What do you think of Assange and Wikileaks?

[COLOR="green"]The difference with the book burning thing is that it's something that won't happen, because it's against the way the US is. I know we could delve further into it, but that's a totalitarian mindset, something that the US citizens exist for. We technically have more power than the Government, so they can't rule us in such a way without a possibility of a revolt.

But the problem with releasing these things is what it can do. Just imagine, as an example, a past US leader had the leader of another country assassinated. I'm sure this has happened before, actually. Now, after that, things changed, and everyone went on with our lives. But now, in the current world, we're very friendly with the nation, we share lots of resources that help our nations thrive. If that secret about the assassination got out, it might cause them to just abruptly end trade and negotiations with us.

The problem is that you can't change things you've done in the past. You can only change the present and the future. I mean sure, we could not commit any more illegal actions and be fully thorough in integrity from now on, but that doesn't change the past secrets, which might be better off remaining hidden. Not to mention the actions of certain people in government reflect on the entire country, like how Bill Clinton cheated on his wife. Him losing integrity through that hurt the country's political goals, as well as the country's faith in him, which can be horrible for a country in times of need. That's why JDR didn't let anyone outside of the government know that he had polio, because he needed the country and the people of the world to see him as strong, forcing him to hide his weaknesses.

About Assange and Wikileaks, I find it to be slightly out of the US's jurisdiction, unless said documents and information had the "possession of this is illegal" stamp on them. However, just because he gets stolen information anonymously doesn't make it any less stolen. It's like stealing something and pawning it; it's not illegal, but it's kind of disreputable to the shop owner, and doesn't change the fact that it was stolen in the first place. It may not be able to be gotten back, but it sucks pretty hard in general.[/COLOR]

We technically have more power than the Government

That doesn't stop any government from doing anything, with the laidback societies present in the US, some other American countries or some Asian ones.

Take Venezuela for example.

I laugh at whoever said Julian Assange, an Australian, has a European complex against the US.

I see people making comments claiming things like Wikileaks' sole purpose is to make the US look bad etc, but you people fail to realize that Wikileaks has been up and running for years exposing secrets in many different nations. It wasn't until the US got embarrassed with these leaks that suddenly everyone knows about Wikileaks and it's some evil organization. Go figure.

This. And Assange is just face of wikileaks, they have a whole bunch of people behind the wikileaks and the leakers are not related to wikileaks in any way.

Personally, I've known about wikileaks for 3 years now, saw something about it in a Science magazine article and decided to check out.

[COLOR="green"]The difference with the book burning thing is that it's something that won't happen, because it's against the way the US is. I know we could delve further into it, but that's a totalitarian mindset, something that the US citizens exist for. We technically have more power than the Government, so they can't rule us in such a way without a possibility of a revolt.

But the problem with releasing these things is what it can do. Just imagine, as an example, a past US leader had the leader of another country assassinated. I'm sure this has happened before, actually. Now, after that, things changed, and everyone went on with our lives. But now, in the current world, we're very friendly with the nation, we share lots of resources that help our nations thrive. If that secret about the assassination got out, it might cause them to just abruptly end trade and negotiations with us.

The problem is that you can't change things you've done in the past. You can only change the present and the future. I mean sure, we could not commit any more illegal actions and be fully thorough in integrity from now on, but that doesn't change the past secrets, which might be better off remaining hidden. Not to mention the actions of certain people in government reflect on the entire country, like how Bill Clinton cheated on his wife. Him losing integrity through that hurt the country's political goals, as well as the country's faith in him, which can be horrible for a country in times of need.[/COLOR]

Apply the book burning aspects to the internet and wikileaks. That's what I was saying. It was an example to express how things are being played out. It doesn't matter if book burning would actually happen for the example to actually hold truth and relevance. It all depends as well on the reactions of the government to the leaks. The more the government tries to withhold information now and put blame on wikileaks, the more they look like they're in the wrong. The CIA's fiasco in Iran was a past wrong. However, the United States is showing that they are making similar mistakes. The U.S. needs to learn to not repeat the past. This whole fiasco got overblown by the US media. You keep mentioning the harm all of this does. But it should be a wake up call. If the U.S. were to shut wikileaks down, that is essentially the same as destroying the resistance that is fighting the government burning the books that contain dangerous/damaging information.

That doesn't stop any government from doing anything, with the laidback societies present in the US, some other American countries or some Asian ones.

Take Venezuela for example.

[COLOR="green"]Yes, going against it would mean people would have to stop being apathetic, but hopefully the more wrong an action, like burning books, becomes, the less likely people are to be apathetic.

