Slashdot Mirror
Some WikiLeaks Contributions To Public Discourse
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.'"
'Cause leaking is always double-plus good.
Is there a similar site for WikiLeaks?
Where does one get one of these so-called "dancing boys"?
the case of 'movement for democratic change', which is so very well named (just like the poisonous bills that come to u.s. congress, hint hint) that was trying to topple a ruthless dictator who did not cooperate with united states, and instead place someone else who would be amiable to angloamerican corporations' moves in zimbabwe ? the very thing that caused all american news channels to dedicate their entire fucking daytime broadcasts to zimbabwe, over the course of six months while it was being pushed ? showing randomly running zimbabweans and putting up 8 talking heads to discuss the 'situation' (what situation ? running around of zimbabweans) at this particular day, when they werent able to find anything worthy of reporting ? and in the meantime, doing that while all kinds of shit, from koreas to piracy in high seas to afghanistan and iraq was way too heated to not be reported, but, conveniently not reported, because the fucking 'lets put an american friendly puppet' play was in session in zimbwabwe ?
yeah. THAT case. that zimbabwe. and on the other hand, uniformed, ignorant gullible fools like you. too easy to manipulate.
Read radical news here
I can point to some good stuff that has occurred as a result of wars. So let's keep having them.
If Wikileaks is so brave have it post a cartoon of Muhammad. Even Seth McFarland won't do that. Just sayin'...if the government was smart it would hack their website and throw a pic up like that. My guess is the media and the radical Umams would have a holy war waging in not time.
The only brave person surrounding Wikileaks appears to Assnage. Hey, I disagree with him but he has the cajones to put his name out there, something none of the script kiddies in the Anonymous army has the guts to do.
I can only hope that the right people in government see this and continue to help improve transparency in as many areas of government as possible. Added government transparency can only bring improvement.
On the other hand I don't advocate 100% transparency. To me it's the same reason why women don't reveal to everyone they're pregnant the instant they find out. Instead, once they decide they're going to have the baby and they have a good idea it's going to work out, then they let others know. I feel like government should have the same levels of privacy, but not much beyond that.
I gotta have more cowbell.
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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Somebody actually reading the leaks before forming an opinion about them? Blasphemy!
What's next, a slashdotter reading an article before posting? A Christian reading the bible...?
No sig today...
I thought the USA was the world's shining hope, and what other countries should aspire to become.
The law wasn't approved in Spain because the opposing parties didn't support it, true, but that had little to do with wikileaks.
Most Spanish politicians simply ignore the whole wikileaks deal; they don't mention it, publicly, at all. I think many of them don't even understand what wikileaks is (besides the most obvious effects of exposing some of their dirty clothes to the public)
The lack of support happened because the opposing parties didn't get the benefits they wanted in other negotiations. It was a reprisal to the governing party, which proposed the law. It would have happened just the same without wikileaks.
It was one of those occasions in which the egoistical interests of a few benefited the many. Which is funny and sad at the same time.
David Brin wrote a book called the "transparent civilization"... If Obama read it maybe he could make Wikileaks irrelevant.
Has it occurred to anyone that since Wiki-leaks portrays its releases as "leaked cables" that the public has come to accept that they are all genuine? I think it serves the public interest to approach each "leaked cable" with apprehension if not suspicion until the veracity of the information can be determined. As it stands, Wiki-leaks has carte-blanch to make up anything they want to at this point and it seems to be taken, pardon the comparison, as gospel truth each time. Are we to assume the sources of said leaks are beyond ambition?
Is why Peter King, who has used his position as a NY Congressman to aid the IRA, has not been denounced for his rank hypocrisy in calling for Assange to be prosecuted.
If Assange can be extradited to the US, I say we should arrest King and offer him up for prosecution by an all-Protestant jury in Northern Ireland...
I am curious why they didn't just release the specific cables that showed specific wrong doing instead of releasing a lot of pretty much worthless information. If they had released 5-10 that showed specific wrong doing the media would focus on the content and not the size of the leak.
Should be a Murphy law regarding Wikileaks... no matter how bad the leaks looks so far, there will be always something worse about to be disclosed. And that without even touching banks, that was supposed to be the next target.
With a bit of luck the illusion of "but we are the good ones" will become more evident with this.
Did the part where Saudi Arabia pressured the US to attack Iran 'contribute to public discourse'? Cheney made this point, without naming names, for years and was ignored and ridiculed.
