Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Some WikiLeaks Contributions To Public Discourse

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the greatest-hits-of-cablegate dept.

Government 299

Hugh Pickens writes "The EFF argues that regardless of the heated debate over the propriety of the actions of WikiLeaks, some of the cables have contributed significantly to public and political conversations around the world. The Guardian reported on a cable describing an incident in Afghanistan in which employees of DynCorp, a US military contractor, hired a 'dancing boy,' an under-aged boy dressed as a woman, who dances for a gathering of men and is then prostituted — an incident that contributed important information to the debate over the use of private military contractors. A cable released by WikiLeaks showed that Pfizer allegedly sought to blackmail a Nigerian regulator to stop a lawsuit against drug trials on children. A WikiLeaks revelation that the United States used bullying tactics to attempt to push Spain into adopting copyright laws even more stringent than those in the US came just in time to save Spain from the kind of misguided copyright laws that cripple innovation and facilitate online censorship. An article by the NY Times analyzed cables released which indicated the US is having difficulties in fulfilling Obama's promise to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp and is now considering incentives in return for other countries accepting detainees, including a one-on-one meeting with Obama or assistance with the IMF. 'These examples make clear that WikiLeaks has brought much-needed light to government operations and private actions,' writes Rainey Reitman, 'which, while veiled in secrecy, profoundly affect the lives of people around the world and can play an important role in a democracy that chooses its leaders.'"

cancel ×

299 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (2, Insightful)

jeff4747 (256583) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825486)

'Cause leaking is always double-plus good.

Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825530)

You mean where a politician that we like was privately urging other countries to keep sanctions in place to the detriment of his countries poor in the hope of putting pressure on his political rival while publicly denouncing those same sanctions?

It is absolutely a double edged sword since 2-faced people we like can be exposed lying just like people we don't like.

Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (2, Interesting)

jeff4747 (256583) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825636)

Just keep conveniently forgetting that his "political rival" happens to be a dictator that exemplifies all the bad connotations of that word.

But now that reformers have been handed a big setback, I'm sure the reincarnation of Jefferson will magically appear in Zimbabwe, and you'll have a politician there who measures up to your standards.

Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (5, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825924)

Just keep conveniently forgetting that his "political rival" happens to be a dictator that exemplifies all the bad connotations of that word.

What makes you think the other guy isn't? The West has a long history of supporting the 'other guy' because they can't be worse than what they have... only to discover that actually, they are.

Mao, for example, would have been wiped out by the Chinese Nationalists if the US government hadn't prevented them from doing so because they felt the Nationalists were corrupt.

Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (0)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826196)

Mind you, in all fairness to the government at the time, Mao has turned out to make his people servants to the US Empire, paying their dues until now they have economic superiority over the power that sought to enslave them in the first place. Like I always say, China's taking over the world is smart. It's better than by the bomb.

Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825928)

People like to pretend that using others is justifiable if the people being used are at least marginally better than where they started. Unfortunately, that's simply not true, especially since if the people being used weren't being manipulated to support another crappy situation that is only 'better' in respect to looking at the rock bottom, they might just have been willing to fight longer and harder for a solution more beneficial to themselves.

Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (1)

Javajunk (1957446) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826680)

Ends, means, something about justification. I don't remember which way that swings.

Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (2)

aeoo (568706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826496)

It is absolutely a double edged sword since 2-faced people we like can be exposed lying just like people we don't like.

I don't get it. How is this a double-edged sword again? Seems like a win-win. I want to know that I like those people who truly deserve it. If someone exposes objectionable yet factual information to me about the people I like, I welcome it. Not to mention that I also have some capacity for forgiveness too, as I am sure do the others as well.

