lets discuss Wikileak

"Authority and democratic sovereignty are threatened by such practices," Baroin said of the WikiLeaks release of classified U.S. documents. "If there was such a thing as a French WikiLeaks, we would have to be inflexible (in dealing with it)."

Haha I'm getting a good laugh from that.

I doubt the U.S. decided to release documentation of the countless atrocities they've committed to civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan to build credibility for a site, so that they could produce a second leak later on which would provide some public support for a war in Iran. 

Well, the crime is the leaking of information, not the publication of the information.  Otherwise there would be a lot of people at the NY Times in prison right now.

Twice now we've had massive amounts of material that really surprises no one. It confirms what people suspected, but have there been any real revelations?

Yeah, on one hand it is good to have all this info out there, that's always good.
But, it could harm innocent people and frankly, Negoba is right.

Very little of all this has been news. Even that original big video, that baghdad airstrike I thought was some cover up...apparently it was known it happened at the time!
Huzzah for leaking known information and endangering innocent people!

The huge amount of documents, a multifold of what the most curious people would ever want to read, makes me think that the last leaks have been caused deliberately with the sub rosa approval of the U.S. government. I just try to guess for what purpose.

 damn just lost my entire reply...................maybe wikileaks can retrieve it for me

Slartibartfast wrote: 3. North Korea supplied Iran with long-range missiles.

Aww man that's really going to hurt our North Korean relations.


Edited by stonebeard - November 30 2010 at 20:31

When I saw the film of President Obama being questioned on this topic, he cracked that famous smile of his and said nothing. The first question which entered my mind was .....but, what does that mean? What does that sacastic looking smile mean? I started reading into it too much. I don't know. I watched Bill O'Reilly tonight and he covered the issue for about 15 minutes. I agree with his point totally and it's a little selfish on my behalf but, out of honesty, I watch him because I agree with him most of the time but, meanwhile back at the ranch journalists have a tendency to rub me wrong. Anything for a story of the sensational. Once the press gets a hold of a story such as this one, on a weekly basis it becomes a real circus. Then you have to start thinking for yourself.....as you want to do that anyway...but, now the story has exploded and caused controversal issues to go skyrocketing and the press wants that because it's good ratings. When this happens or everytime it happens, I become confused and can no longer follow the story or don't desire to. It can be straight foward diplomatic and you, the viewer gets sucked in....however, the views presented by individuals who promote Wikileak or defend it are confusing the hell out of me. They mention how names of officials were taken off or wiped from this list. Then they make claims about Wikileak revealing what is defined as TRUTH. While O'Reilly states plain and simple that they are giving America's secrets away. How can it really be that controversal? I mean, that's what the show is all about ....controversal issues...correct? But then it's controversal with cilvilians all the way down the line. From Harvard lawyers to factory workers. They all crack that smile and disgree with B.O'Reilly. The guy commited a crime. It needs to be addressed by our goverment. What's so funny about that?  

I'm afraid Toddler that the person who leaked it is the one who committed the crime, although an adept lawyer could probably pin something on him if he ever entered US jurisdiction, and not just for the bizarre rape thing. Assange really is a smug jerk, though, I don't see how this really helps anybody. Diplomats are being two-faced? Why I never! More importantly, however, I can't forgive him for releasing the real names of the Afghan and Iraqi native informants and then blaming the military for not sufficiently protecting them if they were to get murdered.