactly a fraud occurred.

    Another word you are having trouble with.

    terrorist: a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

    How has Wikileaks terrorized and frightened people? Please provide an example.

    Please provide an example of how Wikileaks will lead to defeat.
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Anonymous Member

    I presume you a member of the public, right? So what harm has wikileaks done to you personally or what precisely do you envisage that is so terrible that it warrants a complete u-turn on current press freedoms? Who are these harmed public of which you speak?

    In your "sqealing fink" analogy, what if this was not the first offence and there was a history of such illegal behaviour. Whatever the situation, morally speaking, it might be better for the boy's parents to know so that they can take steps to keep him on the right track. If they don't and the boy kicks up more trouble then maybe the squealer should squeal to everyone so that they can be aware. You know, a greater good than the boy's hurt feelings or the parents embrassment. I certainly don't think the squealer should be extradited to a shed and "illegally assasinated".

    This is what you largely have with the situation now: Governmental butthurt. The only ones who can do real to the harm to the public are the governments. The first thing might be to reduce your freedoms. Wouldn't that be ironic?
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Robert S Member

    Maybe / maybe not. In another age we couldn't get away with shit in my old neighborhood because the adults had a damn UNION, and when one saw you do something wrong they grabbed you by the collar and handed you over to your father who instead of suing or hating the guy said "thanks" and then took it from there.

    But more to the point it's a totally inept analogy for the simple reason that a kid shoplifting a trivial trinket is in no way the same as a government shoplifting the resources of an entire country to fulfill what it considers to be its "interests." The better analogy would be the Gulf of Tonkin. If we had known it was a hoax tacked onto a mistake instead of an outright attack - as we were told - maybe we could have spared some of the 55,000+ people we lost in Viet Nam and LBJ would be known as the guy who signed the Civil Rights Bill instead of a jingo cowboy who lied for the sake of some macho belief he had all wrapped up in the holy flag.

    Giving carte blanche to the motives of governments is the same as saying "well since the cops arrested the guy he's got to be guilty because they are experts at this, and we can now expect the guy to get the slimiest lawyer he can find just to get him off with some trick." Which is a fairly common view among juries, who mostly sit around waiting for you to prove you are unguilty, instead of forcing the state to prove guilt.

    The little kid needs to know that stealing is not right. So do governments.
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Utenhauzen Member

    I imagine people insulted muckrakers in a similar fashion. But was muckraking really irresponsible? consider that it was that kind of journalism that brought serious issues to the people's attention. If it wasnt for journalists digging up corporate secrets, everyone would still be getting e-coli from eating meat for god's sake! The way I see it, wikileaks is just digging up the government's dirty secrets.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. derrick drew Member

    I am absolutely totally awed and surprised someone would ask for links and articles pertaining to the leaked information and the dangers created to foreign policy and diplomacy. I mean, this stuff is out there on the web widespread and easily found with a mere kindergarden Google search. Yet you asked poiltely so all I can say is "You asked for it"

    here's just a milli-minute of some of the links to articles, and anyone suggesting that there wasn't any abusively unconcerned and dangerous leaks of information with total disregard for safety can chat away all they want, for they too must be totally ignorant and inconciderate of the problems.

    In no way am I saying that there "wasn't" information in there that the American people should know about, but Wikileaks total indiscretion and abusive journalism created danger zones and destroyed diplomatic planning environs that were to the betterment of world peace.

    In no way am I saying that what some of these people wrote was "politically correct" or proper. I "AM" saying that making public, what these officials wrote in private, causes nothing but harm to vital diplomatic situations that carry gravity to world peace and prosperity.


    "Vast Leak Discloses Diplomatic Secrets"

    The documents presented often-stinging assessments of foreign leaders involved in the effort to combat Islamic radicalism. U.S. diplomats were portrayed as referring to allegedly corrupt business practices of Ahmad Wali Karzai, a half-brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Saudi King Abdullah was described as saying he viewed Iraqi

    The disclosures "place at risk ongoing cooperation between countries—partners, allies and common stakeholders—to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability," State Department legal adviser Harold Koh wrote

    U.S. diplomats and defense officials have worried the disclosures could undercut the ability of foreign leaders to continue cooperating with Washington on counter-terror and counter-proliferation operations, with Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan among those most focused on.

