US slams 'criminals' behind WikiLeaks

[smilodom]

@ Brother None...
To clarify my kind of view.
I do not really understand why it´s not comprehensible for you but the point is that is not Wikyleaks who is breaking the rules it´s the government and the companys themselves who are trying to bend the law to their own purposes...

 

[Brother None]

but the point is that is not Wikyleaks who is breaking the rules

We weren't talking about Wikileaks. You said you're pro Anonymous. Anonymous is breaking more rules than any government is. You are contradicting yourself. Much like Wikileaks demanding transparancy while offering none itself.

 

[Sander]

I am real "PRO "Anonymous" because of what "Master Card" " Visa" and "Pay Pal" do is criminal because it lacks of any law to warrant this kind of restriction.

As far as I know Mastercard, Visa and PayPal are private companies who are allowed to choose to do business or not do business with whatever legal company they please.

Nothing criminal about what they're doing. Whether it's ethical is another matter.

 

[Blakut]

I guess anonymous was cool when it started.

I don't get what's the big problem, Assange didn't extract the data or hacked anything. So if the governments take care of their own whistleblowers, wikileaks would have nothing to leak. I mean come on, i'm waiting the day wikileaks would leak top secret Chinese, North Korean or Russian documents.

 

[Hassknecht]

I guess anonymous was cool when it started.

I don't get what's the big problem, Assange didn't extract the data or hacked anything. So if the governments take care of their own whistleblowers, wikileaks would have nothing to leak.

Yeah, that's why they are grinding down Bradley Manning, so he will denounce Julian Assange of complot so they finally have something against him.

 

[Guiltyofbeingtrite]

Wikileaks shouldn't be transparent in the same way I shouldn't have to be. The US government was created by the people, is in place for the people, and is funded by the people - therefore it has the responsibility to be transparent.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I guess anonymous was cool when it started.

I don't get what's the big problem, Assange didn't extract the data or hacked anything. So if the governments take care of their own whistleblowers, wikileaks would have nothing to leak. I mean come on, i'm waiting the day wikileaks would leak top secret Chinese, North Korean or Russian documents.

He is the person standing in the public though. Just like Bush took all the Flak for Iraq (and other things) later. How many of his "generals" responsible for the orders in the Iraq Prison or Guantanamo have seen the court ? Frankly Bush probably will never face any serious issues. But he was in the public and merely a puppet if anything.

I dont disslike Assanage. I just think all the things around him and wikileaks are pretty hyped.

 

[Brother None]

Wikileaks shouldn't be transparent in the same way I shouldn't have to be.

WikiLeaks isn't a private person. It is making claims to laying a role as a part of the overall political system of checks 'n balances. That means it should not escape being checked. An institution just acting as a check without being checked is a bad idea.

 

[Guiltyofbeingtrite]

Wikileaks shouldn't be transparent in the same way I shouldn't have to be.

WikiLeaks isn't a private person. It is making claims to laying a role as a part of the overall political system of checks 'n balances. That means it should not escape being checked. An institution just acting as a check without being checked is a bad idea.

In the US private businesses are often considered legal persons, so I see no reason why a private NGO that isn't even recognized as a tax-exempt organization in the US (as far as I know) should have to reveal their donors and answer to anyone.

 

[Brother None]

In the US private businesses are often considered legal persons, so I see no reason why a private NGO that isn't even recognized as a tax-exempt organization in the US (as far as I know) should have to reveal their donors and answer to anyone.

And you probably think freedom of the press means they can publish anything they want too, huh?

The mind boggles why you think WikiLeaks would be exempt of standards that apply to everyone else, let alone how you can not see that it is a very bad thing when it is not. Why would you put blind faith in WikiLeaks to do what's right without anyone overlooking their activities? It's naive to a fault.

 

[smilodom]

The rules doesn´t matter anymore.... yeah you´re right it´s obviously a ethical discussion of how and what should been published or not.

But the most important thing to discuss is if we should believe our government or not.
The conclusion for me is simple, if Wickyleaks fail now there will be no more opportunity protest against our system because the leaders will find a way to shut down any resistance with or without the law.

 

[Brother None]

But the most important thing to discuss is if we should believe our government or not.

