Well lets think about it, Americans have probably killed a lot of innocents over there ... which I am not justifying by any means on all accounts. However when your own people make IEDs and spread them all across the country and openly kill their own via explosives and small arms fire. I am relatively certain that most of those deaths are caused by other Arabs. Whether you believe this or not, I do not care but the job I did out there proves this to me.
That is not true if a government had no privacy then our means of self defense would be nil and we would not exist as a nation. Don't be an idiot because you wan't all the "juicy" information.
Somethings are covered up or not let out to the public that should be, but that doesn't mean the people have the rights to know EVERYTHING.
Needless to say this but you're from fucking Slovakia, you have no rights to my countries secrets at all.
So what you Enlightened computer whores are telling me is that every country should open up all of their secrets to everyone. Secret projects, secret missions etc... Well thats just fucking stupid. That is basically saying there is no need for a government, which there wouldn't be if the world was perfect and there was world peace and spring flowers for all of us to smell year round. Yay, lets all be hippies and rejoice that everything is perfect in the world ... wait wtf am I talking about? Nothing is perfect in this world thus Governments will continue to exist and so will their secret agendas. Do we have the rights to know some of this information sure ... ill give you peace loving anarchist hippies a bone and say we do. However we do not have the rights to know EVERYTHING the government is doing, if that was the case then the government would crumble to their enemies. Think of it like a game of chess, if you knew exactly where your opponent was going to move then it would be quite easy to defeat them.
You people who argue this have to get an open mind and look at all aspects of what you're saying ... its just fucking foolish and its an outrage to think that anyone of you would want your country to fall to another country. Like lets see, our most bad ass brand new submarines someone sold all the classified information about them to the Chinese, these submarines were going to be the top of the line underwater stealth bad asses in the world. Fuck now the Chinese know how to find them, think they wont be selling that information to others? Now that wastes BILLIONS of our dollars and YEARS of work. Tell me ... how that is a good thing? What would of happened if someone told the Japanese in WWII that we were using Navajo Indians to send communications back and fourth? Fuck the USA may not even be here. So yes go right the fuck a head and think you should know everything. If you want to know everything then be GOD otherwise shut the fuck up and quit whining that you're not in a position to know secrets.


I can keep going and making you all look like assholes who don't think before you speak...

^ Dude, you need to chill the fuck out.

I couldn't care less if you had your life in danger there, its your own fault... Who the hell are you to be talking about freedom... You guys that fight for someone else's freedom need to define that freedom first. If freedom is my way of life to be governed under another country, then get your freedom and get the fuck away from my place.

(this way of talking is okay I guess, because you seem to be insulting everybody that doesn't agree with you)

Ask yourself the question first, did the Iraqi people lived worse before you started bombing the fuck out of them?

A government that is supposed to be a servant of the people is not supposed to have any privacy. As I said, there may be some situations where things like opsec justify keeping some pieces of information secret for at least a little while, but there still needs to be a damn good reason whenever any piece of information regarding government actions is kept secret from the public.

I honestly have a hard time understanding the mindset of someone so warped that they think it's alright for the government to keep secrets just for the heck of it, especially when that person is at the same time saying what a wonderful thing freedom is. At least you're provided an excellent example of the current government attitude that unfortunately makes organizations such as Wikileaks invaluable at this point in time.

Not to get into the other part of this discussion, but what constitutes a "damn good reason"?

The people who are arguing for full disclosure will just always argue that there IS no good reason. Whereas those who would actually be affected by it are likely to be a bit lenient with the application of "damn good".

As a perfect example, the "cablegate". Any of the diplomats and most of the governments involved will probably argue that there are "damn good reasons" to keep private correspondence private (sort of the same reason you don't tell a kid that his mother, a prostitute, is a whore). Whereas all of the amateur historians and "freedom fighters" will argue that all of this information should have been out in the open the entire time.

And both sides are right, to an extent.
Let's take the whole
Saudi Arabia: Yo, somebody go kill Iran for us
Israel: DIBS!

Affair.

