WikiLeaks Set To Release Unpublished Iraq War Docs 411
Tootech writes with this snippet from Wired:
"A massive cache of previously unpublished classified US military documents from the Iraq War is being readied for publication by WikiLeaks, a new report has confirmed. The documents constitute the 'biggest leak of military intelligence' that has ever occurred, according to Iain Overton, editor of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a nonprofit British organization that is working with WikiLeaks on the documents. The documents are expected to be published in several weeks. Overton, who discussed the project with Newsweek, didn't say how many documents were involved or disclose their origin, but they may be among the leaks that an imprisoned Army intelligence analyst claimed to have sent to WikiLeaks earlier this year."
I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:3, Insightful)
The concept is nice: A tool for exposing corruption
But the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Even as someone who is very strongly in support of open government, the methods used by Wikileaks just feel a bit too... cowboyish?
I don't really know, perhaps someone can explain better, but I just get this bad feeling the way they are going about this.
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
A democracy (or republic) can't work unless people have all the facts, otherwise it falls apart. The more information the better.
So will this be like the last hyped release? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that really came out that was surprising for the British papers that looked over the documents was that it was the first time we'd heard the military accuse Pakistan intelligence and military of supplying weapons to extemists. They'd always tiptoed around this in the past, not admitting it publically.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
It's ugly. No doubt. Really really ugly but in a ugly world can you really play with kid gloves on?
I like that it contributes to the accountability but it frightens me that I believe wikileaks. Is it any worse then believing (insert major news outlet here)?
In a world filled with neverending bullshit, anything different can't be bad though.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a war not monday-night football. We don't need arm chair commanders making political hay over day-to-day operations.
I'm for an open government, but I don't see how knowing intimate details about operations will make the government more open about the war. Sure you can point to the effectiveness of the ground forces, but your totally disregarding the defense contractors who are really raking in the money. In fact I believe these documents will serve to focus our attention on old field reports and distract us from Haliburton, Blackwater (Z), and others who are profiting from the war. Worse these documents are really just increasing Wikileaks visibility at the risk of endangering US troops and worse the Afghans that helped.
Now if wikileaks could disclose documents between congressional leaders and these contractors, then I would be very impressed.
What other option? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no other option. You are providing evidence against a powerful wrongdoer. One that holds a special right to employ physical force against you. You cannot play "let's make a deal" with them. They will bury you. The only option is to be aggressive, just as government was aggressive in hiding their wrongdoings in the first place.
I salute those who engage in whistle-blowing and hold the highest respect for them. They are the ones making personal sacrifices to help us all, not the elite at the top of the power pyramid.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were making it all up, the government wouldn't care what they said.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really know, perhaps someone can explain better, but I just get this bad feeling the way they are going about this.
Well, here is the situation we have right now: the government labels a document classified, and we are expected to assume that it would be dangerous for anyone without clearance to read the document. After all, we are at war, and if the enemy were to learn about our planned troop movements, it would result in many dead American soldiers.
Great, in theory, and it makes sense -- the military has always needed to keep certain things secret during times of war. Unfortunately, the military also has a habit of classifying documents inappropriately. An old video of an attack that left two reporters dead? Reports about the numbers of casualties? We live in a democracy, and we need to know what is happening in order to make democratic choices. The inappropriate classification of documents is the reason Wikileaks does what it does. The government can only lie about the reasons for classifying documents so long before the people stop trusting the government, and we crossed that line a long time ago. Wikileaks exists to fight back and show people what the government (and other powerful organizations) does not want them to know. Sure, Wikileaks has some responsibility for ensuring that civilians are not harmed in the process, and they try to redact the leaks. They even asked for government help in redacting the leaks. In the end, though, Wikileaks is run by volunteers, and the government is not willing to help them, so yes, some civilians are harmed. That is unfortunate, but it is not Wikileaks' fault -- Wikileaks is not responsible for the war, and Wikileaks is not responsible for the government misclassifying documents to the point of becoming untrustworthy.
Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Shatters Confidence of Control (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really know, perhaps someone can explain better, but I just get this bad feeling the way they are going about this.
