3 ms·

>But they're doing reckless crazy stupid shit here. Everyone regardless of politics should be able to see that, if you look at the summaries of what they releas

>But they're doing reckless crazy stupid shit here. Everyone regardless of politics should be able to see that, if you look at the summaries of what they released. Looking at things objectively isn't "partisan stuff". I'm hearing the same hysteria that accompanied the Afghan War Diary release, yet noone was ever able to point out one life lost because of that leak. Wikileaks is doing even more this time to mitigate any fallout and their work is going to save many lives in the long term. For example: the next time the US decides it wants to invade another country they might find it harder to justify. Anti-Wikileaks hysteria reminds me of the way child porn has been used to justify the creation of state censorship mechanisms: an attempt to use edge cases to justify protecting the interests of the status quo.

lionhearted 16y ago
> Looking at things objectively isn't "partisan stuff". It's okay to dislike the U.S. government, be pro-Wikileaks, and think Wikileaks still did some stupid stuff here. > For example: the next time the US decides it wants to invade another country they might find it harder to justify. And the next time they try to negotiate nuclear disarmament with Pakistan, the Pakistani negotiator has to be worried about looking weak publicly. I can't believe I'm defending the U.S. government here, I'm quite a critic of it. But they actually do do lots of good stuff. Working to protect Google and internet infrastructure and working for nuclear disarmament are good things. Working to take out people who blow up buses of school children in Israel is a good thing. You can be a critic of the U.S. government and think Wikileaks is being reckless here. The positions aren't incompatible.
- pavs 16y ago
  possibility of disarmament Pakistani nuclear is the funniest thing I have read in some time. In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and training them how to secure their nuclear facilities. How about the so-called terrorist who have been funded by USA government in the first place? Securing internet infrastructure has less to do with the "good stuff" and more to do with self preservation. As for Nuclear disarmament, USA don't really have a moral high ground telling other countries to not produce nuclear weapons when they are sitting on the one of the largest nuclear stockpile (and actively developing new generations of nuclear weapons) and the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons during a war. You can cherry pick "good stuff" USA government did, but the end up day if were to draw a line and sum up the "good stuff" and the bad stuff the government did, the bad stuff overwhelms what you claim to be "good stuff".
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    > possibility of disarmament Pakistani nuclear is the funniest thing I have read in some time. In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and training them how to secure their nuclear facilities. So I take it you didn't actually read the articles or dispatches at all? This was the very first part of the New York Times summary: > A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”
    - pavs 16y ago
      This has nothing to do with disarmament.
      - lionhearted 16y ago
        Trying to remove weapons-grade uranium that you're afraid can be used in nuclear weapons doesn't have anything to do with disarmament? C'mon dude. Seriously. Anyway, I'm done here. I'm getting my morning started in Malaysia, and I need a little extra time to make sure there aren't any dispatches likely to cause a storm this morning in Kuala Lumpur.
        gwern 16y ago
        Unless your national leader is one of those discussed in the first batch of leaks, I don't see Malaysia mentioned in any of the upcoming topic-specific leaks, so you'll have a breather: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8165041/Embarrassment-for-Coalition-as-Wikileaks-prepares-to-release-secret-US-papers.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8165041/...
        deleted 16y ago
- mcantelon 16y ago
  >You can be a critic of the U.S. government and think Wikileaks is being reckless here. I would say that if you're a critic of the US government you recognize the utility of exposing the attempts by the US to steal the credit card numbers and biometrics of UN leaders (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable...), attempts to steal the DNA of African leaders (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202678 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/...) etc. This kind of criminal activity shows a large disrespect for the rest of the world. >I can't believe I'm defending the U.S. government here, I'm quite a critic of it. But they actually do do lots of good stuff. The US, like any state, does what it needs to to protect its interests. For example, the US fights against corruption in some foreign countries. The reason they do this is because corruption makes it harder for US corporations to penetrate the corrupt state's market. The US is fine with corruption when it benefits them. The US state's work for disarmament is similar. They wish to maintain the advantage of their own nuclear arsenal, so they work to prevent those not on their team from acquiring nuclear weapons. It's self interest. A state is like a business. With guns. And each state has a brand that it promotes. >You can be a critic of the U.S. government and think Wikileaks is being reckless here. The real recklessness in this case is the laughably poor opsec of the US. If Wikileaks was able to get ahold of this info it's very likely that foreign intel has historically as well.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
GHFigs 16y ago
Looking at things objectively isn't "partisan stuff". Objectively, any information revealed about an informant puts that informant at greater risk of exposure. You can argue the trade-off all you like, but to ignore what you're trading away is not being objective.

