You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 02:50:14 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?  (Read 12377 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dashenka

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #150 on: January 12, 2011, 08:39:38 AM »

How are the newspapers reporting it over there? I've been led to believe by other Russians that Putin's connections aren't exactly secret.

Those are the same Russians as the Americans who are convinced the Republicans had something to do with the assault on that Democrat woman.

There are people who don't like Putin, saying he's a criminal and has connections to the mafia and all and there is people, like me, who see what the man actually did for the country, regardless of the accused ties to the mafia which I don't believe. He doubled the GDP of Russia in 8 years, poverty was cut down by half and average wages gone from $18 a month to $240 a month...


anyway that wasn't the question  :-[

Mostly they report about it being an outrage that the American ambassador had said things like that and want a public apology from the man. Other's, like Kasparov, use it for their own cause saying that if even the US know about it, how come some Russians still support him...

Offline Kate

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #151 on: January 13, 2011, 09:44:36 AM »
Quote
Civilians paying taxes are not responsible for what their politicians do once in office.

Nor are the politicians responsible for anything bad they do .. to all who don't know of it, not only having actions secret but in the other hand also having the choice of who should and shouldn't know creates elitism, without responsibility.

Would you trust someone who said:

     "Trust me that you shouldn't be trusted to know the truth nor make decisions of a manner on on subjects which are important
      which you don't need to worry your little head about, and no we are not going to give this power or privilege away.
      We deserve it, we are doing good for um ... the nation and humanity ... um yes thats how YOU Should think of it ... trust me."

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #152 on: January 13, 2011, 09:52:31 AM »
I realize that you are not American (from your post in the 'If I were President' thread) but I think it's important to mention that politicians in America are held accountable by their constituents for their actions.  It's possible, and not that hard, to get the voting record of any member of Congress.  If a politician runs on a 'health care reform' platform, and then consistently votes against health reform, he or she doesn't get elected the next year.  At the very least, behavior like that gets trotted out by whoever is running against them (and I saw enough of those ads to choke a horse this past election).  Getting voted into office doesn't mean that the person has a free pass to do whatever they like without consequence.

Offline Bayushi

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #153 on: January 13, 2011, 10:18:35 AM »
I realize that you are not American (from your post in the 'If I were President' thread) but I think it's important to mention that politicians in America are held accountable by their constituents for their actions.  It's possible, and not that hard, to get the voting record of any member of Congress.  If a politician runs on a 'health care reform' platform, and then consistently votes against health reform, he or she doesn't get elected the next year.  At the very least, behavior like that gets trotted out by whoever is running against them (and I saw enough of those ads to choke a horse this past election).  Getting voted into office doesn't mean that the person has a free pass to do whatever they like without consequence.

Well, except for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Frankly, their constituents are apparently dumb enough to let partisan politics decide elections, not what their elected representatives actually do.


As for "Freedom of Information", Kate, NO, you do NOT have the right to know what the CIA is doing. They have Congressional Oversight, which means people clamoring for transparency at the one organization that should not be 'transparent' need to stop complaining. It's not happening.

The sad truth is that there have to be things like the CIA and military secrecy in order to preserve the freedoms we enjoy. If Julian Assange doesn't like it, tough s**t.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #154 on: January 13, 2011, 11:00:37 AM »
Well, except for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Frankly, their constituents are apparently dumb enough to let partisan politics decide elections, not what their elected representatives actually do.


As for "Freedom of Information", Kate, NO, you do NOT have the right to know what the CIA is doing. They have Congressional Oversight, which means people clamoring for transparency at the one organization that should not be 'transparent' need to stop complaining. It's not happening.

The sad truth is that there have to be things like the CIA and military secrecy in order to preserve the freedoms we enjoy. If Julian Assange doesn't like it, tough s**t.

I'm not sure about Harry zReid but Nancy Pelosi's home district is nearly all democrat. You have at BEST like a 10% republican vote in it. And she is one of the richest members of congress out there. She's there to stay till she decides to leave.