    The leaked cables show sometimes-derogatory ways America's allies referred to diplomatic partners. Saudi King Abdullah told U.S. officials that Pakistan's President Zardari was incapable of reforming his country. "When the head is rotten it affects the whole body," the Saudi monarch said, according to a cable.


    In another article concerning damaging information which was leaked, policy agreements between Saudi Arabia, the US and China were made to create a pact to help subdue some of the power held by Iran and was indeed something else that didn't need to be made public and served no benificiary purpose to the safety and wellbeing of the world and the people, and we are the people folks, with a purpose to gain the cooperation by the Saudi's making a path for a necessary tool which was needed to be held secret, to prevent neighboring Islamic states from becoming enraged:

    "The US allies in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia, were worried about Iran's nuclear program and were offering oil to China, if China agreed to support the fourth set of UN sanctions against Iran. Again, this news appears in a number of major newspapers as a revelation, including the above mentioned report by David Sanger and his colleagues in The New York Times. They write: "within these leaked documents was information pertaining to an American-inspired plan to get the Saudis to offer China a steady oil supply, to wean it from energy dependence on Iran. The Saudis agreed, and insisted on ironclad commitments from Beijing to join in sanctions against Tehran. . . Publicly, these Arab states held their tongues, for fear of a domestic uproar and the retributions of a powerful neighbors."


    "WikiLeaks puts US diplomacy in danger"

    On the international issues of concern to US diplomacy, the cables reveal that US diplomats on the ground feel that China is on the rise as a world power and Russia is retreating from democracy. The war on terror is far from over and the US is still in doubt about the extent to which Pakistan could be trusted. One cable has quoted Ambassador Anne Patterson as saying “our major concern has not been that an Islamic militant could steal an entire weapon, but rather the chance someone working in [government weapons] facilities could gradually smuggle enough fissile material out to eventually make a weapon and the vulnerability of weapons in transit."

    The cables also revealed King Abdullah calling President Asif Zardari an obstacle to the development of Pakistan, adding “when the head is rotten, it affects the entire body.” On India, WikiLeaks revealed that last year the Secretary of State had sent cables to 33 US embassies describing India as a “self appointed front runner” for a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council. She had also ordered spying on Indian diplomats.

    The comments about world leaders are both amusing and embarrassing. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been described as “thin skinned and authoritarian” because of the way he deals with his aides and the French Prime Minister. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has been described as “feckless, vain and ineffective.” President Hamid Karzai has been described as an “extremely weak man who did not listen to facts but was instead easily swayed by anyone who came to report even the most bizarre stories and plots against him.”

    King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has been quoted as repeatedly urging the United States to attack Iran’s nuclear programme. The cables revealed concern about Israel attacking Iran. The relationship between Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin has been described as one between Batman (Putin) and Boy Robin (Medvedev). The cables also revealed that al-Qaeda continued to receive major donations from the Saudis, and Qatar as reluctant, despite its closeness to the United States, to pursue leads against known terrorists for fear of reprisal.
    The United States’ standing and respect in the world had taken a nose dive since President Bush’s foreign affairs initiatives in Iraq where he led a war based on false premises and lies. President Obama’s efforts to regain that standing and respect will now be seriously hampered by the contents of the cables because the latest revelations by WikiLeaks have the potential of causing lasting damages to US’s current diplomatic initiatives. Many of these initiatives are half way and these could end unsuccessfully.
    A lot of the cables name sources of US diplomats that include “foreign legislators and military officers to human rights activists and journalists” with strong recommendation to the State Department to protect their confidentiality. The leaks will now put these sources in various types of dangers, including possible risk to life and also inhibit similar contacts from cooperating with US diplomats in future.

    WikiLeaks has just not threatened to take down US’s diplomacy; it has also threatened to put on its website leaks on US banking that could put under more pressure an already politically weakened President fighting to defend his administration on two important fronts simultaneously, namely domestic and foreign affairs.


    Exactly "what is the criminal responibility" that Wikileaks should be concerned about?

