Wikileaks - latest leak

[Glaucus]

In my view, a government is a servant of the people who elect it. If it's doing things it doesn't want it's people to know about, perhaps it shouldn't be doing it?

All though I agree you can;t trust governments.
That does not mean they should or can release everything they are doing. It's just not possible and it certainly isn't possible for them to stop such activity.
That comment is based on a massive over simplification of how government and the world works and if you actually thought about it for 5 seconds realise how this can not happen.

 

[kibblerok]

It doesn't want other nations knowing them and using them against the very people they are sworn to protect.

Releasing these documents puts people who are trying to protect you at risk.

Who's trying to protect who, and why do we need protecting?

 

[Glaucus]

Doesn't matter what government made the document ... for instance, why not release the audio/transcript/minutes of the conversations between Bush and Blair prior to Iraq ... you can blank out any bits that are sensitive to current military activities (such as positions/tactics) ...

The ONLY reason to keep something secret is if it contains military/technological information or identifies/positions/etc of informants.

And even then, such information should be released down the line once it is of no use (ie release info about informants during WW2, etc)

So as long as it doesn't contain technical data it's ok to release information that could start wars. really, have you thought about this, I know where you are coming from. But the ideology is far to over simplified and is just not good for the country or world.

 

[Castiel]

And even then, such information should be released down the line once it is of no use (ie release info about informants during WW2, etc)

Interesting, do you know what the Russian Mafia do to families with a history of informing for the Nazi's?

Don't be so naive to think that hatred doesn't cross generations. sometimes things are best left alone.

 

[Surfer]

Many of the documents haven't been said or made by the current goverment. Other documents are for in house use only and are secret for a reason.
Just like talking behind a friends back, fine if they don't find out, but causes a fight if it gets out. Such information has to be discussed, but can be devastating if it gets out.

Discussing a friend's situation or problem behind their back with a view to helping them is one thing....

Slagging them off behind the friend's back is a completely different kettle of fish!

 

[Castiel]

Who's trying to protect who, and why do we need protecting?

Behave yourself.

 

[Tefal]

Who's trying to protect who, and why do we need protecting?

undercover police officers for example.

Secrecy is the only reason they don't end up as a very grisly crime scene.

 

[Glaucus]

Discussing a friend's situation or problem behind their back with a view to helping them is one thing....

Slagging them off behind the friend's back is a completely different kettle of fish!

and both can cause fights, especially when your taking about countrys and leaders and what they might do with their weapons, people or anything else. These things still need to be discussed.

Do you think the planning and what was being discussed in the cold war, wouldn't in itself of started it, if it had been found by the other side.

 

[Surfer]

and both can cause fights, especially when your taking about countrys and leaders and what they might do with their weapons, people or anything else. These things still need to be discussed.

Do you think the planning and what was being discussed in the cold war, wouldn't in itself of started it, if it had been found by the other side.

Both can cause fights but one is fine and the other is not. One is a friend, the other a duplicitious weasel.

I'm referring only to situations whereby the secrecy involves so-called close allies and friendships (in international relations terms)


So given the above the cold war example doesn't apply. I'm not saying there is not a need for secrecy between countries but the US slagging off a country (or country's leader) that is a close friend isn't about protecting the US from threats at all is it?

Bearing in mind though we havent seen the details of the leak.

 

[Glaucus]

Both can cause fights but one is fine and the other is not. One is a friend, the other a duplicitious weasel.

even if you say the other isn't alight, which I would disagree with. i expect we have slagged the USA of in private about many things. Especially weapon supply and technical data to us.

You think it should be released because you don't agree, Regardless of the consequences. crazy.

if you someone slaged of a mate to you and you new that mate was unstable and could cause huge problems, possibly even lose it and beat the other guy up. you would tell them?
Now size that up to countries with millions of people, hugely complicated internal and external politics and the fact it could be individuals saying it and not a government policy.

 

[Surfer]

even if you say the other isn't alight, which I would disagree with. i expect we have slagged the USA of in private about many things. Especially weapon supply and technical data to us.

What kind of slagging off? Criticism of operational procedures?

You think it should be released because you don't agree, Regardless of the consequences. crazy.

Where do i say that?

if you someone slaged of a mate to you and you new that mate was unstable and could cause huge problems, possibly even lose it and beat the other guy up. you would tell them?
Now size that up to countries with millions of people, hugely complicated internal and external politics and the fact it could be individuals saying it and not a government policy.

In english?

nevermind.. i'll translate

If the US slagged off the UK to you (France) and you knew that the UK was an unstable state and prone to acts of aggression against other friendly countries would you pass on the information to the UK about the US?

1. No
2. The UK isnt an unstable friend, its a stout and loyal ally of the US and the US has metaphorically stabbed it in the back. (if certain wikileaks allegations are true )

3. I said it before, but i'll say it again. Secrecy, spying and duplicitous and dishonourable behaviour against a country which is considered our friend is not on.

However spying and other covert activities is a common tool between countries where the relationship is admitted to be somewhat "frosty" e.g. US and USSR cold war.

 

[nydryl]

That's an oxymoron

It is and it isn't

Sensitive information regarding international relations doesn't need to be aired to the general public whereas if your local MP is spending £3k on toilet paper you ought to be privvy to such information.

 

[Glaucus]

Make up any e ample you want. You may not think it is on. But it happens in all walks of life and could cause tension. Yet you think it should be released anyway.

 

[ianh]

This is a good example just released - The Saudi's told the US to bomb Iran to stop it's nuclear work, I think that'll peeve Iran off just a bit, don't you Things like this can't be good. I have no objection to facts being released (i.e the war reports) but this is effectively Gossip at a national level.

 

[nydryl]

Make up any e ample you want. You may not think it is on. But it happens in all walks of life and could cause tension. Yet you think it should be released anyway.

If that's aimed at my comment you misunderstand. I can't stand wikileaks. Some information should remain undisclosed.

 

[Glaucus]

Aimed at surfer

 

[*Moangroan*]

This is just all a rouse so thepowers that be can clamp down on web censorship in the guise of risks to security.

 

[Dolph]

This is just all a rouse so thepowers that be can clamp down on web censorship in the guise of risks to security.

Is there a source for that in the leak?

 

[fez]

so why quote the other post?



Nope merely pointing out how cT people always choose the most bizarrely complex method and least secure involving the biggest number of people possible.


For example



Really?

About sums up that theory.

Do you just look for a fight in everything? I mentioned assassination which you had referenced previously and you decide that I hadnt quoted the actual post I referenced so that was bad. You knew that you had mentioned it so why be so pedantic about it.

I can't even tell if you are being whimsical with your last little bit about the princess Di thing. I wasn't in any way suggesting our secret service had anything to do with pricess dianna and yes I have seen that mitchell and web sketch.

What are you actually saying other than trying to annoy others by picking at small ambiguities in their choice of words?

 

[Klo]

This will be an interesting few days...