2010-08-11, 11:34 | Link #8561 |
Banned
|
Another way the US is trying to push it's will on the world.
U.S. Urges Allies to Crack Down on WikiLeaks No matter where you are, please speak up in support of Julian Assange, the visible person running wikileaks. While I don't always agree with his attitude or the stuff he releases, I do feel he does fulfill a very needed role; that is, to find out what governments and people are up to, that would rather the truth remain hidden. Ideally, the government would be releasing this information themselves, appropriately redacted to protect identities, but failing that, this is the next best thing. And Julian and his small overworked team are hard at work trying to redact documents so that people in the warzone aren't threatened. He's gone public lately as a form of protection against those who want wikileaks shut down, but that only works if the citizens of each country speak up in support. Also, if you can donate time or money to wikileaks, I'd encourage you to do so. |
2010-08-11, 11:58 | Link #8562 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Wikileaks is a testament to CIA's failure to guard their secrets. McChrystal was right when he called Jones a clown : I seriously doubt that guy did anything to stem leaks.
__________________
|
|
2010-08-11, 12:00 | Link #8563 | |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
I don't care if the "role" he supposedly fills is important. There is simply no way I can bring myself to support such an individual. It's worth remembering that the ends do not justify the means. There are ways to go about supporting the ideals of full disclosure and free expression, and Assange's methods are not among them. I would think twice before supporting such behaviour, on some horribly mistaken belief that it is somehow "noble" and worthy of emulating. *snipped* Last edited by TinyRedLeaf; 2010-08-11 at 13:25. Reason: Brain fart at 1am, after a tiring day. I meant to make reference to the Pentagon Papers, not Watergate. |
|
2010-08-11, 12:10 | Link #8564 | |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
Quote:
This is made even worse by him hiding behind free speech laws to justify his actions. The freedoms of speech is not, and should never be, absolute. To make them absolute, without regard for truth, integrity or ethics, is more dangerous than any weapon. Pen mightier than the sword and all that. Edit - Also his attempt to redact and control the information put out this late in the game when the damage is done and probably irreparable seems more like someone trying to cover their own asses and save some face after realizing they didn't get the support they expected, rather than someone who just realized that he has probably done more harm than good.
__________________
|
|
2010-08-11, 12:51 | Link #8565 |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
From an espionage POV, Assange simply fulfils the role of the role of the neutral party, not exclusively taking any sides in politics or teacup storms between nations. Whether he leaks information or not, those informants' lives are of zero value to anyone - they are disposable assets as compared to the higher level agents they report to. And the people behind Wikileaks articles did it on the principles of how local intelligence agencies do - to put down one would be a pot calling the kettle black.
That is how practical the black ops world operate. The only thing that possesses value is the information - human lives and equipment are dispensible. Like how the SVR didn't even bother to extract Hanssen or Aldrich Ames, how much value would the CIA put on the heads of the village informants? If they die, I am sure the CIA would just recruit another. Investigative journalists, on the other hand, did it for mercenary purposes. And their existence simply messes up the world more than people like Assange did as they often omit or quote exclusively from the information they garnered rather than presenting it wholesale, much like their normal counterparts. Freedom of speech should solely protect truth, not integrity or ethics as both are mallenable to fit personal gains. Decision should be made by the reader, and not influenced by the partiality of government transparency. @ Meo - And yes, his PR stunt was plain stupid. Simply showed the inconsistency in his beliefs and lousy ass covering skills. If he's for free speech in that interpretation, why redact the article? He should have shown the finger to the NSA/CIA and tell their counterintelligence department to wake up their ideas.
__________________
|
2010-08-11, 13:59 | Link #8566 |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
At the heart of the debate lie a few key concerns that are deeply pertinent to media ethics.
