Wikileaks.Follow

If the elected members of the government collectively vote to go to war, then absolutely. Again, it's about responsibility and authority being tied together. Should some random person on the interwebs have more power in this area than the people we elected? That seems stupid. And if the government says that they are responsible for the decisions made, but say that this means that some information about the details of those decisions and conditions during the process will have to be kept secret, of course I'm ok with that.

What alternative do you propose we use?



The people? If the war goes badly, people will lose their jobs. Both elected and appointed. Their careers may be ruined if things go sufficiently badly. On the flip side, if things turn out well, their careers may be benefited by it. What the hell did you think I meant?



What does this have to do with the leaked data? I'm not saying that the government should conceal some sociopath going on a killing spree in the Capitol or something. I am suggesting that details about on the ground reports from military actions can and should be filtered before being presented to the public. It's far too easy to assemble those reports and create a false perception of the events portrayed.

My point is that both the media *and* the government can do this with those reports. 99.99999% of the population will never read through even a tiny fraction of the documents dumped on Wikileaks. Thus, the opinions about what those documents reveal among the population will be based on what other people tell them they say. And that's subject to bias. There's no difference. If you think this represents a release of "truth" to the people, you are sadly mistaken. It just allows those in the media to create their own version of the truth, and slap a sticker of authenticity on it because they got the data from a leaked source.

If someone's going to go through that data and filter it for public consumption, it ought to be the people who are responsible down the line for the filtered "10,000 foot" version they present ultimately matching the end result. It ought not to be people who aren't responsible for anything if they present a skewed viewpoint, and who have ever vested interest in presenting said skewed viewpoint (more ratings if nothing else).

That you'd expect to be presented anything close to the "truth" in that situation is startling. You have faith in all the wrong sorts of people and for the wrong reasons.




I'd ask you the same thing. I'm giving justifications for my position. Can you do the same for yours? So far, you just keep insisting that there's some virtue to "free information". But it isn't really free, is it? Someone always controls what you know. By selective reporting, omission, or just outright misrepresentation. It's not only governments who have reasons to lie to you. The difference is that if a guy who runs a website lies to you, you can't really do anything to him. Thus, he has no reason not to lie. Folks working in the government can be punished for doing lying, so they have an interest in presenting the truth (or at least something closer to it).


How can you not see this? I don't blindly trust the government *or* private media. You blindly trust one and mistrust the other. Which seems bizarre to me.

QFT..

I was noticing the same exact thing.

Having a clearance myself, this is quite frightening. It's not about the content, but the fact that classified documents can appear on the Internet. That's absurd.

Maybe people don't understand the purpose of classifications? Which, ironically supports reasons on why things should be classified in the first place.

That doesn't change anything, only supports the thought that there's a problem with leakage.

If the elected members of the government collectively vote to go to war, then absolutely.....Should some random person on the interwebs have more power in this area than the people we elected? That seems stupid.



It would be stupid, but thats not the case. Some random person on the internet has made information availiable to whomsoever wants to see it. He is the messenger. That is all. why are you worrying about the messenger? Its the message you should be looking at.

And if the government says that they are responsible for the decisions made, but say that this means that some information about the details of those decisions and conditions during the process will have to be kept secret, of course I'm ok with that.

What alternative do you propose we use?

I propose that if people (even normal people like me and you), had better access to information pertinant to things like the LoLwar-on-terrorLoL then the people in charge of this deadly farce wouldn't get the blank cheque to do whatever they feel like quite so easily. They would have to be more honest about their motives. More thoughtful in their governance. They would in effect have to answer to the will of the people. All good things imo. But as you have pointed out in the past many times, you have a very low opinion of people and don't feel they are generally capable of thinking for themselves.




If the war goes badly, people will lose their jobs. Both elected and appointed. Their careers may be ruined if things go sufficiently badly.

Not good enough. Lots of people lose everything, up to and including their property, their lives and the lives of their children. If someone loses their job because their ill advised and probably illegal war goes tits up, it would be better if they didn't get to start their dirty little scheme for regional domination in the first place. The best way for that to happen is if information is freely availiable and for it to be widely disseminated.

I am suggesting that details about on the ground reports from military actions can and should be filtered before being presented to the public. It's far too easy to assemble those reports and create a false perception of the events portrayed.

Thats very Ministry of Truth of you. You surprise me tbh. i would've thought you would be all for less govt control as opposed to more. what with you being a conservative and all.

