It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It may have actually done some good for the US because by laying bare all those secrets, you really just get to see the reality that the US is not this monolithic behemoth hell bent on global hegemony.
It also effectively let us "tell off" several terrible world leaders and cause them some embarrassment that we otherwise could not have gotten away with.
So, how long before they start feeding Wikileaks false info?
It also effectively let us "tell off" several terrible world leaders and cause them some embarrassment that we otherwise could not have gotten away with.There are multiple conspiracy theories which play on the basic theme of "The US government Did it/Assange is a US government Agent doing it for them, So that they can Embarrass X/Hurt X's chances of Achieving Y/Throw us off the trail of the REAL secrets!"
ha! man, the world would be so much more interesting if this kind of crap was true, but alas, we live in a boring world where Occam's Razor mercilessly slices through stuff.
There are multiple conspiracy theories which play on the basic theme of "The US government Did it/Assange is a US government Agent doing it for them, So that they can Embarrass X/Hurt X's chances of Achieving Y/Throw us off the trail of the REAL secrets!"
What exactly is in the public interest by releasingthis information?
While there is a valid place for whistleblowers, the irresponsibility of Wikileaks (and Assange in general) makes it hard to back them in any significant way.
That information is obvious and easily gathered by any competent intelligence organization.
Wikileaks has generally gone out of its way to verify and redact the information it publishes.
If Wikileaks wishes to out corruption or Government malfeasance, why publish such information? It seems a bit of a non-sequitor to their overall narrative not to mention it hurts their public image.
Until it threatens to release the majority of the documents unedited just so it's founder doesn't face any alleged crimes.
But, at the same time, why not? The US has been threatening him fairly directly, and I can understand why he would respond in kind. It's not so much irresponsible as self-interested. What if I, a US citizen, had found intelligence on China, and were then threatened by China for the release of some of this? Should I not proactively defend myself?
Other than this unrelated sexual malfeasance charge, he is not accused of any actual crimes. Despite this, Wikileaks is under assault by many of the governments of the world. He is in very real danger, and this is an effective countermeasure to that danger.
Better to have a relatively responsible organization like Wikileaks than the inevitable radicalization that will arise once Wikileaks is gone. I would argue straight up that Wikileaks has engaged in nothing but journalism.
I would argue straight up that Wikileaks has engaged in nothing but journalism.
But, at the same time, why not?
This sort of rationalization is the whole reason why we are in the mess our of Government in general.
Effective? Yes. Ethical? No. Where are the ethical standards by which he governs himself? Does he actually view himself as a journalist who works for the public interest or only for his own gain?
Why not go to prison rather than threaten the lives of countless people?
So then, it is highly unlikely that these "dumb" terrorists could gather the same intel that Wikileaks could gather.
By releasing information about our vital strategic targets to dangerous organizations who otherwise would not get that information, Wikileaks is creating a very dangerous situation that didn't exist before.
Who cares? A good deed done for evil reasons is still a good deed, and an evil deed done for good reasons is still an evil deed. I couldn't care lesswhyhe does it, only that he does it.
Also, notice how everything leaked has been either not classified in the first place, or else has at most the "secret" clearance (which is fairly common)? "Real" secrets haven't been compromised at any stage, and most of this stuff was barely if at all protected in the first place.
Wikileaks is doing what other news organizations have done for many years. The only difference is that it's doing it faster and more efficiently.
What if Wikileaks had never existed, and the same person who leaked these cables had just sent them to the newspapers? How is the situation any different then?
Assange just knows how to drum up pomp and flair to his releases.
How is releasing documents which discuss details of threats to various weakpoints in infrastructure a good deed?
So Security through Obscurity works?
Keeping the public in the dark about how vulnerable we are does not fix the issues at hand. It only serves to keep the populous ignorant.
Also, notice how everything leaked has been either not classified in the first place, or else has at most the "secret" clearance (which is fairly common)
So I can't take pictures of bridges in Manhattan? Or chemical plants? And put them in my Flickr? I can't muse on the many strategic targets I identify every day on my own?
It's one thing to have a weak spot. It's a different thing to tell someone what happens if you hit that weak spot. Get the difference?
What if someone made Wikinovels?