For better or for worse, this is going to seriously shake any confidence a person or country is going to have when offering sensitive information to the United States. The United States conducts a lot of operations both good and bad throughout the entire world. If you think that overall the United States' actions in other countries is good then you would probably have a bad feeling about this. Let's say I know where a warlord is hiding out in Sudan but if I tell US forces about it and anyone finds out that it was me, I'll lose my life. After being able to peruse their entire set of documents from Afghanistan and Iraq, how much confidence can I have in them?
Hopefully bringing in Bureau of Investigative Journalism is a way to protect those people but at the same time relaying the important information to the public in a way it doesn't further jeopardize lives.
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
*ENGAGE SARCASM MODE*
When you are blowing the whistle, you got ask permission first. Because I am SURE the pentagon would happily lend a hand and help with releasing video of its soldiers slaughtering unarmed civilians complete with audio track of the soldiers enjoying the slaughter as if it is a game.
*END SARCASM MODE, SWITCH TO QUIET DESPAIR*
The above post is sadly a growing movement of "don't rock the boat" people who just don't want to hear anything that upsets them. If you tell them their house is on fire, they blame you, not the fire. Shoot the messenger, so you never have to hear anything disturbing. Trust the state, keep quiet and all will be well.
Reagan did this well, soothing voice, zero policies zero convictions. No wonder people want him back. No matter that he killed the economy. All is well because he said it was.
If you read the news and your blood doesn't boil every other article, you ain't reading news, you are reading entertainment.
This is happening because the Iraq war is unjust (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:named informants ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Source article is paywalled but the Times indicated that they were able to get dozens of names and locations of informants just from a fairly casual search of the documents.
About informants names (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shatters Confidence of Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama promised openness and accountability. He delivered more secrecy and persecution of whistleblowers than Bush. Ergo he deserves what he gets. Maybe with enough popular backlash (and make no mistake: domestic or not wikileaks and thinking Americans' support for it constitutes popular backlash) politicians will start considering *doing* the things they promise in order to get elected.
Here's an alternative view for you: if, for example, rather than hiding pictures of our torture behind claims that releasing them will incite those near our victims, what if we instead had a firm policy of releasing pictures of our wrongdoings, prosecuted those responsible, and had that whole accountability thing? Maybe the fact that we don't have any accountability (because we're tacitly approving heinous activities) is *actually* more damaging to our national security than releasing these sorts of documents. But hey accountability and transparency have never worked before. Nope. The Church Commission was completely wrong about that one. Whoops. There went 20 years where we could've been torturing more than we did.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it any worse then believing (insert major news outlet here)?
No, it's much better because they release all source information - whereas [major news outlet] do not, and in the process have failed to uphold their obligation as the 4th estate [wordpress.com]. Wikileaks is helping investigative journalism regain some credibility.... no more rhetorical questions at last [youtube.com] (at least on the internet).
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:3, Insightful)
Assenege seems like someone with a hard-on for power and attention, a bit of a megalomaniac. Why should a random person have this amount of power just because they came up with / helped implement the idea?
Kind of comes with the territory, doesn't it? Anyone with the balls and motivation to pull this kind of thing off in an effective way on the world stage isn't going to be a small-time whistle blower with a small-time ego or a small-time sense of risk-taking. Anybody with this kind of drive and motivation will seem like a megalomaniac to the sheeple.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government could neuter him by not being so secretive. If the only things that were kept a secret were those things that were truly important he'd have no power.
Yep. I'd thought the intent was different. (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel like the site has developed (and in part always had) a primary purpose of attacking U.S. foreign policy. The site needs to be more than that if it is to be a true data haven.
It sure does look that way. Assange clearly has political goals that go beyond exposing corruption, fraud, and the like. How can I trust him to not be selectively suppressing things or even editing things?
Originally I recall there was an emphasis on corporate wrongdoing. So-and-so just dumped 50000 gallons of dioxin in the Mississippi River, some OS keyword searching your email and forwarding some of it to the RIAA, etc.
That "collateral murder" thing removed any doubt I had. First of all, "murder" is a specific type of killing; it is a particular class of unlawful killing. Neither accidents nor acts of war qualify, of which the events were both. Before even releasing the original video, he made a short version of of the video which lacked much of the context. He stripped out pictures that showed people running around with AK-47 and RPG-7 weapons. He also stripped out scenes that might remind viewers that there is much confusion in battle.
