5 ms·
This is the second time that I read that WikiLeaks is classified as "hostile intelligence agency". Isn't the purpose of intelligence to gather information to ga
by sanbor 9y ago
This is the second time that I read that WikiLeaks is classified as "hostile intelligence agency". Isn't the purpose of intelligence to gather information to gain advantage over adversaries? It sounds to me like a redundant term like "hostile military". And BTW WikiLeaks leaks are public so all other intelligence agencies and citizens can learn while state agencies try to keep things obscure as much as possible. Who's hostile?
- emacsgifs 9y agoThe "hostile" framing device is a fairly naked attempt to build an ongoing narrative. I doubt it needs pointing out that the reason WikiLeaks exists is because many (most, all?) organs of "public " service are anything but.
- skybrian 9y agoIt doesn't seem that hard to understand? In the context of a U.S. Congressional hearing, "hostile" probably means "hostile to the U.S."
- sanbor 9y agoGood point! But depending on your interests/POW you could consider NSA as "hostile to the U.S." given they're spying on their own citizens.
- rtpg 9y agoIf an American spy plane showed up over the Soviet Union, the plane would get shot at. If an American spy plane showed up over France, they wouldn't get shot at. Of course there's an understanding that intelligence agencies are all ultimately looking at everything, but there's a degree of cooperation. Even in the current state of affairs Russian and American intel agencies work together on anti-terrorism stuff. However, if the other group is clearly actively against you, then it's harder to work with them. It's safe to say at this point, given the evidence out ther, that WikiLeaks does work with an objective of embarassing American interests.
- observation 9y ago> WikiLeaks does work with an objective of embarassing American interests. I think it's a contrarian media organization. I recall when the conservatives were all "kill this guy" during the Bush administration, now they they think he's the rescuer of Western Civilization. If you have any belief in 'checks and balances' as an anti-corruption mechanism then this is a positive. Who could regulate the 4th Estate, the academies? Not the government, they would be accused of corruption or despotism. Enter WL. Think about it: who is 'the establishment'. It can't be the President/White House can it, not when the majority of pundits, journalists and intellectuals were against him.
- kharms 9y agoWikileaks leaks are selective. "Public" only describes the things they release. The hostility is in the choice of releases.
- Natsu 9y agoThey only publish true stuff, yes, but that's not normally what one means by 'selective'. They're not a hacking organization, they don't go around hacking people to obtain stuff. And yes, someone gave them some Russian stuff not too long ago.
- noam87 9y agoThere's no denying they promote a certain narrative in their PR, but are there known examples of leaks withheld by Wiki Leaks, where the whistleblower had to go elsewhere?
- kharms 9y agoHere is one example, where they refused to publish leaks from/about Russia: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le... I recall another case when Wikileaks itself advertised a Russia leak and then never released anything.
- vita17 9y ago"Hostile" as in "currently harmful to my political party".
- rrhd 9y agoHostile as in, currently harmful to US efforts worldwide. Hostile as in, attempted to influence US elections.
- rrhd 9y agoI doubt you would classify other members of the five eys as hostile, for example.