On the one hand, keeping this private is in the best interests of pretty much everyone involved. Even being friendly with Israel is a big no-no for just about every country in the Middle East (and around the world, to a lesser extent). So this could cause a lot of problems and strained relations.
Plus, Iran could argue for this as a rationale to further escalate stuff.

But on the other hand, these guys were talking about using nukes. Stuff like that needs to be kept in check, and putting it out in the open greatly lessened the chance of Israel "going rogue" and glassing the region.

And THIS is why the policy of "The government should only have secrets if they have a good reason" is just fundamentally flawed. Who judges the reason?

Which means, we need to simplify: Is the government allowed to have secrets? Wikileaks (and many in this thread) feel "no". But as some people (who, admittedly, should stay the hell out of the thread until they calm down and can stop feeling the urge to punch every idiot who says something inflammatory) have mentioned, it is kind of hard to have any form of security with a completely open book.

But, so long as there are ANY secrets, organizations like Wikileaks are going to try and leak it so that they can get their 15 minutes of fame.

The government. Always has, always will. However, what really matters is: who controls the government? The so far best answer to this would be: we, the people. And for doing so, the people need [insert drumroll] information about what the heck these guys are doing there.
Before Dascryborg jumps me - as a foreigner I only care for infos about your country and what it does at home from an informational point of view. What your country is doing in other countries and how however, is belonging into the international category and therefor also of interest for me - though I wouldn't want to know about your latest submarines development or the patrol route of your comrades.

Now I certainly won't go so far to say, we needed cablegate for that. Up to now, I'd say less then 1% of the released infos are of any value for John / Jane Do to forge an opinion. However, on the same page you have a government holding back infos about the deaths of JFK or Marylin Monroe as "classified" for how long? With what "good" reason? Not to mention the release of (now proven) wrong infos like the weapons of mass destruction available to Saddam.

So we have a disparity of infos given and needed to control (our own) governments, to build an opinion and choosing "our" way with our votes. No surprise - politicans lie to get their way no matter which country we pick.

Here comes the next participant in: investigative media (and Wikileaks is nothing else). Their work is to uncover what our governments (or companies) try to hide from us. They DO have a responsibility to not putting people unnecessary in harm's way but also the responsibility to uncover wrong-doings. And we can point out numerous countries where they can't do their work and where it leads to. Certainly not to more transparency or democracy.

Now with cablegate that pendulum might have swung to far. I give you that. On the other hand governments and their secrecy, their tries to control medias (embedded journalism among others) have swung to far sooo many times, you could probably fill a book for every country in this world.
Did it went to far this time? Possibly. Did it went so far to really endanger anyone? Your government quietly said no for the Iraq Wikileaks and the worldwide reception of cablegate so far looks.... mostly harmless.

At least we shouldn't forget that Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo each left a far more devastating and lasting impression then both Wikileaks releases together.

Did as you requested. Did not see this:
http://www.thebolg.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/rpg.jpg

Its just not there. 00:50

Also, your opinions and attacks are making Americans look stupid to this very international forum. Most Americans realize that the war in Iraq is over oil and that the war in Afghanistan is A. To draw militants into a huge kill box and B. to secure mineral rights. The "Freedom, Fuck Ya" argument is embarrassing to those who actually read and know whats going on in the world.

Actually, I think you're quite wrong here.

Is most of this news? No...it's simply confirmation of suspicions. That doesn't mean a lot of these countries are going to be thrilled to have these things confirmed to the world at large.

Now, where did this information come from? People within those foreign governments. Sure, in the US or UK or Canada and the like, if someone is suspected of leaking information they'll be slapped on the wrist or publicly embarrassed.

What do you think Saudi Arabia and China and Iran and Russia and Yemen and Sri Lanka and so on are likely to do to those they suspect of leaking info to foreign diplomats? Most likely, put them against a wall and put a bullet in their head.

I have no doubt that people WILL die in a lot of foreign lands for sharing things with other countries that they weren't supposed to.