Offline Zakharra

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #155 on: January 13, 2011, 12:43:45 PM »
Nor are the politicians responsible for anything bad they do .. to all who don't know of it, not only having actions secret but in the other hand also having the choice of who should and shouldn't know creates elitism, without responsibility.

 You seem to be working under several assumptions, Kate. 1; that their constituants do not hold them responsible for their actions (they do, but once in office, the politicians can and sometimes do act contrary to their voters wishes. That can result in them being a one term politician.) 2; that their voting record will not be brought up. In today's tech information enviroment, anything you say and vote for will be brought up. Bet on that.

 
Quote
Would you trust someone who said:

     "Trust me that you shouldn't be trusted to know the truth nor make decisions of a manner on on subjects which are important
      which you don't need to worry your little head about, and no we are not going to give this power or privilege away.
      We deserve it, we are doing good for um ... the nation and humanity ... um yes thats how YOU Should think of it ... trust me."

 Would I trust someone like that? Not really, but not all politicians are like that and there are checks in place to take care of the worst of it. There are forces active that are working to clean up the excesses. Enough people are watching them to make sure of that.

Offline Serephino

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #156 on: January 13, 2011, 10:01:02 PM »
You can look up voting records online.  Congress has a website where you can view every single bill proposed, and how everyone voted.  All a person has to do is go look. 

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #157 on: January 13, 2011, 10:06:35 PM »
Indeed. And trust me, there are a lot of things that you can find out about your representative's voting record. Transparency in congress has been very clear with the growth o the internet.

Offline Will

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #158 on: January 13, 2011, 11:01:16 PM »
You seem to be working under several assumptions, Kate. 1; that their constituants do not hold them responsible for their actions (they do, but once in office, the politicians can and sometimes do act contrary to their voters wishes. That can result in them being a one term politician.) 2; that their voting record will not be brought up. In today's tech information enviroment, anything you say and vote for will be brought up. Bet on that.

 
 Would I trust someone like that? Not really, but not all politicians are like that and there are checks in place to take care of the worst of it. There are forces active that are working to clean up the excesses. Enough people are watching them to make sure of that.

What sort of forces?  I'm honestly curious.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #159 on: January 13, 2011, 11:11:04 PM »
What sort of forces?  I'm honestly curious.

The media for one. Do you honestly think that an elected official could get away with blatantly lying to his constituents without the media turning it into the a full blown circus. One of the reasons that people who were nationally unpopular (like.. the Late Senator Helms, or on the other side of the scales Senator Kennedy) were able to stay in their elected offices were that they served their voters. Did the nation as a whole like them? Nope.

These men stayed in office because they were seen to be serving their districts. Growing up in North Carolina I saw that a lot. I remember more than a few folks saying 'Jesse Helms is a f-ing SOB, but he's OUR SOB."

There are special interests, who are MORE than happy to point out a politician's feet of clay when they go against the people who supported them.

There are the watchdog groups who monitor politician actions and the growth of the internet has actually made it VASTLY easier for a politician's voting record and actions in office to be tracked. Making a law, proposing an act and every other action that they do leaves a paper trail and the US does very well to make most of it transparent to the public with very little lag.

If you want to know what an elected offical thinks or believes, you can check their website, call their offices in their district and check the above mentioned websites.


Offline Will

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #160 on: January 13, 2011, 11:15:06 PM »
I thought we were talking about classified information, not voting records or ideology.  A politician's website isn't going to help me very much there.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #161 on: January 13, 2011, 11:24:08 PM »
I thought we were talking about classified information, not voting records or ideology.  A politician's website isn't going to help me very much there.

You were asking about the 'forces' Zak was explaining to Kate, I merely offered a clearer explanation of that.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #162 on: January 13, 2011, 11:49:22 PM »
      We were talking about how to interpret the impact of release of classified information.  Without a broader claim about American politics (or the state of affairs wherever you wish to measure that impact), it's pretty amorphous.  The US system has some mechanisms for constituents to speak back.  However, there are some issues with this. 