you mean (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825550)

the case of 'movement for democratic change', which is so very well named (just like the poisonous bills that come to u.s. congress, hint hint) that was trying to topple a ruthless dictator who did not cooperate with united states, and instead place someone else who would be amiable to angloamerican corporations' moves in zimbabwe ? the very thing that caused all american news channels to dedicate their entire fucking daytime broadcasts to zimbabwe, over the course of six months while it was being pushed ? showing randomly running zimbabweans and putting up 8 talking heads to discuss the 'situation' (what situation ? running around of zimbabweans) at this particular day, when they werent able to find anything worthy of reporting ? and in the meantime, doing that while all kinds of shit, from koreas to piracy in high seas to afghanistan and iraq was way too heated to not be reported, but, conveniently not reported, because the fucking 'lets put an american friendly puppet' play was in session in zimbwabwe ?

yeah. THAT case. that zimbabwe. and on the other hand, uniformed, ignorant gullible fools like you. too easy to manipulate.

Re:you mean (1)

jeff4747 (256583) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825688)

Given the choice between a brutal dictator and a corrupt politician, I'll take the corrupt politician every time.

Re:you mean (4, Insightful)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825816)

I've seen both in my country. Not an easy choice, I'm afraid. Both fail you. With the first, it's at least obvious. The latter tend to last longer with potentially more degrading effect.

Re:you mean (3, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825956)

Given the choice between a brutal dictator or a corrupt politician who could just as easily become a brutal dictator were he in power, frankly I would choose to keep looking for the third option and stop creating a false dilemma [wikimedia.org] .

Re:you mean (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825980)

What's the difference?

Both should leave the gene pool.

Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825570)

-1 for troll.

If a serial killer uses google maps to choose his victims, it does not make Google or the cartographers who worked on that neighborhood culpable or liable.

Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (1)

Musically_ut (1054312) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825580)

'Cause leaking is always double-plus good.

Indeed. There are arguments for as well as against [techdirt.com] .

Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (0)

jeff4747 (256583) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825668)

You'll note I said "Leaking" not "Wikileaks". The canard that wikileaks is wonderful 'cause the Guardian published the cable isn't relevant.

i don't understand that argument (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825848)

mugabe would be acting like mugabe no matter what. that he uses wikileaks as an excuse to abuse the opposition is just that: a convenient excuse

it's as if you believe mugabe would be a nice decent fellow if wikileaks never came along. do you believe that?

if no, don't blame wikileaks for what assholes do. blame the assholes!

What the **** has WikiLeaks done so far? (2, Informative)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825504)

Is there a similar site [whatthefuc...esofar.com] for WikiLeaks?

Re:What the **** has WikiLeaks done so far? (5, Informative)

jbell730 (1586063) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825742)

Yes. [sowhyiswik...gagain.com]

Re:What the **** has WikiLeaks done so far? (0, Troll)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825874)

Not the best source, apparently, if they're still spouting this crap:

WikiLeaks has revealed how scientists manipulated global warming research data in order to make it seem more consequential.

Re:What the **** has WikiLeaks done so far? (1)

glodime (1015179) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826676)

http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/ [sowhyiswik...gagain.com] Offers no direct or indirect links to source material on Wikileaks.org that I could find.

Re:What the **** has WikiLeaks done so far? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825748)

this site: sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com [sowhyiswik...gagain.com]

Dancing boy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825546)

Where does one get one of these so-called "dancing boys"?

Re:Dancing boy? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825562)

In Afghanistan. Please go there.

Re:Dancing boy? (2)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825900)

A boy (8-15-ish) who dances erotically for a group of men, and is then used as a prostitute.

There was a good documentary on Channel 4 [channel4.com] (UK) about it, and there's a decent article here [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Dancing boy? (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825910)

Oh... oops, I misread the GP's question as What ... is a dancing boy.

Re:Dancing boy? (2)

the_hellspawn (908071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826490)

Yeah I remember when the BBC covered that story for the program. I thought to myself; so Afghanistan is a Muslim based country. Muslims discourage homosexual activities and yet they have dancin' boys. Those dancin' boys are then 'rented' for a night of something behind the camels tent. Then it dawned on me...hypocrites. They kill you for committing sexual acts, but with dancin' boy it is okay.

Let's Keep Having Wars (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825574)

I can point to some good stuff that has occurred as a result of wars. So let's keep having them.

