Yeah what Oliver Willis said re: WikiLeaks

[wndycty]

Sweet Jesus, Wikileaks Sucks

I don’t think designating Wikileaks as a terrorist organization is quite sane, but overall what a horrible organization this is. The leaked info shows – in my view – that behind closed doors we’re still negotiating pretty honestly with the world, despite all the ways we could go forward. Wikileaks, again, is playing God, making the revelation of this material some sort of morality play.

Unlike the previous releases, there’s no actual crime or abuses being reported here, just Wikileaks – particularly Assange – getting jollies off by trying to make America look bad.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/11/29/sweet-jesus-wikileaks-sucks/

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. I don't get it?

Trying to make America look bad? How is revealing the truth anything but portraying history as it really is? Is our whole world suppose to be someone else's fabrication of reality? Is our entire existence suppose to be someone else's idea of altered reality? Can the truth be any worse than all these pitfalls we keep falling into because someone else keeps steering us in the wrong direction?

[no limit]

2. no actual crime or abuses? Has he not seen the video of the chopper attack?

The attack where our military shot up a group of unarmed men and then shot up a make shift ambulance that came to help the wounded injuring 2 small children and killing their father?

I fucking hate these assholes that lie like this without any shame.

[xchrom]

4. +1

[emulatorloo]

17. "Unlike the previous releases, there’s no actual crime or abuses being reported here"

"Previous releases" = Chopper Attack
These Leaks = "no crimes or abuses"

[no limit]

19. I mistakenly read it as like, not unlike.

But I find the claim that there is no actual crimes or abuses in any of these documents laughable. And we will all see why in the next few days.

[emulatorloo]

21. Well, they go back to the 60's, there is bound to be some "interesting" stuff there

especially during the Rice/Bush/Cheney years/

[EFerrari]

30. Well, I've only looked at outtakes of the small bit we have

and yes, it was a violation of American law and probably international law to provide material support to the coupsters in Honduras, for example, as the Obama administration did when they delayed calling the coup "a military coup" in public. The cable we now have shows they decided it was an illegal military coup right away.

(My stake in this, btw, isn't to bash this administration but to interrogate our foreign policy which to my mind may be good for a few multinationals but not so good for most people and in fact, is deadly for too many of us.)

[Bodhi BloodWave]

26. psst, you might not be aware but there is a big difference in the chopper attack

and the vast majority of the diplomatic cables that was recently released.

Some diplomatic cables show some evidence of corruption/illegal stuff and those I happily support having been released, the rest however I'd have to say are not even close to being valid in regard to claiming releasing them counts as whistle-blowing

And you attack Oliver Willis without even properly reading what was in the OP it seems, you say you fucking hate people who lie and point to the chopper incident, yet the last two lines in the OP is:

"Unlike the previous releases, there’s no actual crime or abuses being reported here, just Wikileaks – particularly Assange – getting jollies off by trying to make America look bad."

Exactly what do you think Willis referred to in regards to 'unlike the previous releases' since he was talking about wikileaks

[no limit]

29. I misread "unlike" it was dumb on my part

Which specific cables do you think we shouldn't know about?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

32. As I said in another post

I think that any diplomatic cables that does not involve evidence of crimes, corruption or illegal activities should have been held back by wikileaks.

The vast majority of the cables does not involve anything related to illegal activities and such, thus I don't see the public really needing to know the content of that.

As you might guess from the above i don't think the public as a 'right' to know *everything* they want to know, even if they think they should be permitted. I do however fully support the release of any and all cables that DOES involve crimes, corruption and illegal activities tho since that stuff should have a floodlight or 10 aimed at it

edit: And no worries, we all read things wrongly from time to time :)

[no limit]

33. I understand what you are saying but I would like to see specifics

if you have some specific cables from this latest release that you don't think fit your criteria I would be happy to discuss them with you.

For example, one of the cables says the US government hid bomb sales to Israel to prevent people from thinking that we were supporting an Israeli strike against Iran. Now nothing about that is illegal, but you don't think we should know this information?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

34. Well, the one that sticks most strongly to my mind would have been this topic

A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”

**

I think the cable(s) related to that issue should not have been revealed since it quite honestly *bleeps* up any chance to accomplish it now(which a pakistani offical even said himself).

[no limit]

35. Interesting, I haven't seen that cable yet

you might be right that maybe this shouldn't be released as it doesn't do us much good. But I also don't know that it does that much damage. They have been unsuccessful in removing this material since 2007, I'm not sure I buy that if this hadn't been released they would have had success.

And it does tell us that our government is extremely worried about Pakistan's nuclear program. Which is contrary to what they have been telling us in public.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

36. having publically been critical tho i think would likely have made it even harder then it was

to try and convince Pakistan to agree.

It somewhat amuses me tho that people seem to think that most diplomatic things should be more public, while i do agree to some degree i also think keeping some thing confidential is whats required for good relations.

As an 'make believe' example, I send you to the country of Free republic(more a punishment I guess then reward >D)and we need their aid to accomplish something, now you find out that their leader is short tempered, quick to draw conclusions and arrogant. Now that information is obviously going to be helpful for our state department to know to help us arrange the agreements we need, the question tho is what do you do?

Would you send the information publically so that they find out we think that about the leader?
Would you send the information publically but couch it in more flattering terms?
Would you send the information privatly being blunt so we know your exact views?
Would you send the information privatly still couching it in more flattering terms so we might need to figure out exactly what you mean?