Re:what about the dude in prison? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the general argument was that they release this information because the US citizens (and indeed, the world, since the US likes to romp around with its army) should have got these facts from their government in a more safe way. However, since they did not, it falls to wikileaks who tries their best to censor it safely, and even (so I hear) gave the US gov't a chance to censor the names further.
Am I wrong?
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not impossible. It would be hard, but wholesale release of everything is simply not acceptable.
And who gets to decide how much they should leak? The only way you can do it properly is to release
everything.
I really dont care if a few people were stupid enough to believe the US government would protect them while
they aided another corporate controlled war for greed.
NO! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:4, Insightful)
In theory, 'responsible' news agencies should get the documents, try to make sure that they are not going to get innocent people killed, and publish as much as possible. I don't think that Wikileaks has a clue about how to do that, so they release everything.
And Assange is an ego-manic of the first order. I think that releasing the documents to Cryptome is a better way to do it.
Re:what about the dude in prison? (Score:4, Insightful)
If he's the one who leaked these documents, he frankly belongs in prison. He broke the law.
Let's not forget that he's probably legally a whistleblower [wikipedia.org] as well:
In the logs, Manning explains his growing disillusionment with the U.S. Army and foreign policy.[14] He gives one example of being assigned the task of evaluating the arrest of Iraqis for allegedly publishing "anti Iraq" literature, only to discover that the writings were in fact scholarly critique of corruption in the cabinet of Iraq Prime Minister Al-Maliki titled "Where Did the Money Go?".[18] He reportedly said to Lamo, "I immediately took that information and ran to the officer to explain what was going on. He didn’t want to hear any of it. He told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding MORE detainees."[14] Manning reportedly characterized some of the allegedly leaked cables to Lamo as, "explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective."[9]
Before we hang him, let's pause to consider motive...
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice user name... quite appropriate for your point of view.
But let's get something clear about the idealism of the design of the U.S. government. The idealism of the government is that it is for the people and by the people to serve the interests of the people. More and more, it serves not the people, but a limited set of people which are typically big business -- a large part of which is this "military industrial complex."
When the government is managed in this way, it ceases to operate in the interests of the people of the U.S. But in reality, the government is still, in many ways, quite accountable to the people for its actions. Unfortunately, people are not aware of those actions for which the government should be held to account. There was a time when journalists were courageous in their reporting of corruption or other bad behavior. The level of courage has diminished to the point where Wikileaks becomes more necessary in order to hold the government accountable for its actions.
One could argue that the government is involved in "tricky and sensitive matters" which is true when you are not operating in an honest and open manner. Instead, we are "taking sides" and "making enemies" that endanger all U.S. Americans who are frequently "made to answer" for the actions of the U.S. government.
When there was a "cold war" we understood why we had such a large military. Now that it's over, we don't quite get it. The M.I.C. was starting to starve. But now that we have some fresh new enemies, we can buy new toys from the M.I.C. Convenient. This type of behavior is NOT in the interests of the people of the United States. It is in the interests of the M.I.C. who benefits from it greatly.
Re:This is happening because the Iraq war is unjus (Score:4, Insightful)
But countries like Iraq should not be allowed to exist in the modern world. And for that matter there's dozens of other countries we have all turned our back on and their citizens are forced to live in fear and ignorance of a brutal government.
This is patently false. Only the citizens living under that dictator have the right to rebel against him. Further only they will ever be able to actually succeed.
What we've witnessed/been witnessing in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan really should have taught us this lesson by now. This isn't a matter of just finding the right way to do it, this is a matter of logical incongruity.
In short, if the people aren't willing to rise up and overthrow this leader, then why are we? And what happens when we leave, and a new power takes over?
The entire premise is deeply, deeply flawed, and if this were our first failed experiment in it I might be more forgiving. But this clearly never, ever works.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:2, Insightful)
perhaps they don't intend revolution, but their actions are closer to revolutionary than cowboy.
Haha (Score:3, Insightful)
Right... the real issue is not that we're invading countries left and right, or opening up secret prisons around the world, or legalizing the assassination of US citizens, or ending the protection of civil rights that western society has had since the Magna Carta, or threatening sovereign nations with annihilation on a weekly basis, or treating the UN like it's our play toy, or refusing to submit to an international legal authority, but it's the fact that we can't keep a secret that's really bothering the rest of the world.
