Slashdot Mirror
Compiling the WikiLeaks Fallout
Now that the world has had some time to process the quarter million diplomatic documents published by WikiLeaks on Sunday, the media landscape is rife with reactions, threats, and warnings. Some US lawmakers have complained loudly and at length, saying that "WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the leak "not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests, it is an attack on the international community." The Guardian points out that it's not the media's job to protect diplomats from embarrassment, and other US officials seem to agree, focusing their wrath instead on the security practices surrounding sensitive information. The Pentagon and other agencies are looking at ways to tighten security, promising increased internal auditing and banning the ability of systems containing classified information to connect to thumb drives or other removable media. Meanwhile, few officials seem to be commenting publicly on the contents of the leak, which are sure to cause diplomatic problems around the globe.
> I'm starting to question my former support for wikileaks.
Then you're an idiot. Of the first magnitude.
This really is calling the US to account for its war crimes and crimes against humanity. With any luck, there might be evidence in these documents that will be presented at GWB's war crimes trial, hopefully ensuring his swift execution.
I'm pretty sure that guy did all those rapes
Every government in the world has secrets and, believe it or not, the welfare and security of their populations depend on these secrets.
every government has secrets. but, few of them lie about what they are doing, and hide their filth behind an excuse of fighting for 'freedom and security of the world and its citizens'. its outright lie.
north korea kills its citizens. it doesnt pretend to be doing it for freedom. china executes journalists. it doesnt say its doing it for freedom.
they are being repressive and brutal, bluntly, and flat out. they are not LYING about it.
but here we have usa. repressing and killing people worldwide, propagating filth, and saying that it is doing those for freedom.
that is what is the problem. had they come out and said 'we want to build an empire, and we are doing these for that end', i would even have respected them, because then they would be having the balls to declare what they were doing. its brutal honesty and conviction.
but they arent. they are killing and murdering people, kidnapping and torturing them, FOR freedom. see the irony ?
I am not American but I do see the value of keeping certain opinions and point of views undisclosed.
that is what exactly allowed usa continue to kidnapping people worldwide, and torturing them overseas. that 'secret' concept. secrecy allowed them to pose themselves as being right, pursuing liberty and modern principles, while TOTALLY violating all of them.
no. nothing should be secret. nothing.
Read radical news here
The problem is that when diplomacy is the game, everyone lies. Being pure of heart in this game kills people, sooner or later, and lots of it.
no. youre just fooling yourself.
korea doesnt lie about its shit. it kills its citizens for disobeying the state flat out. doesnt even feel the need to rephrase it.
china does the same. executes people. doesnt put pretenses.
only countries which are pretending to be for good, but committing evil deeds and having to hide them, are western countries so far. even in a 3rd world banana republic the dictators kill people for disobeying them, or 'for the nation'. they dont pretend that they did it for 'freedom'.
Read radical news here
Go argue with wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomat
("The main functions of diplomats revolve around the representation and protection of the interests and nationals of the sending state, as well as the promotion of information and friendly relations.")
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
The initial source of the military leaks - Bradley Manning - shows why "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is a sound policy and that Manning should have been dismissed. Not only was he openly protesting homosexual political causes while in the military (and posting about them on Facebook) but he had also assaulted and officer in Iraq. This was clearly not a person who should have had top security clearance. According to the New York Times even past classmates and employers described Manning as erratic:
“He would get upset, slam books on the desk if people wouldn’t listen to him or understand his point of view,” said Chera Moore, who attended elementary and junior high school with him. “He would get really mad, and the teacher would say, ‘O.K., Bradley, get out.’ ...He was hired and quickly fired from a small software company, where his employer, Kord Campbell, recalled him as clean-cut and highly intelligent with an almost innate sense for programming, as well as the personality of a bull in a china shop.
Add to all this the fact that Manning was gender dysphoric (easy to see why from his cruel father and dysfunctional family) and felt he was a woman in a man's body. GID (Gender Identity Disorder) is still an official disorder (but probably soon to be dropped as one due to political pressures)
http://gawker.com/5571388/was-wikileaker-bradley-manning-betrayed-by-his-queer-identity
'Is Alleged Wikileaker Bradley Manning Pre-Transition Transgendered?
http://gawker.com/5568351/is-wikileaker-bradley-manning-pre+transition-transgendered
Aggravating the situation even more is the fact Manning was discussing his problems with bisexual hacker Adrian Lamo - who friends say may have been goading Manning on in order to get info and acquire notoriety for himself.
"Was Wikileaker Bradley Manning Betrayed By His Queer Identity?"
http://gawker.com/5571388/was-wikileaker-bradley-manning-betrayed-by-his-queer-identity
Bradley Manning really should have been removed from the service and certainly not allowed security clearance
Once again, people COMPLETELY ignore what I say, assuming that because I'm not chanting along with the angry mob that I'm against you. I'm not. Should Bush be tried for crimes? Yes. Should soldiers be executed for killing civilians? Yes. Should Gitmo be shut down? Yesterday, if possible.
What I'm actually saying is "while deplorable, the recent actions of the US military do NOT qualify as a crime against humanity, nor do they qualify the entire army for war crimes.
Bush isn't Hitler. He may have been the worst President since Hoover, maybe even since Buchanan, but Bush was incompetent, not evil. Keep things in perspective. The only mass killings of civilians in Iraq have been committed by Iraqis. There's no mass torture, no mass rapes, no cities being razed, no enslavement of populations. Get some fucking PERSPECTIVE: Compare Baghdad to Nanking, or My Lai, or Katyn, and then tell me that it's a crime against humanity.
You people need to get some perspective - you're getting to be as bad as the ultra-conservatives screaming "impeach Hussein Obama". Chanting "death to Bush" isn't exactly the rational and logical way to deal with the issue - but that's EXACTLY what you're doing. Get a grip on reality.