(1) No more room for secrets The idea that a "free press" is meant to reveal government wrong-doing, which of course assumes in the first place that all governments are ultimately up to no good. The problem is, in the past, news organisations served as "gatekeepers" that decided which information had to be revealed in the name of public interest. So, in practice, we have an ironic situation where the "free press" isn't actually that "free" at all. Who watches the watchmen? There is the increasing perception that the gatekeepers have themselves become too cosy with the establishment, and are therefore reluctant to rock the boat because of vested interests in the status quo. In any case, at a time when information has become a massive commodity, freely available 24/7 on the Internet, the gatekeeping role has become irrelevant, if not farcically redundant. Digitised information can be easily copied and transmitted, in bulk, at the blink of an eye, with almost zero risk to any would-be whistle-blower. So why should anybody with something juicy to reveal still bother to go through the "experts"? They can do so on their own, instantly. The unsettling implication is that there is simply no room for secrets any more. And there is, especially, no place to hide embarrassing mistakes that the authorities would rather sweep under the carpet. (2) Fact-checking vs let the reader decide It used to be the case that the one crucial thing that separates a journalist from a gossip monger is his credibility. It takes a lot of time and effort to build that credibility, through extensive self-study, in order to be as knowledgeable about a subject as possible; through as much fact-checking as possible to ensure a story's accuracy; through references to as many sources as possible, preferably from both sides of the fence, to ensure objectivity. These were all supposed to be the hallmarks of a good journalism. Credibility is hard to earn, but extremely easy to lose. But, now, it seems that things have changed. The Internet is the ultimate soapbox upon which any hack can broadcast, very loudly, whatever he wants. Who cares about objectivity, accuracy and insight any more? That's no longer the the reporter's responsibility, it seems. It's up to the reader to cherry pick whatever he wants, since information is now freely available, everywhere. If the reader wants to gorge himself on every available tidbit out there, no matter how much it may smell like junk, that's his prerogative. Which raises the question for news organisations: Should they even bother to stick to traditional standards of professionalism? The public certainly doesn't seem to care any more, so long as every little dirty secret is exposed, damned be to ethics and accuracy. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: In this brave new world of "free" information, we fully deserve whatever "news" we get. |
2010-08-11, 14:11 | Link #8567 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
In one respect, I agree with you; Assange's methods aren't the best. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need wikileaks at all, and shouldn't be something that exists. But we live in an imperfect world, where men will be incompetant, stupid, evil, and greedy. And if they can get away with something, they will. What, exactly, do you feel is the proposed solution to this? How would you shine a light on the backroom dealings, the atrocities, the evil that men do when they want to keep it hidden? Until you can institute something better (and I encourage you to do so), this is what we have. He redacts documents to take out names and such so no one is put at risk. Hell, he even asked the pentagon if they'd redact items so things could be released more safely. They brushed him off. He still has thousands of documents to go through, and that's the reason why not everything was released at once; him and his team are going through and making sure what they release puts no one in harm's way. Except those who are trying to cover things up. |
|
2010-08-11, 14:30 | Link #8568 | |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
And long before the Wikileak's revelations, we already know about happened in Guantanamo, news of which were revealed via mainstream sources. So, the important question here is: What did Wikileaks really do for public interest, in this one very specific example? I really don't see much value-add at all. On the other hand, the information it wilfully revealed carries potential harm to informants, and it certainly goes further towards sapping public and military morale, further hampering already troubled efforts on the ground in Afghanistan. Most of all, where's the big scoop of systemic efforts to deceive the American public from the very highest levels of its government? Now, if that had been revealed, maybe I'd grant the leaks more respect. As it were, all they revealed were a great deal of incompetence in many levels of the military and the government. Again, though, how is that news? Furthermore, was there actually anything in the leaked documents that was time-sensitive? There was essentially none. So why then the hurry to release the 92,000 logs? If Julian Assange was truly sincere about his wish to expose government wrong-doing, why couldn't he have invested more time to comb through the data, and select the key ones to publish, while keeping potentially harmful information out of public eye? From this perspective, I find it extemely hard to believe his claims about serving "public interest", and I regard his attitude towards media ethics to be nothing short of cavalier. To me, he is just an opportunistic attention-seeker, out to gain notoriety. Of course, if this is the kind of "hero" you wish to lionise, I can't stop you. All I can say is, be careful what you wish for, as you may just get what you want. Last edited by TinyRedLeaf; 2010-08-11 at 14:41. |