The reason the rest of the world doesn't trust us with information is because we often do very stupid things with it, especially when it comes to terrorism.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
Improve accountability? No, all this will do is force the decision-making process further away from the prying eyes of public scrutiny. Arguments and discussions will only take place "off the record" and in ways that can be immediately destroyed. No decisions will be documented - at least not in a way that can be used against anyone. Don't like the amount of paper that a bureaucracy produces? You won't have to worry about that much longer...
Sad days to be an American (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said, but unfortunately this weeks ruling [nytimes.com] means it is only going to get worse , much much worse. [salon.com].
Quotes from above:
"The ruling handed a major victory to the Obama administration in its effort to advance a sweeping view of executive secrecy power."
"The distorted, radical use of the state secret privilege -- as a broad-based immunity weapon for compelling the dismissal of entire cases alleging Executive lawbreaking, rather than a narrow discovery tool for suppressing the use of specific classified documents -- is exactly what the Bush administration did to such extreme controversy."
Rulings like this passed with little to no media coverage[1] show that the US is more little down the slippery slope to our Orwellian future. And people here are worried about wikileaks? The mind boggles.
[1] Slashdot posts old old news [slashdot.org] on Wikileaks instead - like there was ever a doubt that the remaining documents will be published
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but that can be the response to any attempt at holding politicians accountable for their actions. That's their fault, not Wikileaks.
Re:NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
A 'representative republic' is a democracy. It may not be a 'pure democracy' but it's a democracy nonetheless. No country is a 'pure democracy'. It's just ludicrous word-games masquerading as intelligent analysis and fabricated history. It's part of the problem.
There's no panacea to fix all the world's problems in one fell sweep either. Or even just to fix the USA's problems.
Try reading less demagogic opinion and more actual analysis.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey everybody! Conspiracy Of Doves is wife beating, drug dealing homosexual pedophile rapist kleptomaniac who acts as an informant for terrorists cells. Be sure to spread the word to everyone you know, especially local law enforcement, neighbors and anyone who might be looking to hire.
(If I'm making it up, you shouldn't care right?)
The real point is Assange more or less bragged about twisting and editing the information he gets for "political effect." He also seems to specifically target the US and only the US, as if no other country is currently doing dubious shit.
He has an agenda and everything he pushes should be viewed with that in mind.
=Smidge=
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the military also has a habit of classifying documents inappropriately. An old video of an attack that left two reporters dead? Reports about the numbers of casualties? We live in a democracy, and we need to know what is happening in order to make democratic choices.
The military seems to classify by default. There are probably a few simple reasons for this:
I'm sure there's occasions where something sensitive (or bad looking) is deliberately kept classified, but that's a minority of the time. Just remember that the military is an enormous bureaucracy first, and a fighting force second. (Or it just seems that way sometimes.)
Re:what about the dude in prison? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't support the law being changed, because I think there is some information that needs to stay classified.
You can't make an exception in the law, saying that classified documents are OK to release as long as one person thinks they should be and, well shucks, just really means well.
It *has* to be illegal for one low-level person to break confidentiality and distribute classified military information.
I agree that governments grossly abuse how they determine information should be classified. Perhaps that process is what needs to change, but we can't simply say it's OK when a single person leaks thousands of classified documents.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:1, Insightful)
The fact I even have to create this post means one, you have no idea what you're talking about and two, absolutely should not have access to important documentation.
An old video of an attack that left two reporters dead?
Inflammatory which endangers soldiers. All too often people believe stuff like this is a war crime. Generally it means the people making such claims are ignorant - woefully so.
Did you know the timing for the release of the the Abu Ghraib prison photos kicked off civil war, mass riots, and the death of a lot of soldiers, Iraqi police, and civilians? Unsurprising the press who milked those photos for massive ratings downplayed the massive blood on their own hands. Did you know this happened the week before many cities and utilities were being officially handed over to Iraqis? The timing destroyed months of work and preparation to make all that happen. The timing actually extended the US mission in Iraq. The timing cost the US tens of billions of dollars. Did you know the hand-offs were canceled because of all of this?
Ignorant pundits on slashdot frequently ignore historical facts or pretend that delaying the release of those photos thirty days, perhaps even less, would have been the end of the world. Nothing of the like is true. The reality is, it wasn't the long ago the news actually made an effort to work ethically and consider the greater good when reporting. Some stories were not reported for decades because of the greater good. These days stories are reported, whereby the reporters have massive blood on their hands and ignorant masses, who have no clue how or why things work, rush to both justify the reporter's bloody hands and condemn everyone else's actions.