    Here is a great article concerning this matter:

    And then too, right to information and freedom of information can eventually backfire as in this article:

    "Wikileaks Forced to Leak Its Own Secret Info — Update"

  8. Anonymous Member

    Derrick Drew
    Your reply is rubbish because there is nothing in there indicating something that can put innocent people in danger. You are either a republican nutbag or uber-american fox-news watcher with no sense of reality. Now the rest of the world laugh at you...

    WikiLeaks - real journalism
  9. derrick drew Member

    You seem to have completely ignored the main point. Disclosure of information that serves no good, nor any purpose...has no purpose.

    We have the right to know what our government is doing, but anyone who claims that we have the right to access EVERY secret is a operating in an incapacitated mode. No government, no people, no nation, can operate in safety that way, cannot propose a safe life for it's people, and cannot engineer the necessary policies required for a safer world. That over exaggeration of freedom of information is more dangerous to our country than any terrorist.
  10. derrick drew Member

    Anonymous, you're in in the world can you ignore the facts, that undermining diplomatic energies by leaking vital information, cannot usurp the efforts to control scenarios pertaining to world peace. How many people in the near future need to die for you to admit that disclosing such information to the public is dangerous?

    I sincerely doubt that the rest of the world is taking the time to laugh at little ol' me. And no, I am not a republican, nor do I waste my time watching media hyper Fox news.

    Why are you offended. Its too simple?

    Read on, and show some links and data to support your point.

    Where do you want to direct us to show how these leaks WON"T cause any harm?

    and please, no national enquirer articles

  11. Anonymous Member

    States have their dirty laundry and back-room chatter exposed for the world to see, and we're supposed to feel sorry and close our ears? Fuck that.

    Our leaders and their staff can start acting transparently and in a manner befitting the trust placed in them by the people first. Then we can start talking about supporting them and giving them the benefit of the doubt. If their policies and plans are so frail that simple exposure will ruin them utterly, then they need to make better fucking plans. Seriously, stop apologizing for their ineptitude and failure already.
    • Like Like x 3
  12. Anonymous Member

    /START feeeeeeding the troll...

    I wonder why you join this site today.
    I wonder why you dont see why this site has member from all over the world, protesting.
    I wonder why you havent search this site and looked at all the quick leaks from wikileaks we have posted to from this site in the past few months.
    I wonder why today was the day you make a post about how telling the truth harms only america. (Alot of people here dont care about america, we are anonymous)

    END feeeeeeding the troll...\

    Before you reply to me, remember to watch V for Vendetta. We are anonymous.
  13. Derrick- anon is NYPA.

    As far as endangering people, our government is doing that just fine without the help of anyone else by making things secret that shouldn't be.

    Go ahead, trust your politicos and cover your ears and lalalalalala. I'd rather have the facts, thanks.
  14. haklaf Member

    Your whole criticism also applies to the New York Times, the Guardian, El Pais, Der Spiegel and the other media partners of wikileaks, which published and wrote about the cables.
    Why don't you call them "irresponsible journalists" as well and why don't you request them to give up their right to publish state secrets as well and declare them a "terrorist threat"?
    • Like Like x 1
  15. derrick drew Member

    Anonymous, you've taken a simple forum and a simple concept and opinion and turned it into a personal issue, and your rhetoric statements, name calling and cussing which is obviously intended to offend... doesn't. I actually pity someone who can't objectively perceive an issue like this.

    Its just too simple for some people to understand...

    a Wikileak's leak such as the video we have all seen when the Apache helicopter took out the documentary crew because they mistook them for carrying an RPG when it was actually a large camera, was a leak that the people needed and had the right to know about.

    But that doesn't give anyone the insanely idiotic right to demand that all military secrets and plans, and documents should be open for public viewing. That's what some of these people are doing in taking this issue with Wikileaks to an extreme..

    This young soldier broke military and federal laws when he stole this information, and Wikileaks broke international and US federal laws by indiscriminately publicizing it.

    If Wikileaks had of found some big ass government conspiracy and exposed it to the benefit of the people, then all is good. But they didn't.

    This indiscriminate leak of mass information isn't and wasn't EVER intended to observe the right of the people to know.

    It was a blatant abuse by WikiLeaks to gain notoriety and publicity, and it was dangerous and still remains that way due to the nature of the content.

