Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Will Unveil Major Bank Scandal
Atmanman writes "When WikiLeaks announced it was releasing 251,287 US diplomatic cables, we all thought we knew what was meant by its earlier ominous words that, 'The coming months will see a new world, where global history is redefined.' It now appears the organization is sitting on a treasure trove of information so big that it has stopped taking submissions. Among data to be released are tens of thousands of documents from a major US banking firm and material from pharmaceutical companies, finance firms and energy companies."
Wikileaks is embarassing [sic] everyone who deserves it (in the U.S.)
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Get a clue. The fact that someone stole information from somewhere and then gave it to Wikileaks no more makes it "public information" than it makes it "public domain". The latter is what Wikileaks is claiming about the cables that it is publishing.
I'm sorry, but having someone steal something and then give it to you doesn't make it "public domain" or "public information", it just makes you an accomplice to the theft.
If that was a way for material to become "public domain", then copyright would be a meaningless term. All someone has to do is steal a Mickey Mouse comic book, give it to Wikileaks, and Mickey Mouse becomes public domain. (Whether it should be by now is a different argument.)
did your mother name you "copponex"?
What is the difference between a bunch of terrorists who fly planes into building to cripple the US economy and Wikileaks releasing documents with the same intent? Both are using the tools at hand to cause the disruption of as many lives as possible with the goal of bringing in a new world order.
Wikileaks will most likely be in the chapter "Osama's most successful operation".
> No, it's not. It's like someone exposing corruption.
No it isn't. Exposing corruption is someone discovering their organization doing something horrible and leaking a selected set of documents to expose that. Wikileaks is randomly dumping documents hoping they sow chaos and fear in his enemies. See the difference?
> You mean the fact that the people hardly have any
> control over their governments at all?
Leaking secret diplomatic communications helps citizens have oversight over their government how exactly? Oh right, it doesn't. What it does is cause incalculable harm to our diplomatic efforts worldwide, likely for decades. If foreign officials can't say things in confidence and have confidence that we will/can honor our commitment to discretion we are boned. Which is the goal, not the unfortunate side effect.
Stop getting blinded by the 'on the Internet' scam. If this asshole was sitting in Vienna with a quarter million classified State Dept cables shopping them to the highest bidder he would quietly catch a terminal case of metal poisioning and some low level CIA agent would be heading back to Langley with a box of CD-ROMS and writing his report on the plane. Put the word "Internet" into it and everyone looses their frickin mind thinking this idiot is some kind of hero.
Democrat delenda est
It was the banking practices of US banks which directly caused the financial crisis, because they mixed up the imaginary, funny-money (bad US consumer debt) with the real money. And, when people discovered the funny-money had no value, the value of the real money tanked because it was now based on the funny money. The US essentially commoditized and exported bankruptcy.
And nobody nationally or internationally suspected a thing right?
The problem was made far worse by the number of investors (including banks) worldwide who turned a blind eye when buying these securities.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he was talking about terrorist as "terrorist" is commonly defined. I.e.: not U.S. citizens in some conspiratorial manner defined by enemies of the U.S..
Maybe he was talking about Iran who 'smuggled arms' to Hezbollah on ambulances so they can randomly attack civilians in Palestine (no? Ask any remaining Fatah) and Israel. You know the nice guys who "made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel". . A real partner in peace. More likely than not he was talking about these types of guys, not people pissing off the RIAA as is the commonly held belief.
Our new president does not allow for your litigious mind to try and infer hidden meanings in his words.. He makes clear who his enemies are so there can be no “redefining” of the words. The man did say he would bring transparency to government.
I added the square brackets so lazy people would not need to read the context of the link.
What exactly does freedom have to do with releasing state secrets? It's never good to reveal the content of diplomatic communications, especially without any specific reason for doing so. Releasing the private communications means less diplomacy, and without making you think too hard, please tell me what happens when diplomacy fails!
So great job, we've now discovered though the release of these documents... well nothing really that we didn't already assume. We spy on our enemies at the U.N.? Well I should hope so! China is pissed at DPRK? Big surprise! Iran is fucking evil, who knew! And the cost? We have soured diplomacy as we know it and can use it less to prevent bloodshed! I don't care how much less we can use it, the fact stands that diplomacy as an enterprise to prevent bloodshed has been damaged and for what? So wiki leaks can have their name in the paper? Where is the crime that was being exposed by leaking these documents?
So all you Monday morning quarterbacks who are trumpeting the release of these documents, don't forget that now we will move to war that much faster because diplomacy has been dealt a blow by your so-called "right to see state secrets".
Governments are elected to act in the interest of their people which the American government does and I am glad for that. Additionally so do the european governments. Here's the rub though when europe in particular continues to act against American interests. Like in the case of going after Google. Or in the case of assuming when Obama extended an olive branch to the Iranians that he was simply doing so for commercial gain. Then europe should really expect much at all from America in the future in other words feel free to go fuck yourselves we never did and certainly don't now owe anyone in the world anything. What comes around goes around and all this anti Americanism has it's price as well. Seriously with friends like europe who needs enemies you can't expect their won't be a fallout over such behavior.
you're an idiot.
why do you cower in my shadow? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
refresh your browser again, feeb.
suit ur mum's face.
so wikileaks is not making choices about what it releases? if the documents they release are already publicly available and validated, then why should their "release" matter?
claiming wikileaks' actions are "deserved" and "approved" = THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF INSIGHTFULNESS.
claiming wikileaks' actions are EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE = THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF DISMISSAL.
slashdot = stagnated.
stick your heads back in the sand, feebs.
> You also can't ensure that your government is legitimate without
> being able to examine the workings of your government.
Sorry, the real world just doesn't work that way. You don't get to read every secret document. We have to build a government that can operate in the real world where three hundred plus million simply can't be trusted with every secret, even if the problem of making those secrets available to every Citizen were possible while keeping an enemy from accessing them. The solution is checks and balances, Congressional oversight and in a worst case scenario having someone with the balls to leak knowing it will mean legal consequences. Then leaving it up to jury nullification if the leak really needed doing to give the leaker justice.
Want to reform the current system that marks too much material Classified or Secret? Oh yea, doing that would have probably helped in this situation as well so lets do it. Installing a default time limit of say fifty years to hold a document Secret without direct Presidential intervention? Another good idea. But giving every disgruntled PFC and fruitcake Aussie the absolute power to publish every diplomatic cable for the last few years? Hell no.
We need to man up and spy harder. How can we ask our men in uniform to fight and die when the intelligence services are such pussies they can't/won't cover their backs by plugging a leak as big as Assange's Afganistan document dump? Honestly, if nobody in Afganistan has died yet from that dump it isn't from a lack of trying on Assange'e part. When you enter a war as a combatant on the side opposing the US you really can't bitch too loudly when the US tries to kill your ass. And yes, intelligence officers are considered combatants (even if unarmed) and that is exactly the role he (and all of Wikileaks) is playing.
When did it become debatable whether you kill enemies in war? I can promise you that a Nazi symp (though not a German or Axis citizen) in WWII operating on their behalf in an intelligence gathering capacity would have been a valid target regardless of the country he was operating from. In other words he damned sure wouldn't be granting press interviews to brag about his activities.
Democrat delenda est