In this example, those who support the timing of the Abu Ghraib prison photos support riots, murder, civil war, and murder of police and solders. Just as the government has a responsibility, so do the press. All too often in a flurry of ignorance, people are more than happy to ignore the press' responsibilities. And since the press isn't held accountable (sound familiar?), are unethical, and the masses and generally ignorant with fervor, the government is left with exactly one choice. Its hardly surprising in the least.
Wikileaks is not responsible for the war, and Wikileaks is not responsible for the government misclassifying documents to the point of becoming untrustworthy.
Well, yes and no. The press is largely responsible - well that and the massive level of ignorance which is pervasive in US society today. Case in point. During the early days of the Iraq war, when the US was blitzkrieging across the country, many reporters were embedded. The military gave extremely simple instructions to the embedded reporters. Among those instructions included, do not carry a phone with a GPS and do not at any time report your position, direction of travel, or the objective. Legally, doing so makes you spy and a traitor, and you can be executed on the spot. Enter Geraldo Rivera. He carried a phone which contained a GPS, which was actively being tracked by an Iraqi cell company. Geraldo was not alone in carrying a trackable GPS phone. He reported their position and direction of travel during a live broadcast. Which means their objective was disclosed to anyone with a map. He's lawfully a spy and a traitor to the US. Rather than shoot him, the military took his phone and gave a stern warning that if he sneezed wrong he would be ejected from the country. Where's the anger and cries for traitors in the press like Geraldo Rivera and others?
This is the world we live in folks. The press is full of would be spies, traitors, egotists, and selfish, ratings driven, uncaring people. The press is full of completely selfish and unethical people. Unfortunately, US culture is proud of their ignorance and are extremely easily manipulated and are more than happy to shelter the people. Look at Fox News and their polls - they create the news rather than report it. Th
Re:NO! (Score:4, Insightful)
from being a "mob rule" type of government.
This is specifically why they only wanted land owners to be able to vote. The rational is land owners are typically more educated, have a vested interested in their community, are better informed, and are far less susceptible to "mob rule" mentality or easy manipulation. The day that was abolished was the day the US immediately began a downward spiral.
These days the uneducated (typically poor) are commonly manipulated for their vote come election. Its so prevalent they are frequently considered tipping votes. This means the uneducated, who have no idea what they are doing, are frequently the tipping voice in our elections. This means the ignorant and uneducated and often responsible for setting policy in the US. Our forefathers would absolutely be disgusted. And if you think about it, you should be too. I know I am.
Re:NO! (Score:4, Insightful)
The easiest way to take away their power is to completely overhaul the tax code./i.
No, the easiest way to take away their power is to finally shed the delusion that money == speech. Campaign finance should be tightly regulated by a neutral third party so that institutionalized bribery can finally be eliminated.
'course, this is about as likely to happen as your ridiculous flat tax idea...
Re:This is happening because the Iraq war is unjus (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be propaganda talking.
I had the good fortune to be able to talk at length with an ex-pat Iraqi who had a very different reality to report. He came from a long family line and described his father's life and his own. Essentially, life in Iraq wasn't anywhere nearly as bad as the Western press dictated, that so long as you didn't speak against Saddam, everybody could go about their days at a high standard of living.
A "brutal dictator" to us is a "king" to others. And the West, given its lack of wisdom and total inability to govern itself with any degree of humanity, has no business marching about trumpeting who should and should not be allowed to exist in the modern world. We preach democracy, but we haven't got one. We live as peasants under a ruling class, except our kings and dukes and princes have zero interest in maintaining a happy populace. In this bankrupted economy, a small percentage of Americans are making more money than ever before. And we know why that is. Corruption. That's our system.
-FL
Re:Yep. I'd thought the intent was different. (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't seem that confusing to me. The gunner even says "that's what happens when you take your kid to a fight". Seems to me like he knew exactly what he was doing.
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't the notion of 'landowners only' a bit more palatable during the colonial era? Back when they wrote that particular rule, all one had to do to be come a land owner was build a cabin. It's a tad more complex today, and I'm not at all sure that they would want it to have stayed the same.