       First, if you respond to Kate by saying that voters do get to decide, how much effect do those votes generally have on the role of the US in the world?  I'm not sure there is such a massive divide here between our parties in how the US treats the rest of the world.  I suppose at one level:  Democrats might be somewhat more likely to pause before declaring the policies of other states to amount to incomprehensible evils or grounds for timeless animosity, to expand foreign aid, to intervene for humanitarian reasons, or to deal with global warming.  However, at a broader level, neither party has fundamentally changed US policy in terms of maintaining global economic inequality, reserving the right to intervene for quite arbitrary reasons in the affairs of foreign governments, or even lately with regard to rendition and telling the whole history of torture after 9/11.  At this level, voters are not even very educated about such things largely as a result of propaganda and federal policy in such things as immigration and education programs. 

      Second, Voters have shown themselves easily manipulated by mass advertising campaigns, fear rhetoric, the timing of economic trends, and general apathy.  Then at least at the presidential level, we might throw in election fraud...

      Third, it is not necessarily true that voters will kick someone out even when they pull a 180 degree turn on a particular issue -- often more than once.  They do not always pay attention that long.  They often decide that some combination of percentages (perhaps a gut feeling) on other issues is more important for them than this one big flaw.  Politicians also misrepresent the issues and what they have actually done.  Then, some of the issues are so technical that the politicians are not very clear themselves.  The details are buried in thousands of pages of documents.  Congressional rules and what is or is not possible under them are esoteric matters for most people. 

      Fourth, yes we were talking about confidential to classified information.  How many elected representatives are fully briefed on all of these matters, until a scandal has already brewed?  How many of them would say "I wasn't on that committee" or "I wasn't privy to that information," and perhaps honestly so?  Many of the matters in question were carried out by appointed officials (at the top levels of agencies) or by career agents with a specific portfolio.  I'm not sure it's always clear that the answer is to go after your congressman, the Secretary of State, or the President.  That might make a little sense in situations say where Hillary signs for apparently just anyone to grab diplomats' credit card numbers and passwords given the opportunity.  Still, it's not entirely clear that it's precisely an elected official putting stuff in play.

     Fifth, assuming we did vote with an informed opinion on those issues in an election that was not highly manipulated through a mass market...  And then, if changing out elected officials does mitigate abuses by leading to changes in other officials...  There is still time lag.  How long would it take for a new leader to replace the policies or people in question?  Could they do it in one term and would it be fully institutionalized in two?  In the meantime, the shady stuff continues or has been swept under the rug so we don't know quite how to avoid it next time there is a similar problem (witness vanished torture tapes).  Then if the public is actually watching, it might take them a couple more years (or many) to evaluate whether the change in leaders really resulted in technical changes and whether those really created a situation they prefer.  Meanwhile, sixteen other issues pop up or the economy turns sour, they forget and/or vote that administration back out anyway. 

     
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 11:50:24 PM by kylie »

Offline Bayushi

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #163 on: January 14, 2011, 12:43:35 AM »
       First, if you respond to Kate by saying that voters do get to decide, how much effect do those votes generally have on the role of the US in the world?  I'm not sure there is such a massive divide here between our parties in how the US treats the rest of the world.  I suppose at one level:  Democrats might be somewhat more likely to pause before declaring the policies of other states to amount to incomprehensible evils or grounds for timeless animosity, to expand foreign aid, to intervene for humanitarian reasons, or to deal with global warming.  However, at a broader level, neither party has fundamentally changed US policy in terms of maintaining global economic inequality, reserving the right to intervene for quite arbitrary reasons in the affairs of foreign governments, or even lately with regard to rendition and telling the whole history of torture after 9/11.  At this level, voters are not even very educated about such things largely as a result of propaganda and federal policy in such things as immigration and education programs.

I probably won't be the first "conservative" (I'm more Libertarian) to say this, but GW Bush was not a conservative. His actions ran the gamut of the political spectrum. His religious stance stood far right, while his fiscal policy was far left.

The problem with things like Federal policy on things like immigration and education is that Big Daddy Government says one thing, then does another. We have Federal laws regarding immigration enforcement, which are not followed. Then there are abominations like No Child Left Behind.