Re:Let's Keep Having Wars (0)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825642)

The question is, was it worth the price we had to pay for it? I somehow don't really believe in the "broken windows are good for the economy" school of thought.

Re:Let's Keep Having Wars (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825838)

Not all good outcomes show up on a balance sheet.

Re:Let's Keep Having Wars (4, Interesting)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825700)

That's the whole issue, isn't it? How can you objectively prove Wikileaks whether is good or bad for the average person? What's too much or too little transparency?

One interesting side effect I've noticed is that regular news coverage appears to be better. I think Wikileaks has motivated a lot of investigative journalists to step up their game.

Re:Let's Keep Having Wars (0)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825754)

How can you objectively prove whether Wikileaks is good or bad for the average person? What's too much or too little transparency?

Fixed.

God, I need coffee...

Re:Let's Keep Having Wars (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825994)

Motivated?

I'd say required. They essentially got called for being MSM shills who reported slant and bias rather than fact and authoritative quote. Doesn't look good to be a face on MSM, yet be the least informed and offering the least intelligible discourse for any given topic. Makes their position rather sad and farcical.

There's a reason NPR is the most accurate reporting entity on the air. And to some extent, TDS. Despite it being a comedy show, it is more accurate than FOX, MSNBC, and CNN. Like others, this latter fact saddens me.

Re:Let's Keep Having Wars (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34826252)

One interesting side effect I've noticed is that regular news coverage appears to be better. I think Wikileaks has motivated a lot of investigative journalists to step up their game.

I'd argue that on the contrary, the traditional media outlets have done a pretty good job of exposing corruption and abuse of power. Abu Ghraib? Traditional media. NSF domestic surveillance? Traditional media. Secret CIA prisons? Traditional media. In fact, the most surprising thing about Wikileaks is just unsurprising it all is. Putin is a tyrant, Berlusconi is an ass, Afghanistan is corrupt, the Chinese government was involved in attacking Google, we're killing terrorists in Yemen, Iraq is violent and noncombatants get killed by the U.S. military, the Guantanamo detainee situation is a nightmare... none of this is really shocking if you follow traditional print/online media sources like the New York Times, the Economist, or the Wall Street Journal. Wikileaks has taken the veil of secrecy away and America... looks pretty much like we thought it did. I see a country that tries but often fails to do the right thing, which is exactly what I thought before. Others see a corrupt, oppressive authoritarian system, which is exactly what they thought before.

Re:Let's Keep Having Wars (1)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825860)

Please do. Because I've never seen (or even heard of) anything good coming out of a war, regardless of being through two modern wars.

Re:Let's Keep Having Wars (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826534)

Well, the downfall of some belligerent authoritarian governments after wwII. (also posting to remove misclicked moderation elsewhere)

Well (0, Flamebait)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825596)

If Wikileaks is so brave have it post a cartoon of Muhammad. Even Seth McFarland won't do that. Just sayin'...if the government was smart it would hack their website and throw a pic up like that. My guess is the media and the radical Umams would have a holy war waging in not time.

The only brave person surrounding Wikileaks appears to Assnage. Hey, I disagree with him but he has the cajones to put his name out there, something none of the script kiddies in the Anonymous army has the guts to do.

Re:Well (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825634)

What do you prove by insulting a religion? That you are an asshole, and some other people who attack you are even bigger assholes?

Just treat people with respect, you fucking douchebag.

Re:Well (5, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825726)

Just treat people with respect, you fucking douchebag.

Well, that fills my irony quota for the week.

Re:Well (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825942)

Bashing religion is a noble /. past time, just as long as it is poking fun of Christians (I'm not one). The point the guy was making is that while it is easy and harmless to bash Christians (or even Jews), it isn't nearly as harmless to bash Islam and Muslims.

Just ask Theo Van Gogh about it

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34826160)

It also wouldn't be harmless to pick a fight with a bear, but I don't see that as evidence that someone should pick a fight with a bear, or that people shouldn't just treat bears with respect.

