• Was it right of Wikileaks?
    174 replies, posted
[QUOTE=paul simon;23647983]I've always wondered what that sentence means. Care to explain?[/QUOTE] The less you know the happier your life is. It's not something you explain really. Just give it some good proper thought
If the government wants it's documents with sensitive information hidden they should remove the sensitive information like names, weapons or hidden bases from the document and then release it to the public. If the government is more open like that less people are going to ask questions and less information would be leaked. This is my $0.02.
I've never read these documents but if it contains troop positions, orders for troop movements, supply logs and shit like that, then that's really fucked. If it can hurt any of our soldiers then I strongly disagree with what he's doing.
dl'd my diaryyyyy
Without transparency, there is no accountability. And that accountability is what separates civilized society from tyranny.
If it puts at risk the lives of our soldiers, yes. If it's simply "date - vehicle hit by IED; 3 Civillian casualties" without specific coordinates and names, then fine. When we start revealing base locations and names of specific people that poses a threat to what little stability there is. [editline]02:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;23647478]Could somebody give me an example of secret which is "dangerous to know" and isn't necessarily a complete fuckup of the government which hides it?[/QUOTE] Posting firebase and camp locations, patrol routes, names of people working undercover, supply logs, movement orders, etc. Things of a sensitive nature pose a risk to security. Even if civilians are dying, it's arguably becoming more stable than it was before. [editline]02:43PM[/editline] [QUOTE=generic furry;23645050]That's all? When I heard about the leak on the news they never said what the documents where about, so I've been all :tinfoil: today expecting russia to have sent nukes everywhere because they knew all the secrets.[/QUOTE] You take Putin and his meat puppet for fools, they wouldn't launch a nuclear war.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;23634393]I am neutral on the actual release. People deserve to know the facts, but at the same time I am sure making that information public will hurt the "boys on the ground" in the military. The press reporting is typical liberal bullshit though. Wow we are such a bad country for killing enemy troops with drones and special forces troopers without trial. A trial, for Taliban leaders? Are you fucking serious?[/QUOTE] You can't be a cafeteria humanitarian. Everyone gets a trial or no one gets a trial is how it should work.
[QUOTE=bobste;23647884]your question doesn't make much sense [editline]05:13PM[/editline] yes, they would just blow the facts out of proportion instead. do you have any idea how the media works[/QUOTE] This is just plain ridiculous. The question makes perfect sense - what secret could actually be dangerous for the society, and wasn't just covering some mistakes of the government, which the government just wanted to hide to keep it's credibility in eyes of voters. And what would media blow out of proportion? You are talking like you knew a dozen of government secret plans on making a big birthday party for everybody, and media is a mean bully who fucks everything up if he gets to know about it. Media does blow stuff out of proportion, but it doesn't matter, as facts are facts, and if government wants to make an true and precise statement about it, they should do it on their own and not wait till some reporter finds out about it. [editline]09:54PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider_07;23648487] Posting firebase and camp locations, patrol routes, names of people working undercover, supply logs, movement orders, etc. Things of a sensitive nature pose a risk to security. Even if civilians are dying, it's arguably becoming more stable than it was before.[/QUOTE] Those are internal secrets of the army, and don't really touch the government. It's obvious that the crucial strategic information should stay secret, but at least those cases you named don't have a real reason to get to "the government" while still relevant, maybe the high command, but that's not the case of government secrets which would interest anybody who wouldn't want to abuse.
You are very naive
Do I think it's a good idea to leak anything that will jeapordise lives? No. Do I think it's a good idea to let people know when their country fucks up, rather than sweeping it under the rug? Yes.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;23648744]And what would media blow out of proportion? You are talking like you knew a dozen of government secret plans on making a big birthday party for everybody, and media is a mean bully who fucks everything up if he gets to know about it. Media does blow stuff out of proportion, but it doesn't matter, as facts are facts, and if government wants to make an true and precise statement about it, they should do it on their own and not wait till some reporter finds out about it. [/QUOTE] facts are not facts if they are blown out of proportion
[QUOTE=Baldr;23647804]You know those codes to launch nukes.[/QUOTE] Easy fix. Don't have nukes.
[QUOTE=Melnek;23648949]You are very naive[/QUOTE] And you are very ignorant.
[url]http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/[/url] [release]The material shows that cover-ups start on the ground. When reporting their own activities US Units are inclined to classify civilian kills as insurgent kills, downplay the number of people killed or otherwise make excuses for themselves.[/release] Of course it was right.
[QUOTE=AutoTurret;23647063]The owner of wikileaks needs to be locked up for treason against the United States of America.[/QUOTE] Because you can totally lock up a foreigner for treason.
[QUOTE=Craptasket;23634182]People need to know the truth[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mexican;23634485]They leaked way more documents than needed, if anything was particullarly disturbing and needed to be known they should have leaked those and nothing else.[/QUOTE] They leak whatever they can. That's why it's called wikileaks.
Yes it was.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;23649312]Easy fix. Don't have nukes.[/QUOTE] Hahaha
I think if we, the people aren't being informed on how and what our country's doing, whether good or bad, that seems a bit like the government's skewing how they want the public to view them, which isn't right in a free country. If the government's hiding certain things from the public that won't give away strategic information to opposing countries, what's to say they aren't hiding more? (Just playing devil's advocate here)
[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;23648973] Do I think it's a good idea to let people know when their country fucks up, rather than sweeping it under the rug? Yes.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=butters757;23634422]The public needs to see the truth behind the entire situation.[/QUOTE] Thats correct, they do need to see the truth behind the situation.
I can't 100% agree with this but i definitely can't said NOT leaking these would be right.
It is absolutely right of them to release stuff like this. The public has the right to know what a fuckup the war actually is and the extent to which their leadership has lied to them about it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.