No. That is one question, and only one of several relevant one. It is completely ignoring the question of why Wikileaks is being presented as more reliable than any government, when it clearly is not.

The conclusion for me is simple, if Wickyleaks fail now there will be no more opportunity protest against our system because the leaders will find a way to shut down any resistance with or without the law.

WikiLeaks is some white noise at the edge of a free media society. It is as relevant to the greater scope of things the town loony babbling on the square. Your lack of perspective remains startling, if not mildly insane.

Also do you have any actual contributions to make or are we just going to loop in this Wikileaks-propaganda mode you got going?

 

[Guiltyofbeingtrite]

In the US private businesses are often considered legal persons, so I see no reason why a private NGO that isn't even recognized as a tax-exempt organization in the US (as far as I know) should have to reveal their donors and answer to anyone.

And you probably think freedom of the press means they can publish anything they want too, huh?

The mind boggles why you think WikiLeaks would be exempt of standards that apply to everyone else, let alone how you can not see that it is a very bad thing when it is not. Why would you put blind faith in WikiLeaks to do what's right without anyone overlooking their activities? It's naive to a fault.

They can publish roughly anything they want, New York Times Co. v. United States defends that right. Whether they should or not is up for debate. But as an organization they just posted documents and worked with print media, it was the print media that actually chose which ones to publish, so I think a significant amount of people's anger should be focused on them.

As for Wikileaks, their actions are overlooked, by everyone. Anyone can chose whether or not to believe or deny or ignore what they post.

 

[smilodom]

But the most important thing to discuss is if we should believe our government or not.

No. That is one question, and only one of several relevant one. It is completely ignoring the question of why Wikileaks is being presented as more reliable than any government, when it clearly is not.

The conclusion for me is simple, if Wickyleaks fail now there will be no more opportunity protest against our system because the leaders will find a way to shut down any resistance with or without the law.

WikiLeaks is some white noise at the edge of a free media society. It is as relevant to the greater scope of things the town loony babbling on the square. Your lack of perspective remains startling, if not mildly insane.

Also do you have any actual contributions to make or are we just going to loop in this Wikileaks-propaganda mode you got going?

I don´t see any other case as informing the people because there are no comments or other influenced contributions by them.
Never saw any false or untruth articles at Wikileaks.

 

[Little Robot]

How do you know which Wikileaks articles are "untruth"? Do you think that after they get a "TOP SECRET" contribution they hack into the gov't servers to double check whether it's true? And for all Wikileaks' demands for transparency, they don't have any themselves.

And there are... plenty of news services which are informing the people. That's, like, the definition of news. Maybe they aren't releasing stolen documents about what Hillary Clinton ate for dinner, but it's not like they're "covering up" that information either.

 

[Crni Vuk]

dealing with informations is never a "clear" buisness because often enough they can be either right or false and there is a big gray area between it where you cant say anything about it. It is actually pretty rare that you get clear informations which point with a finger to a specific person doing a specific crime/action. If such cases happen then well the people usualy face jail. Thats why we have courts, judges, laywers and all the whole shanebambe around it we call a legislative system and in the end a gouverment and even if we might not like it always but the "better" gouvernements simply dont work wihout it. With humans involved you never have a 100% security if the case really happend that way as long someone doesnt have a time machine, and even informations can sometimes "lie". The problem with informations is not so much that you have them but how to interpret them as that is the most complicated part with it. I remember this from my studing in economy where 95% of the cases which face the judge are cases where its impossible to use the law correctly, as those situations are easy to solve thats what laws are for. But how todecide who is right ? The consumer ? The Vendor ? Who was hurt ? How to interpret the law. Thats why lawyers are professionals.

But the most important thing to discuss is if we should believe our government or not.

I would agree with you if the gouvernement would be a clear dicatorship.

I get the impressoin that some here which support wikileaks thend to easily to paint the gouvernemts in "black" or "white", either thrustworthy or not. But most gouvernements are not made by one single person. YOu have dozen of ministers, cabinets, the parliament, parties, senate all down to the simple public servant. And all of them now cant be believed ?