Re:Well (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826340)

It also wouldn't be harmless to pick a fight with a bear, but I don't see that as evidence that someone should pick a fight with a bear, or that people shouldn't just treat bears with respect.

Bears don't believe drawing a picture of them is picking a fight.

Re:Well (0)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826514)

Miss the point much?

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825644)

This just in: "Anonymous" means you don't "put your name out there".

I want in on this (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825802)

Ooooh and in return, they should hack the government website and put in a "I eat baby foetusus for breakfast" image!

Hooray!

Re:I want in on this (2)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826368)

I'll bite, what's a foetusus?

Re:I want in on this (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826746)

They have that one on the TSA"s website about what baby food is allowed on planes.

Re:Well (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826044)

Assange isn't brave. His running and hiding when those two women nailed him for being a douchebag, and his blaming it on America, prove that.

His name is out there because when he first started promoting himself he did it for the fame; and now that it's turned to shit he can't hide.

Re:Well (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826472)

You mean how he stayed in sweeden until they said he could leave?
or do you mean how he then turned himself in to the police in the UK when the Swedish government changed it's mind?

He's one of those rare people who are actually quite justified to assume conspiracy against him given how many of the post powerful people in the world he and his organisation has pissed off.

He could have hidden perfectly fine if he'd wanted to, there was at least one country(Ecuador) which offered him asylum with no strings attached.

Do some fucking research next time rather than parroting fox news as if they're a real news source.

Re:Well (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826556)

I mean how when he got to the UK he hid so the Swedish police had to file for extradition and he fought it.

How about getting the facts straight before running your mouth about who watches Faux news and who doesn't.

Re:Well (3, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826702)

Hid? He gave his (temporary) address to the UK police. He wasn't hideing. He was just making the Swedish prosecutors go through every piece of paperwork he could, thus ensuring maximum embarassment for them. Last I heard he still is, dragging things out in court as long as possible.

Re:Well (5, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826724)

I mean how when he got to the UK he hid so the Swedish police had to file for extradition and he fought it.

He hid, by turning himself in to Scotland Yard?

Oh, he fought extradition. As was his right. Not the same as hiding, not at all.

Re:Well (2)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826398)

I wouldn't call it bravery in Assange's case. It appears he's ego driven, and expects the world to worship his name on high with the FSM for having done what he has.

I'm kind of middle ground on it all... I'm happy he's exposed some corruption, but unhappy he leaked it all without investigation.... pretty irresponsible.

Completely agree (1)

80's Greg (457939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825606)

I can only hope that the right people in government see this and continue to help improve transparency in as many areas of government as possible. Added government transparency can only bring improvement.

On the other hand I don't advocate 100% transparency. To me it's the same reason why women don't reveal to everyone they're pregnant the instant they find out. Instead, once they decide they're going to have the baby and they have a good idea it's going to work out, then they let others know. I feel like government should have the same levels of privacy, but not much beyond that.

Re:Completely agree (5, Insightful)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825734)

The difference between individual privacy and government secrecy is that individuals can be directly harmed, while governments (and other organizations, like corporations) can only be exposed, and power shifts hands. Members of an organization need to be informed to make good decisions, and, in the case of a democratic government, the members are the citizens. Secrets and misinformation make an organization/constituency less informed, and more prone to making bad decisions. It's not a matter of privacy, since organizations aren't individuals.

Re:Completely agree (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826016)

Governments are made of individuals. Governments in conflict with other governments need secrecy the way you need a wall between you and a neighbor who's sloppy with his junk.

Re:Completely agree (4, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826374)

The difference between individual privacy and government secrecy is that individuals can be directly harmed, while governments (and other organizations, like corporations) can only be exposed, and power shifts hands. Members of an organization need to be informed to make good decisions, and, in the case of a democratic government, the members are the citizens. Secrets and misinformation make an organization/constituency less informed, and more prone to making bad decisions. It's not a matter of privacy, since organizations aren't individuals.