    If you deny that, then there isn't much hope for you and the rebuffs and obvious intent of your comments are simply childish.

    If you yourself can take the time out from name calling and derogatory comments, simply provide site links to show any type of grounds for what you are saying...

    that these leaks pose NO THREAT nor create ANY type of an environ to endanger other's affected by the important internal issues contained in the information leaked

    then its just rambling and name calling that you are more interested in...

    so accept the challenge and give us some reputable information sites.

    show me where this young soldier has EVER commented on what his original intention was when he STOLE this information, and what contents did he feel were so IMPORTANT, that the public just HAD to know in order to save the American people or stop some huge government conspiracy?

    I'm mature enough in years to accept that I can make a mistake.

    Wait, lets change the venue...

    don't show just me...

    show us all where you might find information as to why the government should NOT prosecute this young soldier for ILLEGALLY stealing classified information, and exactly what information swayed his oath and duty that was so important the he had to break the laws and steal it....

    I think we will find in the long run that he did it to merely pursue the notoriety, fame and publicity too...

    and then we will just have to wait and see what the US does with the Wikileak's owner for publicizing stolen government information
  16. Anonymous Member

    This troll thread is rockin'!
  17. haklaf Member

    Which international laws and which US federal laws did Wikileaks break by the publication?
  18. Anonymous Member

    haklaf, Wikileaks is just journalism, so they did not break any laws.
  19. derrick drew Member

    Obviously you do not know what a "forum troll" is....and my reason for joining this site was to join a forum where I might intelligent opinions and conversations, even IF they differ from mine.

    Obviously you are totally against against any restrictions on Wikileaks for their actions. Sounds liek you aren't to hip on America anyways.

    You're ignorance in ignoring my request for supplying any documentation to support your opinion merely will allow me to ignore the stupidity and obvious abusive choice in handling a forum respectively.

    Just to let you know, I am a proud American, and although I agree our government sometimes makes bad or even corrupt decisions, I am still proud to be an American that we can carve out a better government eventually, to the best of our ability.

    Just what nation do you live in that you can so proudly boast and detrimentally abuse the nature of this forum and call yourself such a wise entity? Exactly what perfect nation do you live in that you can claim it doesn't block and control the media when it comes to vital government secrets?

    See the stupidity in it?
  20. Anonymous Member

    Obviously, fuck off.
    • Like Like x 3
  21. derrick drew Member

  22. Zak McKracken Member

    How many of these threads do we need?
    At what point does 'republishing threads about WL's fail' become irresponsible journalism itself?
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Anonymous Member

    Just about any other nation on the world than USA, or a nation with no freedom of speech.

    Derrick Derrick Derrick.. Remember remember the 5th of November...
  24. Anonymous Member

    Don't tell me this is another one of those threads that goes for pages before the OP realises every single member on the forum can post as anonymous and he's not having a conversation with a single person.
  25. derrick drew Member

    From: Anonymous : member:

    "I think calling yourself human is a stretch. We are open for debate here, so if you would like to talk to us instead of ranting I'll give it a go. Calling us names only makes us laugh.":

    talking about a split personality?

    Matter of fact, I didn't see any really intelligent replies there either,
    nor useful information or links
    and "troll" name calling seems to be a habit of yours

    seems you enjoy the forum for self satisfaction
    and definitely not for debate and discussion

    "heckler" would fit your self proclaimed "Anonymous" tag

    I don't have to say much more in the fruitless effort to hold an educated
    conversation with you

    most here can find your useless rhetoric in other threads with a simple search

    not much for "smart input" are ya' other than being a "smart-ass"?
  26. Consensus Member

    Derrick, how would you respond to the following characterization of wikileaks and the US gov't :
  27. derrick drew Member


    thank you so kindly for a simple revelation that I surely wouldn't have caught lest you openly and graciously made me aware

    I was stupidly holding a single conversation with a phantom I suppose

    why go anonymous though when you can at least and so simply use a login name?

    I guess sharing information without responsibility has become an epidemic here
  28. Anonymous Member

    Derrick- anon is NYPA.

    How many times do we have to tell you that!!!!!!!