I'm not taking sides here. War is hell and when you're in war you fight. Also, avoid war more than everything else. Now that I got that out of the way, looking at the video to at about the two minute mark, I could see "something" happening from 1:27 to 1:33. From my experience, the person sticking a slim object around the corner is either:
1. Holding a rifle
2. Holding a camera

The funny thing is, if you look at the video at exactly 1:29, you can clearly see him holding a camera. BUT if you look at exactly 1:31 to 1:33, he is clearly holding a rifle/rpg. The angle, heat distortion and color palette can make things merge, overlap and put on the guise of something other. Once a soldier sees that pose, that shape he saw about a million times, his mind is actually set to kill.

Also, looking from home, being in a normal temperature environment, calm, untired, and video on pause, it's easy to give judgement as to what happened and who is to blame, but a soldier or a group of soldiers don't have your luxuries, and as such are more prone to tunnel vision on distinct shapes that are easily identified and analysed, in a split second. Their life and that of their best friends depends on it, and morality be damned if they are going to screw up over five pixel mash-up.

And that's the take on the sad event, simple as that.

Technically, me leaking secret US documents is perfectly legal. :) If I go in the US, only then I may be in trouble.

In the case of Wikileaks, I don't see how an Australian citizen leaking US documents is a criminal. Or is it because Australia are a US state (seems that way for sure)?

As much as there was no doubt of people dying because of the first big Wikileaks release? The pentagon stated quietly that no deaths had resulted from the leaked information about Iraq. Also up to now, there's only one leak identified: Mr. Bradley Manning. The infos were (at least as far as we know) from an US internal network, put together by US personal or employees. Do you really fear for the live of the US ambassador in Russia because of a blunt description of Putin?

But alright, let's just assume it is otherwise for a moment. Just how are you going to fight crime from now on? No more inside information, no informats, no one speaking up in court or interrogations under pressure because, let's face it, there are lives at risk.
Remaining option? Join the Mafia.

You've completely missed what I'm saying.

Nobody is killing the US ambassadors whose information was leaked. I'm talking about the people who got that information TO the ambassadors in the first place...it didn't just magically appear on their doorstep, it was leaked to them in a lot of cases. THOSE people are the ones who ARE likely going to die.

While some of the material released is purely commentary on obvious events, some of it is based on information that was sent to those ambassadors, and a lot of these countries deal very harshly with leaks of information.

And what about the future? What does Wikileaks release next that exposes some dark, dirty secret about a nation that doesn't want it's dirty laundry exposed to the world? And what happens to the people that sent that information to a foreign ambassador NOT with the idea that it would end up all over the 6 o'clock news because some arrogant Australian twat wants to be a rock star, but in the hopes it would lead to behind closed doors political pressure in to something happening to the benefit of the people in that country?

An example : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/wikileaks-just-made-the-world-more-repressive/article1818157/

If those people had leaked those images to the Canadian (and other Western) diplomats and it showed up on Wikileaks, do you think the Indonesian government wouldn't have deduced who the likely leakers were and killed them outright? Of course they would! They aren't protected in any way...there is no whistle blower protection here.

Let's be clear here : I'm not passing judgment on this. I'm simply pointing out that claiming that there is no blood involved with this is most likely a complete lie.

Do you really believe they couldn't do it if the pressure is coming only behind closed political doors? Do you have the impression those countries then wouldn't act? Just because it didn't appeared on Wikileaks or any other similar place?

From the example you given - could you please explain me, why the same guys would be safe when the Canadian government use these infos as ammunition at the UN and at summits like APEC against Indonesia, but fear for their lives if Wikileaks is involved?

About the part what Wikileaks possible could do next - sure enough "What if..."s in there. Jon Stewart had once a great take on it. Shame I couldn't find it on youtube anymore.
So I'm left with what I already said before: wish you guys would apply the same standards you're demanding from Wikileaks, on your own government.

Where did I say ANY of that. Please stop trying to read more in to what I'm saying than is there and just focus on my point :

You (and others) have claimed that no deaths will be associated with what Wikileaks is doing. I refute that.

That's it...period. I'm not saying it's somehow more wrong than if those people died due to a foreign government having and using that information. I'm not making moral judgments, I'm simply refuting this nonsense idea that Wikileaks will somehow not ever have blood on its hands.

So when and where will Assange be found dead.