One of the many problems with this is the demand for 100% governmental transparency unless that involved exposing individual privacy. The extreme views clash.

Oh, it certainly increased the awareness (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825614)

And such incidents are certainly despicable. But the powers that are probably do not think that this is a good idea. Does the US government want discussions about whether "private armies" are a good idea? Do they want Pfizer outed as a company that pressures third world countries into complying? Or that they bullied Spain into passing insane copyright laws?

Sadly, the interests of the people and their governments are not the same. Which makes me wonder, wasn't there something about "by the people for the people"? If a government does not serve its alleged masters, as a democracy (or republic, for you nitpickers) claims to do, what good is it then?

Re:Oh, it certainly increased the awareness (4, Insightful)

servognome (738846) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826224)

Sadly, the interests of the people and their governments are not the same.

Sadly, the interests of the people are represented by government more than we want to admit. That's why many would prefer some things remain secret, so they can live fat and happy while convincing themselves nothing is wrong.

Times sure are a-changin'... (4, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825620)

Somebody actually reading the leaks before forming an opinion about them? Blasphemy!

What's next, a slashdotter reading an article before posting? A Christian reading the bible...?

Re:Times sure are a-changin'... (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825676)

... a politician reading a law he's going to vote on...?

Re:Times sure are a-changin'... (1)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826014)

... a politician reading a law he's going to vote on...?

Excuse me, but that's not what politicians are paid for... by those who write the laws they vot on?

Re:Times sure are a-changin'... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826408)

That's why I prefer our system of campaign financing. If you manage to get a certain amount of votes, you get your invested money back. It may look odd to pay for election ads with tax money, but at least I can imagine that I bought my politician and not some company.

Re:Times sure are a-changin'... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826714)

but at least I can imagine that I bought my politician and not some company.

If they're going to be corrupt, I should get a chance to be corrupt too! It's the American way. ::eyeroll::

Re:Times sure are a-changin'... (1)

s4ltyd0g (452701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826488)

undoing an erroneous mod

But wait! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825648)

I thought the USA was the world's shining hope, and what other countries should aspire to become.

Re:But wait! (4, Insightful)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826046)

I thought the USA was the world's shining hope, and what other countries should aspire to become.

You must be an American, then.

Re: Spain (4, Interesting)

kikito (971480) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825652)

The law wasn't approved in Spain because the opposing parties didn't support it, true, but that had little to do with wikileaks.

Most Spanish politicians simply ignore the whole wikileaks deal; they don't mention it, publicly, at all. I think many of them don't even understand what wikileaks is (besides the most obvious effects of exposing some of their dirty clothes to the public)

The lack of support happened because the opposing parties didn't get the benefits they wanted in other negotiations. It was a reprisal to the governing party, which proposed the law. It would have happened just the same without wikileaks.

It was one of those occasions in which the egoistical interests of a few benefited the many. Which is funny and sad at the same time.

Transparency is the way to freedom..... (1)

steeleyeball (1890884) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825658)

David Brin wrote a book called the "transparent civilization"... If Obama read it maybe he could make Wikileaks irrelevant.

Re:Transparency is the way to freedom..... (1)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826080)

David Brin wrote a book called the "transparent civilization"... If Obama read it maybe he could make Wikileaks irrelevant.

Haven't read the book, but the title says civilization, not government.

The unquestionable source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825694)

Has it occurred to anyone that since Wiki-leaks portrays its releases as "leaked cables" that the public has come to accept that they are all genuine? I think it serves the public interest to approach each "leaked cable" with apprehension if not suspicion until the veracity of the information can be determined. As it stands, Wiki-leaks has carte-blanch to make up anything they want to at this point and it seems to be taken, pardon the comparison, as gospel truth each time. Are we to assume the sources of said leaks are beyond ambition?

One thing that hasn't made it... (4, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825704)

Is why Peter King, who has used [wikipedia.org] his position as a NY Congressman to aid the IRA, has not been denounced for his rank hypocrisy in calling for Assange to be prosecuted.