Or are we just cherry picking our favorite lefty talking points?
"and can play an important role in a democracy that chooses its leaders." ...as opposed to a democracy which chooses out of a 2-party system the lesser of two evils.
1. America is hated for a good reason: Our government is a bunch of bullying dicks.
2. I hope Arabs and Muslims realize that behind their backs, their governments are begging the US Government to have a military presence in the Middle East because:
a. Iran is a bunch of psychos
They're afraid of each other and America is the only ones with the power to mediate.
3. Hopefully, Americans can start putting pressure on our Government and say, "WTF are we doing in the Middle East? It's just causing us a bunch of headaches and it's not worth our time or tax dollars - that includes aid to Israel." No, the oil isn't worth it. We get only 10% of our oil from there. And before someone starts posting the Wikipedia article on "fungible", I'd like to point out that even if they stop selling oil to us, they'll sell it to others thereby not increasing the World price of oil because:
4. The leaders of the Middle East are a bunch of corrupt, sub-human, abusive sacks of shit and it sickens me that we, the US of A, supports those mother fuckers. They are the cause of terrorism and for because of #1, they are able to convince their people that the US is at fault.
Ooooh and in return, they should hack the government website and put in a "I eat baby foetusus for breakfast" image!
Hooray!
'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.'
Wait, last time I checked you can only choose from 2 people as our leader - both of whom were never our first choice.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
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!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There are ways in democratic countries to change the law so that your goals are met. Meeting your goals by breaking the law is imposing your rule on the people. That makes you the dictator.
www.haberajans.org
I sure hope they're talking about a random soldier rank pv2 E1 whom happens to be named "Obama" not the much more famous guy at the tippy top peak of the military chain of command of the worlds largest most powerful military. You'd think the C-in-C might have enough power to take care of this without begging other countries for help?
I'm not trying to debate right or wrong here, trying to focus on an utter lack of efficiency and competence. We're not talking about rewriting the worlds biggest most corrupt banking system or the worlds biggest most corrupt medical-industrial complex. Just a tiny freaking prison in the middle of nowhere.
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. '
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Here in Denmark, the newspaper Politiken recently got access to all the documents. They found that which the (right-wing) government had publicly said that they would firm ask the US whether the US used Danish airspace for extraordinary rendition, the government privately told the US that they did not really want any answers.
A good example of how WikiLeaks can expose governments acting against their citizens interest. It might not be in the US's interest to expose this, but it is certainly in my interest as a citizen.
The most serious of torture cases involve placing prisoners in the hands of other nations where the most radical tortures and deaths are applied with great frequency. We urgently need laws that forbid our government from transferring prisoners to other nations.
For those that think it doesn't matter we already allow corporations to run prisons in the US and it isn't much of a reach to think that they might export a burgler from Brooklyn to Egypt for fun and games knowing that that convict will surely perish in custody.
years if not decades of vetting
Like Para-sailin' ?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
From their site: DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL CORE VALUES We Serve – willingly in all locations and conditions. We Care – for the safety, security, development, and well-being of our employees. We Empower – our employees to succeed in a culture based on trust, respect, loyalty, and commitment. We Perform – with a relentless commitment to exceeding expectations. We Do the Right Thing – always, for our customers, employees, and those we serve. They left out the part about underage cross-dressing sex slaves...
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
I would take neither at any time.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
See here.
Was this a good thing?
No.
There is no grey area here. Anything that helps Mugabe is bad for his people, bad for his country, bad for Africa.
Mr Assange's 15 minute cry for attention and fame have likely doomed the people of Zimbabwe to more kleptothugocracy until Mugabe passes. On what planet, in what universe, could this be construed as good? The opposition leadership is now facing the death penalty for what was found in Wikileaks.
Good job Wikileaks. Good job.
Schmucks.
Fine, I agree, I have for a few weeks now, at least. Too bad I can't convince others to go along; then again, many are right wing journalists and talk show hosts (many of whom I like and agree with) who are merely looking for something to get their audience (including me) all upset (I'm not) about this.
Can my karma get any worse than bad? Let's find out!
> only a few hotheads in this tribe get really angry, but it's still a remarkable phenomena.
You ignorance is much more remarkable.
