Crassmaster: 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.

stonebro: So when and where will Assange be found dead.

Siannah: However, it's not governments (ALL governments - I'm not talking only about the US here) who are criticized here for their involvements (being proven or assumed) in atrocities, killing of hundreds if not thousands of innocents (either directly or as result of collateral damage), torturing, imprisoning people for years without any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
No, it's Wikileaks to stand in the pillory because someday it might happen that someone suffers because of their work.

Now.... what's wrong here?

billt568: 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.

orcishgamer: And it's exactly this that those who hate Wikileaks fail to acknowledge. It boggles my mind. Wikileaks could be responsible for what scale of death and suffering? 100 people? 1000? 10,000? A week's worth of small arms sales from the US to dirtbags accounts for more atrocities than that. The US has killed more civilian Iraqis than that. Yet it's Wikileaks that's evil because they dare to challenge the status quo. I don't doubt that they make a lot of good people's jobs harder, I can't say for sure in each individual case, but surely some of the good will be worth the price.

drmlessgames: It's just that americans feel more secure when US soldiers are doing the killing, not some whistle blowing site.

Gundato: 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.

orcishgamer: As much as I'd like to agree, I think it's more that most people don't take the time to think about it. It's uncomfortable. How many people have looked at truly horrid things that have happened due to war, Darfur? Aftereffects of Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I don't hate anyone for not doing it, I just find it disappointing.

Dascryborg: No you do not, classified information is a good thing.

Mnemon: And blanket statements are bad. Yes, there's reasons why some things are classified, but they should be - always - really pretty damn good ones; and sadly - and that's what history shows and the way authority / power misuse happen illustrates - just blindly trusting that only that which really is essential to be classified will be classified is foolish. In the worst case, and there are enough examples for both, things are classified to avoid grave mistakes from coming to light or the things classified detail highly illegal and immoral action.

We do need people to explore in the dark corners of governments and organisations. Simply outright protesting against any form of investigative journalism / forced de-classification is doing everyone a disservice.

Whether the course that Wikileaks runs is right or not is a different thing - but please do remember that they DO have a much longer track record than just these latest leaks.

Dascryborg: The only problems I have with wikileaks is they just put shit out without a full unbiased open minded explanation as to what it is. Its putting out bad knowledge, what would happen if teachers started making shit up or only teaching you half of the way to solve that calculus problem?

drmlessgames: Again, the world is secure and we all owe it to US of A, saviours of the world!