      Second, Voters have shown themselves easily manipulated by mass advertising campaigns, fear rhetoric, the timing of economic trends, and general apathy.  Then at least at the presidential level, we might throw in election fraud...

Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid. People can be made to believe any lie because they want to believe it is true, or because they are afraid that it is true.

      Third, it is not necessarily true that voters will kick someone out even when they pull a 180 degree turn on a particular issue -- often more than once.  They do not always pay attention that long.  They often decide that some combination of percentages (perhaps a gut feeling) on other issues is more important for them than this one big flaw.  Politicians also misrepresent the issues and what they have actually done.  Then, some of the issues are so technical that the politicians are not very clear themselves.  The details are buried in thousands of pages of documents.  Congressional rules and what is or is not possible under them are esoteric matters for most people.

*cough* Arlen Specter *cough* Not to mention John McCain.

      Fourth, yes we were talking about confidential to classified information.  How many elected representatives are fully briefed on all of these matters, until a scandal has already brewed?  How many of them would say "I wasn't on that committee" or "I wasn't privy to that information," and perhaps honestly so?  Many of the matters in question were carried out by appointed officials (at the top levels of agencies) or by career agents with a specific portfolio.  I'm not sure it's always clear that the answer is to go after your congressman, the Secretary of State, or the President.  That might make a little sense in situations say where Hillary signs for apparently just anyone to grab diplomats' credit card numbers and passwords given the opportunity.  Still, it's not entirely clear that it's precisely an elected official putting stuff in play.

We have Congressional Oversight committees. Things such as Rendition and 'enhanced interrogation' MUST go through Oversight before being put into play.

For Congress critters that sit on the Oversight committees to claim that they weren't told is horse manure. I'm looking at you, Pelosi.

     Fifth, assuming we did vote with an informed opinion on those issues in an election that was not highly manipulated through a mass market...  And then, if changing out elected officials does mitigate abuses by leading to changes in other officials...  There is still time lag.  How long would it take for a new leader to replace the policies or people in question?  Could they do it in one term and would it be fully institutionalized in two?  In the meantime, the shady stuff continues or has been swept under the rug so we don't know quite how to avoid it next time there is a similar problem (witness vanished torture tapes).  Then if the public is actually watching, it might take them a couple more years (or many) to evaluate whether the change in leaders really resulted in technical changes and whether those really created a situation they prefer.  Meanwhile, sixteen other issues pop up or the economy turns sour, they forget and/or vote that administration back out anyway.

Policies can be changed in the time it takes to draft the new policies. As for staffers and bureaucrats and other officials, well, that's the danger of creeping bureaucracy. We keep getting piled under more and more bureaucracy, and there rarely seems to be an end in sight. The overall size of government needs to be drastically reduced. Yesterday.

Offline Kate

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #164 on: January 14, 2011, 04:15:36 AM »
Quote
  It's possible, and not that hard, to get the voting record of any member of Congress.  If a politician runs on a 'health care reform' platform, and then consistently votes against health reform, he or she doesn't get elected the next year.

- Because the actions are transparent

Quote
As for "Freedom of Information", Kate, NO, you do NOT have the right to know what the CIA is doing. They have Congressional Oversight, which means people clamoring for transparency at the one organization that should not be 'transparent' need to stop complaining. It's not happening.

- Not within current legistlation. I was debating what should be, not what is.

Quote
You seem to be working under several assumptions, Kate. 1; that their constituants do not hold them responsible for their actions (they do, but once in office, the politicians can and sometimes do act contrary to their voters wishes. That can result in them being a one term politician.) 2; that their voting record will not be brought up. In today's tech information enviroment, anything you say and vote for will be brought up. Bet on that.

= A process Which Wikileaks aids not hinders.

Quote
Would I trust someone like that? Not really, but not all politicians are like that and there are checks in place to take care of the worst of it. There are forces active that are working to clean up the excesses. Enough people are watching them to make sure of that.

- Wikileaks being one of them.