    If you dont understand, then go figure it out......

    We are anonymous
  29. Anonymous Member

    we are "hackers". and we are on stereos.
  30. derrick drew Member

    Simply put:

    I would have to admit that its a weird concept
    and surely a weird way to put it
  31. Consensus Member

    The novelty of the idea is only there because you don't understand our position. For those reading this thread who do fully grasp the position they're advocating for, the post is not the least bit novel.

    Ponder that novelty. Explore it. Ask questions here. Post your thoughts here, and read the feedback. I want you on our side. I wish to persuade you. But I cannot do so if you refuse to do any work.
    • Like Like x 2
  32. Herro Member

    OP the problem with your take on this is that it's every bit as extreme as the few people out there that think Wikileaks can do no wrong and is going to save us all. Buried underneath your incendiary polemic are some very valid criticisms of Wikileaks as well as important questions that need to be asked. Is it worth the cost of impeding diplomacy in a touchy region of the world in order to let the public know that different nations in the Middle East talk shit about each other? Probably not. Is it worth it to let the public know that the CIA kidnapped some dude, in violation of not only international treaties but our own laws? Probably. We should be critical of sites like Wikileaks as we try to figure out how to best use these new technologies but to just say they're dangerous and only cause harm ignores reality and is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. In stead of wringing our hands and saying oh woe is us, I think we should say, look this stuff can be beneficial and it can be harmful, how can we maximize the benefit and minimize the harm?

    PS, this is probably the most asinine thing I've ever seen posted on this site. Way to embarrass yourself tool.
    • Like Like x 2
  33. Anonymous Member

    You are trying to argue that "THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THERE'S POTENTIAL HARM IN WHAT HAS LEAKED" is the same as actual harm. That shit's not going to fly here.

    Diplomacy based on lies and bullshit doesn't get us anywhere. We can't just bribe Afghanistan into being a nice place, and we'd better not fucking pretend that people not knowing about the bribery makes it anything other than what it is. My tax dollars went to pay for child prostitution in Afghanistan. My tax dollars went to torturing an innocent man for months after we knew we had the wrong guy and then coercing the German government to drop charges against the men responsible for it. My tax dollars went to three decades of war with a country that begged us for help getting their neighbors to abide by trade agreements so they could pay off their crushing war-debt.

    I am fucking pissed off.
    Why aren't you?
  34. haklaf Member

    Ok, so in the summary of this paper it says
    Note that there is a difference between the leaker (suspected to be Pfc Bradley Manning) and the publisher (Wikileaks).
    While the leaker has broken a law by leaking classified information, the publisher has broken no law and any attempt to introduce new laws, just so that Wikileaks or Assange can be prosecuted on the grounds that they have published classified information could lead to actual ramifications for the american public that woud completely dwarf any of the merely hypothetical, completely unfounded harm that these publications have according to you done to the american public, because it would set a dangerous precedent under which the press would not be free anymore to properly inform the public about government policy and it would further reduce any journalistic activity to mere government approved propaganda.
    It should therefore be a bigger concern to you to defend wikileaks rights to press freedom instead of seeking ways to suppress it, because your right as a citizen to be properly informed about the government depends on it.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Anonymous Member

    Can someone lay out, in specific unambiguous terms with citations to the relevant materials, what harm Wikileaks has done? Can you provide direct evidence of this harm, or otherwise produce documented examples of such?

    If you don’t have dox providing Wikileaks has caused demonstrable harm, and you feel the need to spout that doxless opinion regardless, then you can simply fuck off.
  36. Anonymous Member

    If the OP has dox, surely he could not leak them because doing so might compromise U.S. national security.
    Its secret evidence, to be presented under seal in a secret court under the jurisdiction of agencies tasked with keeping us all safe.

    Honestly, we're better off not knowing.
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Anonymous Member

    The old ignorance-is-bliss defence.
  38. Robert S Member

    I've been hearing this on the web since 1998 and it still isn't an argument. Never mind. Troll got my toll. I'm a doofus.
  39. Rockyj Member

    You're not a DUFUS @ all!
  40. Zak McKracken Member

    Yeah, he's a degraded SP with ethics out and all over the place, and PTS to the United States Government.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins