|
Post by Sigmaleph on Dec 12, 2010 11:22:59 GMT -5
Wasn't Climategate later shown to have not been anything unethical? Because that is one of the things listed as WikiLeaks doing good, and unless I'm wrong, would throw the validity of the rest of the items into question. Hadn't seen the climategate one, that does put certain doubt on the legitimacy of the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 12, 2010 11:35:57 GMT -5
Wasn't Climategate later shown to have not been anything unethical? Because that is one of the things listed as WikiLeaks doing good, and unless I'm wrong, would throw the validity of the rest of the items into question. Hadn't seen the climategate one, that does put certain doubt on the legitimacy of the rest. Well, here it is: and here is the article they linked to. I remember my news reporting teacher mentioning that Climategate was WikiLeaks and, well, we know how that worked out. I'm not saying that this invalidates the rest of the list or that WikiLeaks hasn't done good....just that the list there needs to be viewed with a grain of salt now.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 12, 2010 11:54:45 GMT -5
Hadn't seen the climategate one, that does put certain doubt on the legitimacy of the rest. Well, here it is: and here is the article they linked to. I remember my news reporting teacher mentioning that Climategate was WikiLeaks and, well, we know how that worked out. I'm not saying that this invalidates the rest of the list or that WikiLeaks hasn't done good....just that the list there needs to be viewed with a grain of salt now. The claim that they manipulated data is technically true, as making a graph is manipulating data (so it running any statistical test for significance, or running it through any equation for that matter). One of the primary issues with climategate that made it look so damning is due to the difference between the language of scientists and the language of laypeople. To the layperson, "trick" or "manipulate" are bad and equal to "fabrication" which is not true in science. "Trick" is any technique used to get a result, "manipulate" is do organize raw data in some way to make it understandable, "fabricate" is to make shit up. So, the media read things like "trick" and "manipulate" and jumped to grossly inaccurate conclusions. The "trick" for this kind of thing is to investigate the various claims on that website and see if they're actually legit. Like, one of the claims is "WikiLeaks has revealed the National Socialist Movement's neo-nazi internal workings.*" and the emails are here. So, if you want to see if that example is real, read through them. As an aside, them ending emails with "Heil Hitler" is just funny. *Why yes, that was the first one that popped up when I clicked the link, how did you know?
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 12, 2010 17:57:15 GMT -5
Not to mention that some of the other things revealed where know. The rest you would have to show how the world knowing that information improved anything. I disagree. I think that you'd need to prove the opposite; that keeping the catty emails and evidence of crimes secret improved the security of the US. If it didn't, the emails shouldn't have been secret, even if they were at the second-lowest grade of classification.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 12, 2010 19:37:11 GMT -5
I disagree. I think that you'd need to prove the opposite; that keeping the catty emails and evidence of crimes secret improved the security of the US. If it didn't, the emails shouldn't have been secret, even if they were at the second-lowest grade of classification. Improved, or kept from being reduced? There is a difference. If those e-mails do not hurt security or relations you have to remember that when making the decision keep them secret you don't get the benefit of hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 12, 2010 22:58:36 GMT -5
I disagree. I think that you'd need to prove the opposite; that keeping the catty emails and evidence of crimes secret improved the security of the US. If it didn't, the emails shouldn't have been secret, even if they were at the second-lowest grade of classification. Improved, or kept from being reduced? There is a difference. If those e-mails do not hurt security or relations you have to remember that when making the decision keep them secret you don't get the benefit of hindsight. Yes you do! There's nothing at all even remotely urgent about classifying documents secret. You have all the time in the world. I would expect those who decide such things to do their jobs correctly, and I would expect there to be legal punishments if they are too hasty with the 'secret' stamp. Furthermore, I'd expect that, if in doubt, the government would make a document public. Clearly that is not currently occuring. The public's right to know is more important than the government's dreams of privacy, except when the national interest is at stake.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 12, 2010 23:49:11 GMT -5
Yes you do! There's nothing at all even remotely urgent about classifying documents secret. You have all the time in the world. I would expect those who decide such things to do their jobs correctly, and I would expect there to be legal punishments if they are too hasty with the 'secret' stamp. Furthermore, I'd expect that, if in doubt, the government would make a document public. Clearly that is not currently occuring. The public's right to know is more important than the government's dreams of privacy, except when the national interest is at stake. How do you figure you have all the time in the world? If a document is not classified then it is available for people to see. Classifying something after it is known is worthless. When in doubt, it is always better to error on the side of caution.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Dec 13, 2010 5:30:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Dec 13, 2010 6:41:46 GMT -5
Missing the real issue. Yes it is absolutely unlawful to steal state secrets and doing so should result in arrest and prosecution. What is not clear is whether or not it is illegal to publish such information. Wikileaks did NOT steal the information; it was given to them unsolicited. It is not clear if Wikileaks is guilty of anything at all under US law. Well, in New York Times Co. v. United States the Supreme Court ruled (in a series of concurring opinions) that the government could not prevent the New York Times from publishing the so-called "Pentagon Papers" that were leaked to them because the government failed to show that the publishing of such materials would cause "grave and irreparable" danger. On a side note, thanks to Wikileaks we know the kind of powerful hold Royal Dutch Shell has over the country of Nigeria: www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spyingI dunno if that's exactly what you'd call a powerful hold over someone. Oil production contributes about 25% of Nigeria's GDP and about 2/3 of the Government's revenue, but it's not like Shell's running the joint. It's not even like they're meddling with policy from inside. You also have to consider that it's a country with an ongoing civil war, and Shell (and other oil companies) have literally tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure they need to protect, and considering what happened in Russia where they invited companies like BP in to modernise their gas and oil industry, and then once the infrastructure had been built, changed their mind and booted them out and resumed sole ownership of the fields (without any form of compensation or redress). Frankly if anyone should be shitting bricks about Nigeria, it should be the US as the world's largest oil consumer and importer given Nigeria's civil unrest and their daily production of 2m+ barrels a day is too large a slack to be taken up instantaneously by other OPEC members if they ceased to produce. Strategic stocks would need to be released, Saudi Arabia would need to be begged to keep the price under $100 long-term, and even that would probably fail.
|
|