Quote
I thought we were talking about classified information, not voting records or ideology.  A politician's website isn't going to help me very much there.

- Classified information. Hmm, personally I think the more mature a society gets the less information would be deemed classified. Assuming its an fundamental for a stable progressive society is ... an assumption, a choice. Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ? While having Nukes one can launch remotely using some weird key ? Yes. Going forward however is what I was thinking wiki-leaks saga's could aid in.

Wiki-leaks = Champion.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 04:17:10 AM by Kate »

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #165 on: January 14, 2011, 05:13:48 AM »
Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ?

Wiki-leaks = Champion.

Yes. Absolutely yes.  If we don't classify certain types of information, which includes certain government records, then people are going to use it for terrible means against innocent people.  Plain and simple.  It has happened in history, it will happen again.  Really, Kate, what kind of a dream world do you live in where such transparency of information can be accomplished?  Show me one real world incident where this has proven successful and not just some metaphysical dribble that makes very little sense.

Offline Kate

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #166 on: January 14, 2011, 06:01:58 AM »
Quote
Show me one real world incident where this has proven successful and not just some metaphysical dribble that makes very little sense.

- Little sense for those of such attitude.

Slavery was deemed an unavoidable aspect of the world while other countries adopted it.

If your nation was to compete admits others developing so fast using slave labor, what choice did one have ?

There was a time none could imagine it conceivable that a powerful society couldn't be based on some very firmly placed "lower classes"

Egypt, Rome and later colonial pushes proved the success of this methodology.

No example of a powerful society that didn't do likewise existed. When it was proposed in English parliament that slavery should be abolished 
the retort was simple, for a stable, powerful and competitive nation to exist, slavery was unavoidable.

How did it disappear ?


Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #167 on: January 14, 2011, 07:37:42 AM »
       Akiko, I'm not sure if you're looking for a separate debate about who has kept how many of the worst secrets, or just chiming in to say the left as well as the right has them.  For my part, I was not trying to say that only the right-ish range of the spectrum has kept a few nasty secrets.  In fact, I said exactly the opposite in a wave to ongoing issues with rendition (we could add Guantanamo under that area) and Hillary. 

      For the present discussion:  If the left as well as the right has some management and honesty issues, if bureaucracy is bigger than the average administrator's or the average voter's field of view, that's another bunch of potential reasons that maybe we should be interested in other parties (perhaps often enough, foreign entities) pointing out when the government's laundry has been remaining dirty in recent history (or today).

Offline Zakharra

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #168 on: January 14, 2011, 09:40:21 AM »
Quote
- Classified information. Hmm, personally I think the more mature a society gets the less information would be deemed classified. Assuming its an fundamental for a stable progressive society is ... an assumption, a choice. Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ? While having Nukes one can launch remotely using some weird key ? Yes. Going forward however is what I was thinking wiki-leaks saga's could aid in.

Wiki-leaks = Champion.

 I'll say that is what you want it to be. Unfortunately, that type of society is unlikely to ever exist.  For it to happen, people would have to stop being.. well, People, and from different nations/groups. No wars would exist, no violence or need for police, secret services and intelligence agencies.  Highly unlikely to ever exist.

 Wiki-leaks is running the edge of what a lot of people would consider good. By the messages and information it does release, sooner or later something will be dropped in the internet that is very damaging and will get a lot of people killed.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 03:46:22 PM by Zakharra »

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #169 on: January 14, 2011, 03:25:22 PM »
- Little sense for those of such attitude.

Slavery was deemed an unavoidable aspect of the world while other countries adopted it.

If your nation was to compete admits others developing so fast using slave labor, what choice did one have ?

There was a time none could imagine it conceivable that a powerful society couldn't be based on some very firmly placed "lower classes"

Egypt, Rome and later colonial pushes proved the success of this methodology.

No example of a powerful society that didn't do likewise existed. When it was proposed in English parliament that slavery should be abolished 
the retort was simple, for a stable, powerful and competitive nation to exist, slavery was unavoidable.

How did it disappear ?