lionhearted 16y ago

> Looking at things objectively isn't "partisan stuff". It's okay to dislike the U.S. government, be pro-Wikileaks, and think Wikileaks still did some stupid stuff here. > For example: the next time the US decides it wants to invade another country they might find it harder to justify. And the next time they try to negotiate nuclear disarmament with Pakistan, the Pakistani negotiator has to be worried about looking weak publicly. I can't believe I'm defending the U.S. government here, I'm quite a critic of it. But they actually do do lots of good stuff. Working to protect Google and internet infrastructure and working for nuclear disarmament are good things. Working to take out people who blow up buses of school children in Israel is a good thing. You can be a critic of the U.S. government and think Wikileaks is being reckless here. The positions aren't incompatible.

pavs 16y ago
possibility of disarmament Pakistani nuclear is the funniest thing I have read in some time. In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and training them how to secure their nuclear facilities. How about the so-called terrorist who have been funded by USA government in the first place? Securing internet infrastructure has less to do with the "good stuff" and more to do with self preservation. As for Nuclear disarmament, USA don't really have a moral high ground telling other countries to not produce nuclear weapons when they are sitting on the one of the largest nuclear stockpile (and actively developing new generations of nuclear weapons) and the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons during a war. You can cherry pick "good stuff" USA government did, but the end up day if were to draw a line and sum up the "good stuff" and the bad stuff the government did, the bad stuff overwhelms what you claim to be "good stuff".
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > possibility of disarmament Pakistani nuclear is the funniest thing I have read in some time. In case you don't know USA is _heavily_ investing on Pakistan and training them how to secure their nuclear facilities. So I take it you didn't actually read the articles or dispatches at all? This was the very first part of the New York Times summary: > A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”
  - pavs 16y ago
    This has nothing to do with disarmament.
    - lionhearted 16y ago
      Trying to remove weapons-grade uranium that you're afraid can be used in nuclear weapons doesn't have anything to do with disarmament? C'mon dude. Seriously. Anyway, I'm done here. I'm getting my morning started in Malaysia, and I need a little extra time to make sure there aren't any dispatches likely to cause a storm this morning in Kuala Lumpur.
      - gwern 16y ago
        Unless your national leader is one of those discussed in the first batch of leaks, I don't see Malaysia mentioned in any of the upcoming topic-specific leaks, so you'll have a breather: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8165041/Embarrassment-for-Coalition-as-Wikileaks-prepares-to-release-secret-US-papers.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8165041/...
      - deleted 16y ago
mcantelon 16y ago
>You can be a critic of the U.S. government and think Wikileaks is being reckless here. I would say that if you're a critic of the US government you recognize the utility of exposing the attempts by the US to steal the credit card numbers and biometrics of UN leaders (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable...), attempts to steal the DNA of African leaders (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202678 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/...) etc. This kind of criminal activity shows a large disrespect for the rest of the world. >I can't believe I'm defending the U.S. government here, I'm quite a critic of it. But they actually do do lots of good stuff. The US, like any state, does what it needs to to protect its interests. For example, the US fights against corruption in some foreign countries. The reason they do this is because corruption makes it harder for US corporations to penetrate the corrupt state's market. The US is fine with corruption when it benefits them. The US state's work for disarmament is similar. They wish to maintain the advantage of their own nuclear arsenal, so they work to prevent those not on their team from acquiring nuclear weapons. It's self interest. A state is like a business. With guns. And each state has a brand that it promotes. >You can be a critic of the U.S. government and think Wikileaks is being reckless here. The real recklessness in this case is the laughably poor opsec of the US. If Wikileaks was able to get ahold of this info it's very likely that foreign intel has historically as well.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

GHFigs 16y ago

Looking at things objectively isn't "partisan stuff". Objectively, any information revealed about an informant puts that informant at greater risk of exposure. You can argue the trade-off all you like, but to ignore what you're trading away is not being objective.