Sounds abit to much like a conspiracy theory for me. Is our gouvernement doing only good things ? for sure not. But its not always just evil either. The gouvermenet is usualy a quite big body with many people inside so it will naturaly have coruption and wrong decisions. That is why we try to have so many controls. In both sections the private sector and with the gouvernement.

They can publish roughly anything they want, New York Times Co. v. United States defends that right.

Oh if it would be just that easy. Even famous newspapers find them self often enougn infront of judges because the "freedom of spech" is only "one" of the many rights a citizen has. The protection of your personal informations is another. Or data privacy. Granted journalists and news papers have a lot of freedom and you will have a hard time to nail them. ANd that is a good thing. But it doesnt mean any newspaper or journalist has simply the freedom to do what ever they want. It many times depends on how you display the laws. Laying open corruption in the white house ? That would be for sure something the public would want to know. But which kind of underwear the president is wearing ? I am not sure if that qualifies as important contribution to freedom of spech. And the problem with Wikileas is that here is no control about the kind of information (see the dimplomatic informations, which well doesnt tell aything ...)

Never saw any false or untruth articles at Wikileaks.

Yeah ... cause anyone of us would have the expertise or knowledge to really judge whats "right" or "wrong" in those articles of which some have a few thousand of informations ... I doubt even Assanage or his team could say always which information is correct and which maybe not. I mean if it would be that easy ... no nation would need any inteligence service anymore, simply use wikileaks as your source! Just that Wikileaks is as source to secret informations what Wikipedia is to serious studing on a collegue. Useless. Wiki will not replace for example seroius investigative journalism julst like Wikipedia will not suddenly be replacing studing on a university.

 

[34thcell]

There's more to journalism than exposure and therein is my criticism. Personal opinion is almost unavoidable, but I think mainstream media deliberately uses it. I don't think the media likes Wikileaks, because it produces the "truth" for them. If only there were more serious journalists.

 

[Bad_Karma]

Never saw any false or untruth articles at Wikileaks.

Wow... than you didn't even try to find more neutral informations about wikileaks.
Because really - wikipedia seems to quote some cases where wikileaks published wrong data. And also contains info on how wikileaks lied in their own 'news'. Like pointing points toward goverments trying to shut them down, when it was in reality their own fault (forgetting to get another provider after the old one informed them that he wouldn't prolong their contract and they had X month before the address would be dropped if they didn't find another one in that time).

Wikileaks shouldn't be transparent in the same way I shouldn't have to be. The US government was created by the people, is in place for the people, and is funded by the people - therefore it has the responsibility to be transparent.

Wikileaks also said they would release information on some bank, not to forget the thing they released about VISA and Mastercard.
Also as far as i know they argue every important organization should be transparent.
So they're having some double standard. And 'to protect their members' isn't really an argument, as the US of A and a lot of other organizations also don't give all informations away just to protect their members.

 

[TheWesDude]

Wikileaks shouldn't be transparent in the same way I shouldn't have to be. The US government was created by the people, is in place for the people, and is funded by the people - therefore it has the responsibility to be transparent.

guilty, the problem is to what point should they be transparent...

you have to agree these cables being leaked is damaging independent of being true or not.

there is no way to verify if these cables are accurate or manufactured.


so, governments should be transparent... but only to a point. the question is where is that line drawn.

in the US there is a really simple basis for if it is not released. how damaging to the government as a whole, its entities, or individuals; then it gets classified.

and if you argue all of government should be transparent, then you are a colossal idiot and need to leave this discussion.

the government controls your IRS documents which includes your address, earnings, and social security number. if you demand transparency in your government, you should be able to look up anyones and everyones information.

the government controls your Medicare and Medicaid information which contains your address, age, social security number, and medications being prescribed and doctors notes...

in european nations where you have socialist health care, that would be pretty damaging i think.

there should be SOME transparency in government.

right up to the point where releasing that information would cause damage if it were to get out.

 

[goffy59]

I'm just gonna say that I salute wikileaks for being honorable human beings. In a world full of lies, little truth is always welcomed. Its illegal what they are doing to Assange. He didn't leak the information it was the whistle blower. If it wasn't for great people like this man, we would be even more brainwashed then we already are.

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." -Ron Paul