You make little sense as it is with your comparison.  Really, how is that even valid for what I asked?  You have yet to give us any real world examples of where your ideas for societies and transparency have been successful.  If you can't back up your points with facts and only speculation and honest to god confusing statements, then why are you even trying to counter agree a valid point?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 08:24:47 PM by Silverfyre »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #170 on: January 14, 2011, 09:22:58 PM »
- Little sense for those of such attitude.

Slavery was deemed an unavoidable aspect of the world while other countries adopted it.

If your nation was to compete admits others developing so fast using slave labor, what choice did one have ?

There was a time none could imagine it conceivable that a powerful society couldn't be based on some very firmly placed "lower classes"

Egypt, Rome and later colonial pushes proved the success of this methodology.

No example of a powerful society that didn't do likewise existed. When it was proposed in English parliament that slavery should be abolished 
the retort was simple, for a stable, powerful and competitive nation to exist, slavery was unavoidable.

How did it disappear ?

Uh Kate, how does that apply to Silverfyre's question? You're citing ancient history and society when he was asking for an example of a real world modern totally transparent society that works.


Offline Kate

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #171 on: January 14, 2011, 11:05:40 PM »
Quote
Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ? While having Nukes one can launch remotely using some weird key ? Yes. Going forward however is what I was thinking wiki-leaks saga's could aid in.

Wiki-leaks = Champion.
was my original quote

Quote
Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ?

Wiki-leaks = Champion.
- was her "take" on my quote

leaving

Quote
While having Nukes one can launch remotely using some weird key ? Yes. Going forward however is what I was thinking wiki-leaks saga's could aid in.
- out intentionally

- which is principal to the context of my statement.

Offline Inerrant Lust

Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #172 on: January 15, 2011, 02:14:23 AM »
Quote
WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?

Neither.

Self-serving, self-righteous, ignorant gossip-mongers.

Quote
Is there a need for classified information RIGHT now ?


Yes.

Yes. There is.

While total government secrecy without oversight is naturally abhorrable...

The exact opposite (complete government transparency) is, quite frankly, stupid. Suicidal. Self-defeating.

Democracy is one of the frailest, most powerless government in existence. The closer you come to true democracy, the closer you get to literally empowering your enemies to destroy it (Precedence: Democratic Germany empowered Adolf Hitler to create a totalitarian state... because of the public support of the masses, ORDINARY PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME AND YOUR MOM AND MY UNCLE AND SO ON...!)

Given the fact that Wikileaks has not simply been shut down (despite it being constitutionally legal to do so, given the contract that they signed NOT to disclose this information), we're already empowering people who undermine the government's international gravity and diplomatic pull. So.. thanks for making us look internationally retarded, Wikileaks. Russia and China doesn't have this kind of problem.

Speaking of segues, So let's look at China. They censor the crap out of their country. While morally deplorable, they are in fact much more stable than they would be otherwise. (Not that I'm saying China's particularly prosperous, but they are more stable for censoring their people than they would be if they didn't.)

See how the North Vietnamese yesterday and the Insurgency today use our own media to demonize the war and demoralize the people at home? Both wars have been tactically successful, albiet phyrrically due to the impossibly-defined strategic goals and public dissent. A totalitarian dictatorship would not suffer such dissent. War is cruel and ugly, and for that reason Democracy will never be good at it. We're simply not playing by the same rules and we're suffering for it. You can't have a clean war and a successful war at the same time, but the coddled public refuses to accept this fact and expects us to have both.

Quote
In "Counterinsurgencyís Impossible Trilemma," Dr. Lorenzo Zambernardi, an Italian academic now working in the United States, clarifies the tradeoffs involved in counterinsurgency operations.[20] He argues that counterinsurgency involves three main goals, but in real practice a counterinsurgent needs to choose two goals out of three. Relying on economic theory, this is what Zambernardi labels the "impossible trilemma" of counterinsurgency. Specifically, the impossible trilemma suggests that it is impossible to simultaneously achieve: 1) force protection, 2) distinction between enemy combatants and noncombatants, and 3) the physical elimination of insurgents.