Crowds protesting Dutch Mohammed cartoons were so huge and violent that dozens of people got crushed to death, more got shot by the police, hundreds got injured. Not to mention burned down embassies, death threats across Europe, etc. Hardly "a few hotheads".
"For weeks, numerous demonstrations and other protests against the cartoons took place worldwide. Rumours spread via SMS and word-of-mouth.[57] On 4 February 2006, the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set ablaze, although with no injuries. In Beirut, the Danish Embassy was set on fire,[58] leaving one protester dead.[59] The Danish embassy in Tehran was also torched.[60] Altogether, at least 139 people were killed in protests, most due to police firing on the crowds,[1] mainly in Nigeria, Libya,and Afghanistan." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
"Intellectual" snobbery is only impressive when it's backed by at least minimal knowledge.
I'm kind of surprised that your neck didn't snap from the force the point going over your head at such a speed.
Have you really thought about this so little that you think that people other people think that if Wikileaks never came along that Mugabe would be a nice guy? I hate to break this to you, but they're not.
I'm dumbfounded. I mean, we can't even get into the philosophical debate because you don't even understand the question. And you're modded Insightful on /.?
Wikileaks had nothing whatsoever to do with Mugabe being identified as a bad man. That was done long ago and sanctions against Mugabe's government have long been in place.
The problem comes when Wikileaks/The Guardian gives Mugabe political ammo by releasing the fact that his opponent feels that the sanctions are needed while Mugabe is in power.
Now Mugabe uses this to paint his opponent in a way that, to people with limited comprehension skills (such as yourself), as a supporter of sanctions, or a hypocrite.
Wikileaks/The Guardian gets its scoop, you get your fanboy whoop, and Zimbabwe remains a dictatorship.
Yay.
> 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?
Wikileaks was better investigative journalism than what masquerades as journalism on mainstream media.
Salò
Salò
Ages ago there was a book
sometimes things change so slowly,... it almost seems like swimming in molasses.......
OMG! Surely, in the end 20 years from now, some study will come out with an analysis of Wikileaks that shows that democracy and freedom is *ENHANCED* by Wikileaks, rather than what those on the current witch hunt are trying to show, that the world is better with Wikileaks, than without it. I KNOW that many in the US and other government wish that Wikileaks never existed, but I think that we will all likely be better off with it than without it. The only ones hating it, would then be governments with skeletons to hide, corporations with skeletons to hide, and international democracy-hating groups (Hello WIPO, I'm talking about you!) with skeletons to hide (Hello WIPO, I'm talking about you and ACTA!). I don't think the US government is *THAT* worried about skeletons, but what they *ARE* worried about is the loss of corporate sponsorship, when dirty corporations corrupt politicians into adopting shit like ACTA and the mickey mouse protection act, which benefits about 15 people, and harms about 1.5 billion.
If 'private security contractors' are working for anyone other than the US terror forces, the US media calls them 'mercenaries'.
remember this song ?
We come in peace,
[ shoot to kill Shoot to kill, shoot to kill ]
We come in peace,
[ shoot to kill. Scotty beam me up ]
What wikileaks shows us is between the brackets
This isn't about poking fun at him for being a hypocrite. King is one of, it not the most active Republican out there right now trying to get Assange taken out.
The fact that King is so pro-IRA and has helped them puts him in a far worse position. Huckabee, Palin, etc. can at least say with a straight face that they've never helped a terrorist group.
And child marriage is Christian because it was common in Christian Royalty for Europe in the Middle Ages. If you're going to go back in history to make the charge stick, it doesn't stick.
'These examples make clear that WikiLeaks has brought much-needed light to government operations"
That type of thinking is wrong. No government operates under clean circumstances and if you believe they can, you are clearly mistaken. Governments do things to protect their best interests and it keeps them moving. I see America bashers all over the place now who think all these leaks will crush a country, but none of you would believe your own government has committed many of the same atrocities. I'm not going to straight up say what Assange is doing is wrong, but I believe he should be more tactful with his methods. Personally, as a citizen I don't care about what my government does, as a citizen, I don't need to know.
What if a country proposes to take a couple of guantanamo prisoners in exchange of the abolishement of all the software and "idea" patents?
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
But he didn't publish all of it. He had several editors of newspapers advising him -- editors that are experienced in distinguishing important news from harmful personal details. Naturally, governments that don't want their skullduggery exposed are claiming that the big leak was indiscriminate, but it wasn't.