To me only the third option makes any real sense

[no limit]

37. I see your point

but the question still ends up being who gets to decide what should be released and what shouldn't be. In the case of the Israeli bunker bombs what the government did was not illegal (as far as I know) but that information should still be disclosed to the people.

I totally agree with you on the example you posted, but I think it's hard to make that judgement with most cables since they aren't always going to be that clear cut.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

38. in regards to wikileaks

they have claimed their duty is helping 'whistle-blowers'

if that is so, then they should simply focus on actually blowing the whistle so to speak.

if there is something they are unsure on then they have to make a judgement call, if its the correct one, congratulations, if its the wrong one then they should be mature enough to accept the consequences(even if done with the best intentions), if it has nothing to do with whistle blowing then they quite honestly should not reveal it and likely return it to its rightful owners


And while i am inclined to somewhat agree on the bunker bombs, whats your reasoning for that the people should know?

[no limit]

39. I can agree with you on that.

On the bunker bombs I think people should know because this is a democracy. And I don't mean that in the cliche way that it sounds. But the fact is if we are going to elect representatives to manage our government we need to know what they are doing. And me personally? I don't like selling weapons to Israel. And I sure as hell don't like selling weapons through secret channels. And as a voter that should be information that is available to me.

[xchrom]

3. unrec -

[EFerrari]

5. When stuff like this is "revealed" about ordinary citizens, it's called evidence.

This Oliver Willis person has an interesting notion of honesty.

[Bluerthanblue]

20. when stuff like this is threatened to be seen by 'surveillance' agencies,ordinary citizens

scream about violating their right to privacy- (understandably)

I've read and participated in many a thread here on DU concerning our rights to privacy, it is interesting to read many people cheering that very same right being violated by "nameless" protected individuals who are being promoted by a person who says that transparency is vital.

:shrug:

Kenneth Starr's report contained evidence- are any of us 'better' as a result of it's publication?

[EFerrari]

22. Government has a duty of oversight and disclosure.

The same isn't true for private citizens.

And Ken Starr was engaged in what amounts to criminal conspiracy against the president.

:shrug:

[Bluerthanblue]

24. people who work in the government are also citizens are they not?

I agree with your opinion of Starr, but wasn't he operating as a government employee when he conducted his "investigations">-

Much of what I've heard about the LATEST wikileaks dump seems to be gossip and petty conversations which really belong between the parties they were directed towards imo.

I feel the need to reassure you that I'm not against exposing criminal activities within our government! I do believe that there is merit in bringing evidence of that to responsible authorities and working to hold those responsible to account. I don't believe that dumping 'reams' of classified documents and files into cyberspace is an effective, safe, or responsible way to do that.
And I also think that the msm is using this for ratings and titillation to boost their business.

[EFerrari]

25. I tend to think this is a good way to get some important information out

because it buffers people who are looking for something with the massiveness of the release.

In other words, I can't be targeted for searching for one piece of information if millions of people are accessing it among countless pieces of information.


/grammar

[gratuitous]

6. I am unaware of any claim by Wikileaks to be God

However, it appears that the United States gets very exercised when the curtain is pulled back and the man at the controls is exposed, diverting attention from Oz, the Great and Powerful. What I have found most interesting thus far is the apparent eagerness of certain nations (like Yemen) to be scapegoated for "terrorism" while pocketing large sums of money, all to cover up U.S. complicity in those very acts.

But I guess I find that interesting because I suck, too.

[xchrom]

7. this posted by tomm2thumbs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x529916

[SidDithers]

8. K&R for Oliver Willis...nt

Sid

[BeFree]

10. K&R for Oliver

Kick & Rub
A Kick to the high chair he sits in and then a good Rub to his face of the verbal BS he spews.

[FrancisTreptoe]

9. But the thing is...

Assange isn't making america look bad, those individuals who are in the reports are. You are looking at this completely wrong.

[TexasObserver]

11. That author's essay is yet another hysterical response to the leaks.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Julian has revealed a whole pile of nothing

I'm reassured, but I doubt that was his goal.

[EFerrari]

40. Just the Honduras cable will have

consequences.

People aren't thinking through, imho, how important information was leaked. It was put out among innocuous material because that makes it harder to track who is looking at what.

[L0oniX]

13. Clue: America makes America look bad!

[Dogtown]

14. Provincial viewpoint.

:patriot:

[Catherina]

15. Dear sweet Jesus. Oliver Willis? The blogger from nowhere who carries Obama's water.

I'm surprised this wasn't embedded in a blue link of death.

[crikkett]

16. *yawn*

:hangover:
It's as if America doesn't need help looking bad, isn't it?

[rucky]

18. I don't think Wikileaks is making a morality statement at all.

Most of their content is about the nature of the documents, the size of the files, and how to access them. It's pretty much a raw data dump for anyone to make of it what they see fit.

[emulatorloo]

23. GUARDIAN: "Assange embarked on staged disclosures, aimed at "maximizing political impact"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/how-us-embassy-cables-leaked

<SNIP>

Assange and his circle apparently decided against immediately making the cables public. Instead they embarked on staged disclosure of the other material – aimed, as they put it on their website, at "maximising political impact"

<SNIP>

[EFerrari]

28. At this point, I'd like to see the whole statement at the website

rather than one out of context phrase snipped in the press before I assign any intent to Wikileaks.

[Renew Deal]

27. So far I agree

I haven't seen anything really earth moving.

[LostInAnomie]

31. He's right.

It's gossipy crap put out embarrass. Nothing of any real importance or anything that wasn't really already know. I don't know why so many DUers are fawning over it.