If Assange can be extradited to the US, I say we should arrest King and offer him up for prosecution by an all-Protestant jury in Northern Ireland...

Re:One thing that hasn't made it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825826)

Wait - what? You're for freedom of information but not people?

Re:One thing that hasn't made it... (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825926)

The call for Assange to be prosecuted for something, anything, is the bipartisan consensus position in Washington. The conservative position is for Assange to be summarily executed. So poking fun at Peter King for hypocrisy may be fun and all, but it's not a great argument.

Really, the reaction to Wikileaks has been so dramatic that I have to think that they have something really really damaging on somebody that they haven't released yet. And it has to be more damaging than evidence of war crimes, because when Dick Cheney proudly stated that he ordered waterboarding (which was a war crime when the US accused the Japanese of doing it) on national TV, not much happened.

Re:One thing that hasn't made it... (1)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826176)

BoA

Re:One thing that hasn't made it... (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826208)

Is why Peter King, who has used [wikipedia.org] his position as a NY Congressman to aid the IRA, has not been denounced for his rank hypocrisy in calling for Assange to be prosecuted.

If Assange can be extradited to the US, I say we should arrest King and offer him up for prosecution by an all-Protestant jury in Northern Ireland...

No need for that. Just dump the terrorist in Guantanamo or some secret prison somewhere and throw away the key.

Signal to noise ratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825708)

I am curious why they didn't just release the specific cables that showed specific wrong doing instead of releasing a lot of pretty much worthless information. If they had released 5-10 that showed specific wrong doing the media would focus on the content and not the size of the leak.

Re:Signal to noise ratio (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825992)

They have only released cables that show specific wrongs since publishing started. You might have noticed the accompanying editorial for each release in the Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Pais, etc.

Re:Signal to noise ratio (0)

Dasuraga (1147871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826056)

because wikileaks isn't about journalism, it's about dumping information. It's one of the things that annoys me the most about the outfit. I'm for freedom of the press but if we just abuse our rights like this no wonder we get crazy politicians trying to remove them

Re:Signal to noise ratio (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826620)

if we just abuse our rights like this no wonder we get crazy politicians trying to remove them

I read this in the voice of a woman with a black eye saying something like "It was a door.... clumsy me.....really I should have had his meal ready when he got home.... "

Re:Signal to noise ratio (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826258)

One persons scandal is another persons boring drivel.
A dull little cable about a diplomat having a meeting about banking regulations can be a non story for most people while for a few it can unveil how a politician ignored advice that may have averted a crisis.

Peanuts (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825714)

Should be a Murphy law regarding Wikileaks... no matter how bad the leaks looks so far, there will be always something worse about to be disclosed. And that without even touching banks, that was supposed to be the next target.

With a bit of luck the illusion of "but we are the good ones" will become more evident with this.

Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825724)

Did the part where Saudi Arabia pressured the US to attack Iran 'contribute to public discourse'? Cheney made this point, without naming names, for years and was ignored and ridiculed.

Or are we just cherry picking our favorite lefty talking points?

Choosing your own leaders (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825766)

"and can play an important role in a democracy that chooses its leaders." ...as opposed to a democracy which chooses out of a 2-party system the lesser of two evils.

Re:Choosing your own leaders (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825984)

have you ever thought of running?

either of the parties would love to have you. especially if you're morally pristine and intellectually indestructible, as you seem to think you are.

provided, of course, that anyone in their right mind would vote for you.

Re:Choosing your own leaders (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826264)

I'm pretty sure if the greatest leader in the history of mankind, a person who has found the solution to all the world's problems - went for an election as an independant candidate he would still not get any amount of votes worth reporting.

Happens everywhere you understand. Red States/Blue States.. you think they care whether their leader is a baby-eating psycho or a good human being? Nope.

Re:Choosing your own leaders (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826416)

No, the real problem is they can't find people as pure and brilliant as you. Because, seriously, if they could, either one of those parties would shower you with virgins to get you to join.