Re:NO! (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but land owners weren't particularly vested in the interest of the country as a whole nor really the welfare of the local community. Southern land owners wanted to continue slavery, holding medium or large land stakes for farming which left it uneconomical for most people to own land; and the cotton gin basically demanded either very cheap or free labor (or machinery which only became viable after the exploitation of fossil fuels) to remain competitive. Meanwhile, Northern land owners wanted to have dormitories where hundreds of workers made finished goods, working 7 days a week (they could only get 6, thanks to the Bible), 16 hours a day for a penitence that would at best be sent home and with multiple other workers be enough to cover rent and food for the parents; in short, think a sweat shop but worse (since all of this was above board at the time, they could charge what they liked for the room and board (a non-negotiable aspect of the work), further decreasing effective wages. Hence, Southern land owners wanted high raw good tariffs, low finished good tariffs and Northerners wanted the reverse.
Funny. It general holds true that more urban areas are better educated (on average) and vote Democrat (ie, the east and west coasts) and rural areas are inferior educated (on average) and vote Republican (ie, the middle of the US). Meanwhile, urban areas tend to have higher renting (because land prices are so high, urbanization tends to require more job switching which encourages more resident relocation through the years which encourages renting) and rural ares tend to have higher land ownership (because land prices are relatively cheap, the job market is a bit more stable, and with distances as far apart as they are most people already expect to drive long distances and hence are more intent on investing in property).
Now, it could reasonably be argued that the average people doesn't vote and the less educated or more inclined to vote. But, that says more about the apathy of the masses than it does about the stupidity of the minority or their bad voting habits. To that end, it doesn't really explain the voting behavior in the middle of the US which shouldn't see such swing voting behavior with many more land owners.
PS - Yes, I realize a lot of those "land owners" are really "mortgage holders". But, a great debt is also of rather deep concern and I think would still fit all your qualifications on why such individuals should vote better.
Re:NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd think so. But would these be the same educated, well-off landowners that sit around watching so-called reality TV, or the ones that don't even bother voting in elections anymore because they don't feel their vote will make a difference... or worse, they flat-out don't care who speaks for them in government?
Or the ones watching polarizing issues being "debated" on Fox and CNN? That's not being educated on the issue, that's entertainment appealing to base emotions, the same kind that manipulate the less educated poor, as you put it. Rational discussion is boring so they don't show it.
I'd also suggest that the wealthy, educated "property" owners (RIAA, MPAA, megacorps) are doing a piss-poor job of lobbying^H paying for laws that benefit the nation and not just themselves.
Re:What other option? (Score:3, Insightful)
The elite have everything to do with this. Wikileaks wanted help sanitizing the thousands of pages of documents. Help from the Department of Defense. They said fuck no, take down what you've published and destroy what you haven't.
If you can withhold your help sanitizing the documents and thereby kill the publication of your secrets, you would never help. So, the DoD gambled and now their personnel and informers on the ground are at risk. If it was that important to the decision makers, they shouldn't have gambled. You don't bluff with what you can't afford to lose.
The common people are already feeling the effects of actions taken by bad actors. American taxpayers paying the bill, service personnel risking their lives and being posted away from their families, and civilians dying. If the government can continue to do what it does in secret, that shit will keep happening.
There are two sides to every problem, and either side can solve the problem. There are some solutions we don't feel are viable because we blame one side or the solution is worse than the problem. The solutions available to the government, though, are not these things. 1) They could not have started a war based on trumped up "evidence" of WMDs. 2) They could've fucking stepped up and agreed to sanitize some goddamn documents that describe how much douchebaggery would've been engaged in, but we do actually care about the people on the ground so we're going to make sure they're kept out of publication. But yeah, its so much easier to vilify Assange and Wikileaks.
Re:NO! (Score:1, Insightful)
if you think a flat tax is the answer to anything, you have a flimsy grasp of economics, period;
a 'flat tax' has been an obsolete concept since the invention of money;
think about it, if you have 1mil in assets, you can just live off of investments(loans made to the poor at high interest rates) or just put it in an insured bank investing in global markets for a guaranteed return;
just because you have more money doesnt mean that your cost of living goes up, but your earning potential goes from non-existent to 'more than an individual would ever need';
real worth has nothing to do with 95% of the working class, and is focused on the top 5% making money from other money aka usury;
if you still dont understand why a progressive tax structure is just barely keeping us in a manageable economy and that a flat tax would turn the US into a worse case than it is, take econ101 or read a book or something;
anyone who promotes a flat tax is retarded to the point of infirmity or just plain greedy/already wealthy;
Think of the soldiers (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course. Think of the soldiers. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
The elite at the top of the pyramid are precisely the people who put those soldiers in danger. Not only did they put them there, but they further endangered them with policies that explicitly allow the killing of innocent civilians.