And I agree that the government should leave Wikileaks alone. What's done is done applies to what has been put out there as well. You can't suppress the information once it's already out, because even burning books, like shutting down the site, doesn't stop the information from being spread. What they need to be focusing on is keeping a tighter lock on their internal information.[/COLOR]

[color="#cc8899"]
You have a very poor understanding of security clearances. Of those 2million people you reference, maybe 100,000 have access to highly classified information. Manning's job was specifically designed to read, handle, and digest the information in those reports, then take what could be used from it at a lower classification level to brief those without clearances. [/COLOR]

Then why was a freaking Private First Class and having access to all of this? That seems like a very low rank to be trusted with seeing the data from highly classified reports. This just screams to me that the US military doesn't have very good security measures when it comes to containing their information.

Then why was a freaking Private First Class and having access to all of this? That seems like a very low rank to be trusted with seeing the data from highly classified reports. This just screams to me that the US military doesn't have very good security measures when it comes to containing their information.

[color="#cc8899"]The same argument could be made for ANYONE having access to such information. Motivation to leak information comes from many sources, including blackmail, profit, ideology, revenge, etc - a 4 star general is just as susceptible to these as a PFC. I guarantee you the Canadian military has low-ranking personnel that handle highly classified information too. Or are you going to argue that the Ft Hood shootings are a clear sign that Majors shouldn't be allowed access to guns?

Also,
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ju...t/19755528

Assange's lawyer stating that espionage charges are imminent. Expected x10, applauded x 20[/COLOR]

[color="#cc8899"]The same argument could be made for ANYONE having access to such information. Motivation to leak information comes from many sources, including blackmail, profit, ideology, revenge, etc - a 4 star general is just as susceptible to these as a PFC. I guarantee you the Canadian military has low-ranking personnel that handle highly classified information too. Or are you going to argue that the Ft Hood shootings are a clear sign that Majors shouldn't be allowed access to guns?

Also,
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ju...t/19755528

Assange's lawyer stating that espionage charges are imminent. Expected x10, applauded x 20[/COLOR]

No, the same argument cannot be made. You can enter the US military as Private First Class. You cannot enter the military as 4 star general. Do you trust someone the instant you meet them? Then why would you hand sensitive information to someone without giving them the chance to prove themselves? We are not talking about the Canadian Government so I really don't give a pomegranate what happens in that regard. I am talking about the US's security loop holes. Just because they are present in other places doesn't make them right.

No, the same argument cannot be made. You can enter the US military as Private First Class. You cannot enter the military as 4 star general. Do you trust someone the instant you meet them? Then why would you hand sensitive information to someone without giving them the chance to prove themselves? We are not talking about the Canadian Government so I really don't give a pomegranate what happens in that regard. I am talking about the US's security loop holes. Just because they are present in other places doesn't make them right.

[color="#cc8899"]Ok, from another perspective then - we allow infantry who just enlisted access to firearms on a regular basis. Despite all of the potential warning signs, background checks, safety briefs, etc, some do get out of control and shoot their fellow soldiers. That act of betrayal, although on a different scale, is what Manning did to his fellow intelligence professionals. He took a loaded gun and used it to fire on his own government.

I'd also like to add that he had made it to E4, Specialist, prior to a demotion related to an assault. Somewhat irrelevant to current argument, but worth noting.
I'd also like to bring up the case of Ana Montes, a SENIOR level analyst with decades of trust and experience. Who happened to be a spy for the Cubans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Montes

Don't you dare presume to tell me that Manning's issue is at all related to rank, experience, or age. Again, there are several motivations for leaking info, and they apply to all people working with classified info. [/COLOR]

[color="#cc8899"]By creating a site for the sole purpose of publishing classified information outside of the legal method of doing so, he has indeed been requesting the information. I highly doubt you're dumb enough to actually believe what you just said. It's akin to "I didn't tell him to illegally download music and movies, I just made a filesharing website, it's not my fault people misuse it and I do nothing about it"

The website was created with the intent to facilitate illegal disclosure of classified information and encourages people to do so. We also don't know what went on behind the scenes with Manning contacting Wikileaks and saying "I might be able to provide ___, how could I do this?" I seem to remember Manning claiming that Wikileaks gave him instructions and software that would help him get the classified cables onto CDs in mass quantities without detection. [/COLOR]

WikiLeaks is not setup only to release things that might be illegal. They will accept anything that is news. When they got the cables they decided they would publish them since they were news and they felt the world should no of the crimes the US has committed.

Apperently they forgot the "peace" part of the prize when it'll probably cause war.

There is no proof that these leaks will lead to war. This is hardly an argument since no harm has come from any leak so far. This is just a fear tactic used to turn opinions against WikiLeaks and Assange.