Some things I wished were talked about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825774)

1. America is hated for a good reason: Our government is a bunch of bullying dicks.

2. I hope Arabs and Muslims realize that behind their backs, their governments are begging the US Government to have a military presence in the Middle East because:
a. Iran is a bunch of psychos
They're afraid of each other and America is the only ones with the power to mediate.

3. Hopefully, Americans can start putting pressure on our Government and say, "WTF are we doing in the Middle East? It's just causing us a bunch of headaches and it's not worth our time or tax dollars - that includes aid to Israel." No, the oil isn't worth it. We get only 10% of our oil from there. And before someone starts posting the Wikipedia article on "fungible", I'd like to point out that even if they stop selling oil to us, they'll sell it to others thereby not increasing the World price of oil because:

4. The leaders of the Middle East are a bunch of corrupt, sub-human, abusive sacks of shit and it sickens me that we, the US of A, supports those mother fuckers. They are the cause of terrorism and for because of #1, they are able to convince their people that the US is at fault.

Re:Some things I wished were talked about. (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826132)

+1 agree

we have a choice? (0)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825824)

'while veiled in secrecy, profoundly affect the lives of people around the world and can play an important role in a democracy that chooses its leaders.'

Wait, last time I checked you can only choose from 2 people as our leader - both of whom were never our first choice.

Re:we have a choice? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825968)

So last time you checked you woke up on the first Tuesday in November and voted?

Because last time I checked the people who end up running on that day had gone through years if not decades of vetting and promotion by the public (and corporate interests and political parties) to get to that point.

seriously McCain, WTF ? (2)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826464)

years if not decades of vetting

Like Para-sailin' ?

A crime is not a contribution. (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825914)

There are ways in democratic countries to change the law so that your goals are met. Meeting your goals by breaking the law is imposing your rule on the people. That makes you the dictator.

yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34825960)

www.haberajans.org

Whats the problem here? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826034)

I sure hope they're talking about a random soldier rank pv2 E1 whom happens to be named "Obama" not the much more famous guy at the tippy top peak of the military chain of command of the worlds largest most powerful military. You'd think the C-in-C might have enough power to take care of this without begging other countries for help?

I'm not trying to debate right or wrong here, trying to focus on an utter lack of efficiency and competence. We're not talking about rewriting the worlds biggest most corrupt banking system or the worlds biggest most corrupt medical-industrial complex. Just a tiny freaking prison in the middle of nowhere.

An article by the NY Times analyzed cables released which indicated the US is having difficulties in fulfilling Obama's promise to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp and is now considering incentives in return for other countries accepting detainees, including a one-on-one meeting with Obama or assistance with the IMF. '

An example from Denmark (4, Interesting)

thue (121682) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826240)

Here in Denmark, the newspaper Politiken recently got access to all the documents. They found that which the (right-wing) government had publicly said that they would firm ask the US whether the US used Danish airspace for extraordinary rendition [wikipedia.org] , the government privately told the US that they did not really want any answers.

A good example of how WikiLeaks can expose governments acting against their citizens interest. It might not be in the US's interest to expose this, but it is certainly in my interest as a citizen.

Hop To Attention (2)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826442)

The most serious of torture cases involve placing prisoners in the hands of other nations where the most radical tortures and deaths are applied with great frequency. We urgently need laws that forbid our government from transferring prisoners to other nations.
            For those that think it doesn't matter we already allow corporations to run prisons in the US and it isn't much of a reach to think that they might export a burgler from Brooklyn to Egypt for fun and games knowing that that convict will surely perish in custody.

DynCorp values and code of ethics (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826538)

From their site: DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL CORE VALUES We Serve – willingly in all locations and conditions. We Care – for the safety, security, development, and well-being of our employees. We Empower – our employees to succeed in a culture based on trust, respect, loyalty, and commitment. We Perform – with a relentless commitment to exceeding expectations. We Do the Right Thing – always, for our customers, employees, and those we serve. They left out the part about underage cross-dressing sex slaves...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>