|
2010-08-11, 14:53 | Link #8569 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
As it is, it looks like he does acknowledge the value of secrets, and just couldn't be bothered till it bit him in the ass. |
||
2010-08-11, 15:56 | Link #8570 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
So, the important question here is: What did Wikileaks really do for public interest, in this one very specific example? I really don't see much value-add at all. On the other hand, the information it wilfully revealed carries potential harm to informants, and it certainly goes further towards sapping public and military morale, further hampering already troubled efforts on the ground in Afghanistan.[/quote] To a degree, I agree. But there's a few minor points. There is more to wikileaks than just the recently released documents. There is a bunch of other stuff on there as well, the actions of other companies and such, and up until know, it wasn't as widespread knowledge. This recent incident as really raised the awareness of wikileaks and what it does, as well as Julian himself (who made himself a public figure). You and I may already be aware of what's going on, and aware of wikileaks, but the average person on the street was not. That is changing. That is why the US government is going after him now. And it's not so much what was released about Iraq and Afghanistan, but what will be released in the future. The public knows about it now, and there is potential for documents that do shed light on more hidden things in the future. Imagine the next Bernie Madoff scam being revealed on wikileaks, now that the public knows about the site? The public at large is now being confronted with the fact that the two wars we are engaged in are unwinnable(at least not without decades and trillions of dollars), and that will shape public policy. Quote:
Quote:
Far from being cavalier, Julian is showing remarkable sensibility toward making sure those on the ground in harm's way aren't being exposed. They are combing through the data, and releasing as much as they can. I can understand an issue with releasing these documents at all, or the leakage in the first place, but wikileaks is doing pretty well in handling the situation. Agree or disagree that they should be released at all, or in his attitude, but that's about it. And wikileaks can only release what they are sent. It's still reliant on those to leak information to them in the first place. Democracy can only function when the people have full access to correct information, and it's quite obvious we aren't getting full information. That's my main concern. Anyway, going on a bit too offtopic, but if anyone is open to discussing further, there are PM's, VM's, or we can make a new thread. |
|||
2010-08-11, 16:17 | Link #8571 | |
勇者
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 34
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10922522
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-08-11, 17:59 | Link #8572 | |
ARCAM Spriggan agent
|
Big news as FIFA's checking in the North Korean soccer team with rumors that they were all sentenced to hard labor with their coach doing it on a construction site.
FIFA to probe reports of punishment of North Korean players and coach Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-08-11, 18:27 | Link #8573 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
There's something very silly about the world if a sports association ends up having more influence than neighboring countries on the antics of an ass-clown government. But press on, FIFA, lets see what you can do.
__________________
|
2010-08-11, 18:53 | Link #8575 | ||
勇者
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 34
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now this is interesting contrast to 1966 team that went to quarterfinal. I believe despite their success they never played football ever again and was confined in North Korea forever. The reason from what I remember was to avoid them influence out citizens about foreign nations (could be very wrong about this). You know the NK government could have always done this
__________________
|
||
2010-08-11, 20:22 | Link #8576 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-08-11, 21:54 | Link #8577 | |||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
It is hard to find something one can really believe in these days. Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2010-08-12, 03:14 | Link #8579 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
If that was the first thing you wrote in these boards... I'ld assume you may have a good reason to say so. But that is not the case... Let me guess. You can't do that, because it doesn't differentiate between the origin of the leaks. Which is essentially hypocrisy regarding free speach. If you were for example against Fox News, that would make sense, because they use free speach to instigate people using lies (reminds me of some german media too). What you are essentially against, is when the truth (without bias) hurts your interests (or rather that of the people who manipulate you into thinking it hurts your interests). [/blunt]
__________________
|
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|