Some WikiLeaks Contributions To Public Discourse 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.'"
Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (Score:2, Insightful)
'Cause leaking is always double-plus good.
Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
you mean (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah. THAT case. that zimbabwe. and on the other hand, uniformed, ignorant gullible fools like you. too easy to manipulate.
Oh, it certainly increased the awareness (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Well (Score:0, Insightful)
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:Completely agree (Score:5, Insightful)
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:you mean (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
i don't understand that argument (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:One thing that hasn't made it... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:you mean (Score:4, Insightful)
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:But wait! (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Oh, it certainly increased the awareness (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Completely agree (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Bears don't believe drawing a picture of them is picking a fight.
Which only proves that Muslims aren't bears. No more, no less.
Hey, we all have our hot buttons. I even know a rather famous tribe somewhere on this globe that has members that consider it a provocation when people burn a piece of cloth. But only if the cloth is painted in a particular pattern with red stripes and a blue decorated rectangle. Most other patterns are fine. Just as with the Muslims, only a few hotheads in this tribe get really angry, but it's still a remarkable phenomena.
As always, there are other people of this tribe that consider that anger silly and stupid, but hey, there are always some hotheads. It also doesn't help when someone stokes the fires by describing the so-called provocation in the most exaggerated possible terms. Despicable, I know, but I'm afraid these people exist, both in Muslim countries and with that famous tribe.
Re:A crime is not a contribution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Completely agree (Score:2, Insightful)
> One of the many problems with this is the demand for 100% governmental transparency unless that involved exposing individual privacy. The extreme views clash.
Which is why the moderate views dominate. Not everything done by the government need be open, but there DOES need to be some means to hold everyone in the government accountable. Giving them unchecked power has a habit of turning out very badly.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just make sure to not talk about Zimbabwe (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, history is full of perfectly good examples where we teamed up with one bad guy to help defeat a worse (or sometimes not) bad guy. Stalin was more of a sadistic mass murderer than Hitler was, by some accounts, and political fallout from that arrangement led to 40 years of itchy fingers on big red buttons and bouncing all over the world getting our troops (involuntarily) involved in one war after another, which led to us giving aid and support to the same people and groups that we're fighting an all-out war with today. The hindsight is obvious of course. We can see everywhere we went wrong. But then again, what if we ventured another way. What if we just re-armed after Pearl Harbor and kept an eye out for future Japanese attacks? What if we just wished England the best of luck and closed our borders. We might have avoided all of the cold war and all of the fallout from it. Maybe Hitler and Stalin would have just wiped each other out and left the rest of the world in Peace. Maybe... but I doubt it.
But just think.. the whole Israel vs the rest of the middle east thing could have been avoided. All the jews would be dead. Europe would still have a single currency and government run healthcare, that nobody would ever complain about. No Vietnam, no hippies, no cheap TV sets and cars, ALL of our oil would be drilled domestically, because the rest of the world would hate us, for entirely different reasons than they claim to hate us today. The world would never know nuclear war... at least not until someone else discovered it and decided to use our country as a testing ground. Probably no space program, no gps, no satellite TV, no google maps... probably no Internet at all, since most of these things came about as a fringe benefit of the various military engagements we were involved in.
In the end, history is just that. History. You can't change it, and even if you could, you might not want to. You're better off just learning from it, and attempting to avoid the same mistakes in the future.
-Restil
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, we all have our hot buttons. I even know a rather famous tribe somewhere on this globe that has members that consider it a provocation when people burn a piece of cloth.
Horseshit.
Has a Catholic priest issued a death order for someone burning the American flag?
Has anyone been brutally gunned down in public for making a movie critical of America?
Yeah, it might piss people off, but they sure as shit don't get murdered.
Yet I am one... (Score:3, Insightful)
> Alas, you won't find this viewpoint shared by Wikileaks or their supporters it seems.
Yet I am one of those supporters (and I posted the comment to which you replied) and I do hold more moderate views.
In response to the most common criticism, I do not think that WL just "dumped" the cables. They partnered with a variety of responsible news organizations, embargoed them, and gave them time to develop stories using the material. The vast majority still aren't public (feel free to show me where one can get all 250k if I'm wrong, I haven't bothered to look as I have little interest in those which are not newsworthy).
Which secrets do you think their partnering news organizations should not have leaked, exactly? I mean, sure, we can all make up our favorite hypothetical situations that support any viewpoint, so why not stick to real situations and things that have actually happened?
Mankind has a very long history of shady doings in all governments, particularly in the less transparent/accountable parts. Ironically, many of them exist to protect us from their counterparts in foreign governments! Would we all not be better off if nobody could get away with that sort of nonsense?