Let's call a spade a spade here. The releasing of government secrets does not put soldiers in danger -- it puts the war agenda in danger, along with the billons of dollars the war agenda is valued at. Am I implying that the elite at the top of the pyramid are motivated by money alone, and money alone is the reason they sent those soldiers to war? You're damn right I am.
Re:NO! (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I choose not to invest in landownership because, at this point in my life, I have other priorities that I like to invest in (like the education of my friends and family, and some other things). So, should I be restrained from voting? Am I one of those tipping voters that reacts emotionally to whatever the latest media circus issue is? Am I consistently manipulated by politicians to give them what they want? I highly doubt that's the case. I don't vote for politicians in either of the major parties. I hardly listen to any of the crap that politicians spew out of their own mouths (I prefer to research their actual votes and actions and such). Hell, I even make a point to pay my taxes on time, after triple checking everything, to know that I have fulfilled my duty as a responsible citizen. And yet, you would deprive me of my right to vote just because I think investing in real estate, at this point in time, is a losing bet for me?
I think your classification criteria needs revising.
Re:NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
And thus you've introduced a new party that could stand to benefit from the elections.
Apparently you don't understand the concept of a neutral third party.
Go look up Elections Canada and see how it can be done, and done well. Just because you Americans can't seem to sort this stuff out, doesn't mean its impossible.
Re:NO! (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on where you want to live and own land. There are plenty of places in the country where you can get a house for under $50k.
Dig deeper. You're quite likely to find that those places do not offer work opportunities enough to recoup that $50k.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:2, Insightful)
independent like the federal court system which used to review classified submissions in camera, ex parte? sorry, but Bush and Obama put the kaibash on that safety valve.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
It could also be the fact that wikileaks and wikileaks philosophy is far more popular in the US.
You assume that all those leaks are things which are bad for the US.
6,717 of the 9,719 documents under the US are in fact from the Congressional Research Service
Read this:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service [wikileaks.org]
Although all CRS reports are legally in the public domain, they are quasi-secret because the CRS, as a matter of policy, makes the reports available only to members of Congress, Congressional committees and select sister agencies such as the GAO.
Members of Congress are free to selectively release CRS reports to the public but are only motivated to do so when they feel the results would assist them politically. Universally embarrassing reports are kept quiet.
personally I'd consider that pile of documents to be an unambiguously positive thing for normal americans.
Releasing them was not an anti-american thing to do and it accounts for the majority of the US documents.
After all, you paid for the research to be done, you should get to see it even if it embarrasses some politicians.
Most of the remainder is accounted for in 2 or 3 large document leaks about the iraq war.
for example 1500 in one large leak.
So no.
wikileaks isn't picking on the US in particular just because the number is big and you were too lazy to drill down and see why the number was so large.
The US is somewhat overrepresented but then the US has a large population, leaking documents is respected to a certain extent and when it comes down to it the US is the richest and most powerful nation out there so there's going to be more to leak anyway.
Re:I like the concept, not the implementation (Score:3, Insightful)
What "consequences" would those be?
Suppose that the soon to be released documents are similar in number and detail to the leaked documents regarding the Afghanistan war. The volume and scope of the information is so vast that any attempt to establish simple cause->effect relationships between the released documents and what might happen in the future is futile.
Maybe the FedGov has a point, and the documents will put people's lives in danger from a tactical standpoint. Then again, maybe the documents will cause enough outrage to reinvigorate the anti-war movement and end these operations sooner rather than later, thus saving lives. Maybe the evidence proving that the government always lies to the people will mean that the next military crusade (Iran?) never even happens, thus saving thousands of lives.
This is a case where we're talking about principles. An informed citizenry is essential to the basic functioning of a democratic society, and it's obvious that we won't get any true information from the government or mainstream media. Cheers to WikiLeaks and the patriots who are supplying this information.