My point is that both the media *and* the government can do this with those reports. 99.99999% of the population will never read through even a tiny fraction of the documents dumped on Wikileaks. Thus, the opinions about what those documents reveal among the population will be based on what other people tell them they say. And that's subject to bias. There's no difference. If you think this represents a release of "truth" to the people, you are sadly mistaken. It just allows those in the media to create their own version of the truth, and slap a sticker of authenticity on it because they got the data from a leaked source.


So, because the majority of people wont read them, thats your argument for withholding the information?

On one hand you are slagging off the 'liberal media' and on the other hand you are arguing that the people dont deserve any information except what the governments let them have. I'm the last person to defend the lamentable state of the mainstream media, but to use that as a reason to keep people in ignorance is ridiculous.

The very fact that mainstream media is so utterly reprehensible these days is all the more reason for organisations like WikiLeaks to exist.

If someone's going to go through that data and filter it for public consumption, it ought to be the people who are responsible down the line for the filtered "10,000 foot" version they present ultimately matching the end result. It ought not to be people who aren't responsible for anything if they present a skewed viewpoint, and who have ever vested interest in presenting said skewed viewpoint.

The government has a vested interest in maintaining public support for their policies. You really think you can trust them to present you with an unbiased report if they know that they can say whatever they like because only they have access to the full story. You don't believe even for a minute that that aproach may have some potential drawbacks. You dont' think that their citizens should at least have, if they are interested, access to the truth? Thats what Wikileaks is doing. They want the information to be availiable. Wether we choose to read it and understand it and make decisions based upon it, or wether we want to mong out in front of Americas Got Talent whilke eating Cheetos is up to us. But I for one appreciate the choice thanks.

So far, you just keep insisting that there's some virtue to "free information". But it isn't really free, is it? Someone always controls what you know.

If information is freely availiable, then the only person controlling what I know is me.

It's not only governments who have reasons to lie to you. The difference is that if a guy who runs a website lies to you, you can't really do anything to him. Thus, he has no reason not to lie. Folks working in the government can be punished for doing lying, so they have an interest in presenting the truth (or at least something closer to it).

Your faith in government accountability is touching but not based in reality.

The dude at Wikileaks is passing on information. He didn't make up those reports. He just was given access to them and published them. He's not telling the truth or lying. He's just passing them along.

Why do you think he's lying? Do you have any evidence that he has lied? About anything??

How can you not see this? I don't blindly trust the government *or* private media. You blindly trust one and mistrust the other. Which seems bizarre to me.

I dont trust either, eerr.. either. How have you ever come to that conclusion? or have you just never read any of my posts.

It doesn't matter that it happened before. The level of the activity determines how much previous occurrences affect the present. In this case, since we're still at war, the past has little value.



I would love to engage in yet another pointless insult-fest, but I'm sure you don't have the proper clearance to talk to me. Go sit in a corner somewhere and hush.

Yep, those are words that you said. Well done.

Yeah, his very last answer was pretty awful too. And the first one, what a joke that was! Come to think of it, the middle bit was pretty excruciating too. Did I mention I thought the end was pretty apourling? And yeah, don't get me started on the start.

It never ceases to amaze me that what ever topic comes up on this forum, I'll hold the almost exact opposite position to gbaji. Everytime. Surely, probabilities would dictate that we'd agree on some topics at least.

Yes. Absolutely.

I realize the inheirent problems with an approach like this but I'm very tired of these "elected officials" calling every shot we take. If we're a true democracy, we should have a say, as individuals, on every action this country takes. Ever.

Edited, Jul 28th 2010 8:14am by Kaelesh

If our troops on the ground are misreporting casualties, for whatever reason, this is a problem. How can 'we the people' be tasked with supporting this war when we're given faulty information about the cost?

If bradass87 is releasing 'classified' info he should be held accountable, the Army should review it's vetting process for those charged with keeping such info confidential. Wiki-leaks should not be allowed to make public classified and sensitive information. I believe they held such information at the request of the Pentagon until such a time that it can be 'de-classified'.

I think those responsible for the leak are patriots. It's your duty as a citizen to question your govrnment and when you don't get an answer, you take one. Bravo.

Majiv,



I see you don't differentiate between the govn and the military. It's a shame really.


I guess we should just post the specs to all our missle technology on the interweb.

Neither did you before the country elected a black democratic president.


Did Wikileaks post specs to missile technology. No, I think they did not.

Your BS bucket overflows with fail today.