According to Zambernardi, in pursuing any two of these three goals, a state must forgo some portion of the third objective. In particular, a state can protect its armed forces while destroying insurgents, but only by indiscriminately killing civilians as the Ottomans, Italians, and Nazis did in the Balkans, Libya, and Eastern Europe. It can choose to protect civilians along with its own armed forces instead, avoiding so-called collateral damage, but only by abandoning the objective of destroying the insurgents. Finally, a state can discriminate between combatants and noncombatants while killing insurgents, but only by increasing the risks for its own troops, as the United States and ISAF did in Afghanistan under the leadership of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. So a country must choose two out of three goals and develop a strategy that can successfully accomplish them, while sacrificing the third objective.

Zambernardiís theory posits that to protect populations, which is necessary to defeat insurgencies, and to physically destroy an insurgency, the counterinsurgentís military forces must be sacrificed, risking the loss of domestic political support.

Popular Support, the currency that Democracy runs on. So... basically, only totalitarian dictatorships can really accomplish a successful counter-insurgency. If someone popped into office right now and started steamrolling over the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan and actually DID completely destroy the insurgency... Americans would vote the guy out of office because he sacrificed a few too many soldiers to do so.

Not that I agree with the war, I just think that if you're going to do something; you better damn well do it RIGHT. No half-ass pussy-footing around. People will die.

Not every secret is some evil conspiracy. Hell, most of the secrets the government keeps are to protect its' people from real, physical EXTERNAL threats, not to protect the bureaucracy itself or some crap like that.

Do you think it's a good idea to put on a map where all the major government facilities are? No, it's not. It's not even a good idea to put on a map where power plants and dams are. So some secrets are good secrets. Most secrets are good secrets. If you're in a fight with someone, do you tell him you're going to aim for his left knee in the opening bout? NO.

Problem is, who decides what's vital to national security and what isn't? Not some self-righteous tool on Wiki-leaks and not the same easily manipulated general public that elected Hitler. So in short... someone who has worked long hours for a good portion of his or her life trying to catch the bad guys and protect the guys wearing the boots downrange. He doesn't get paid very much... and hardly ever gets recognized for all the lives he's saved because his job is top secret.

You'll just have to trust him to make the right choice.

And if you simply CANNOT trust your government... then weaken it. Expose its' secrets so that you can weaken democracy from within. Tell the insurgent that we're about to capture him because we've been using magic wands to divine his location, so he can simply stock up on magic wand defeating devices instead of the magic bean defeating devices he's been using since before you clued him in on our use of magic wands....

Phew. That was a lame metaphor. ANYWAYS!

Wikileaks.

This act has weakened America far beyond whatever benefit the 'illumination of truth' could have ever possibly made.

I'm a pretty big anarchist (considering my profession...), but Wikileaks is self-serving exploitation veiled in truth-seeking nobility.

Besides... The Media is more slimy and dangerous than the government. Rather than merely keeping secrets, the Media is selectively picking and choosing what information is being fed to the public.

The Media is a business, with the interest of self-preservation. Self-preservation is accomplished by making money and staying financially secure.

The Government's interest is also self-preservation... but self-preservation is accomplished through conducting successful political actions and upholding public support.

I'll put my money on the big guys upstairs.

Unless the two assholes join idealogical forces to promote themselves and exploit the public...

In short?

If you want total transparency, you can have it, sure... but at the cost of the government that granted it to you.

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #173 on: January 15, 2011, 08:06:13 AM »
was my original quote
 - was her "take" on my quote

leaving
 - out intentionally

- which is principal to the context of my statement.

You can't even get my gender right with the shiny tag that reads "Knight" under my name so how do you think I'm going to take you seriously over such a heady discussion point?  Yeah, I think I've said my peace here. There is no convincing the blind.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: WikiLeaks: Terrorists or Champions of the Truth?
« Reply #174 on: January 15, 2011, 08:16:48 AM »
... which is one of the fallacies we ask people to avoid in the sticky at the top.

I think this probably needs a lock for a while, guys.