Community | November 29, 2010 | 224 comments

Wikileaks...Wreckless Endangerment or Responsible Journalism?

source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/official-wikileaks-greatest-danger-loss-trust/story?id=12263971

congoboy

http://abcnews.go.com/US/official-wikileaks-greatest-danger-loss-trus...

From unflattering, flippant remarks about foreign leaders to deadly serious security concerns, the massive publication of U.S. diplomatic correspondence by Wikileaks could have one collective and potentially disastrous effect, according to policy officials: the loss of trust in the U.S. government.

"I think the greatest harm ... is the loss of trust that other governments will have in dealing with the United States of America," Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told "Good Morning America" today. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange "is putting into danger our foreign policy and perhaps the lives of certain Americans around the world."

Officials in the Obama administration echoed Hoekstra's worries, citing one correspondence in particular that revealed what appeared to be an attempt by Yemeni leaders to mislead their own people -- potentially damaging U.S. relations with a country that has proved a dangerous front in the war on terror. http://abcnews.go.com/US/official-wikileaks-greatest-danger-loss-trust/story?id=...
  1. groups:
    Community
  2. tags:
    Wikileaks,  WikiLeaks Founder
  3.     
    |

224 comments // Wikileaks...Wreckless Endangerment or Responsible Journalism?

  • CitizenHill
  • ozoneocean
    • +1
      ozoneocean  

    • I say Get the damn truth out there for once!
      It was lies and hiding the facts that led to the Afghan and Iraq wars, lies that led to the funding of the taliban and all the rest of them.

      If wikileaks forces governments to come clean about their real motives instead of hiding behind the same old easy-for-public consumption bullshit, I say publish and be dammed!

    • 2 years ago
  • congoboy
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • ozoneocean:

      while "sunshine is the best disinfectant", we also have to be realistic that a government cannot operate without secrets. some of the most damaging aspects of this "leak" (espionage) was the release of the state department memos, which will totally undermine any trust our allies have to deal with us.

      As for the CLINTON memos, there is something very fishy about those, as mentioned by Ambassador Bolton. If she really did request for the diplomats to spy, then she should resign. But we should be careful in confirming the veracity of those documents. The chain of control has been totally broken, and we can't be sure what is real and what is a forgery at this time.

    • 2 years ago
  • good_stuff
    • +1
      good_stuff  

    • Thanks wikileaks. The people of this country deserve to know what the leaders of the country know. There was no reason that we should not know that every country in the world is pressuring us to attack Iran (exept maybe China and Russia). What we do is another story entirely (I don't think any country should be attack for their potential to "change balance of power in region".

      It amazes me that people are calling Wikileaks an espionage website. Countries should not be in cahoots with other countries in order to lie to their people. How can democracy work if the people do not know what is really going on behind closed doors?

    • 2 years ago
  • congoboy
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • good_stuff:

      first, we don't live in a "democracy", it's a Republic. There is a lot that our elected leaders have to do that they simply CAN'T tell the world about. That's just naive. SO they have to represent our interests.

      Meanwhile, do you think maybe most of those same nations were "pressuring us" to attack Iraq as well? As for Saudi Arabia, those cowards want us to take out Iran's nukes but don't have the cojones to do it themselves, and then they are the biggest funders of al Qa'eda. I don't think that knowing they want us to attack Iran changes anything in my mind.

      I'm sick and tired of the US being the one to have to bankrupt itself to "save" the rest of the world. Call me an isolationist, but I say "AMERICA FOR THE AMERICANS" and fuck the rest of them. Close a bunch of bases, shut down the entitlements programs, cut military spending, reduce taxes and break the knees of the union leaders.

    • 2 years ago
  • Tayllerand
    • -2
      Tayllerand  

    • The only important information that wikileaks put on the net was the video of the reporter who was kill by the US helicopter, the rest of it is pure gossip, about the new information . By the way, before the put those documents on the net they filter the information so dont worry nothing major is going to come out of this.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • Tayllerand:

      nothing important will come out of it? are you nuts? a lot of important stuff has already come out of it.

      the latest was the list of facilities around the world theUSA considers vital. That's just a GREAT list of high priority targets for terrorists. and you say that's not important?

      "HEY AL QAEDA, whatever you do, don't hit these, we consider them vital to our security."

      Nah, nothing to worry about at all.

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
  • congoboy
  • Darevalo
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • I'd like to see Wikileaks publish documents not just from the United States and its allies - but also from governments like the ones in Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Burma, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and others. Having documents from those regimes.... now that would truly be responsible journalism.

      I think it's a great way to expose governments - but I don't think it has done enough to uncover the dirty laundry of some the other governments I listed.

      What goes on in the inner circles of Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, or others? I would welcome those governments' exposure to the world for the frauds they are.

    • 2 years ago
  • Darevalo
  • congoboy
  • navider
    • 0
      navider  

    • I think that this may be the future of true journalism.

      Corporations own and control all media and use it for their own interests, thus we do not have investigative journalism in our news any more.

      These are the stories that many interests want to hide from us because it is against their agenda.

      Why should we ignore the truth?

    • 2 years ago
  • congoboy
  • rasky
    • 0
      rasky  

    • Doesnt it strike anyone as wierd, that the US and most nations have been looking for away to take down Iran for years, but havent been able to build enough support for it. Than all of a sudden Wikileaks drops all this embassy chatter intel warning us of the danger that Iran possess. Suddenly its all the major media networks talk about. The timing of this just seems far to conveinient. I dont trust Iran as far as i can through them, but after all the information thats surfaced about 911, I dont exactly trust are government atm. I am a proud citizen of the US and love the people.

    • 2 years ago
  • congoboy
  • crystalman
    • -3
      crystalman  

    • So now the world has been made aware, thanks to Wikileaks, what anyone with their ear to the ground has known for yonks -- that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have been desperately pressing the US to bomb Iran. The Guardian reports:

      The Saudi king was recorded as having ‘frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons programme’, one cable stated. ‘He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake,' the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with the US general David Petraeus in April 2008.

      ... Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as ‘evil', an ‘existential threat’ and a power that ‘is going to take us to war’... In a conversation with a US diplomat, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain ‘argued forcefully for taking action to terminate their [Iran's] nuclear programme, by whatever means necessary. That programme must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.’ Zeid Rifai, then president of the Jordanian senate, told a senior US official: ‘Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter.’

      In talks with US officials, Abu Dhabi crown prince Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed favoured action against Iran, sooner rather than later. ‘I believe this guy is going to take us to war ... It's a matter of time. Personally, I cannot risk it with a guy like [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. He is young and aggressive.’

      What price the Jewish/Israel/neoncon warmonger conspiracy now??

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • congoboy
    • -1
      congoboy [removed]  
    • crystalman:

      sounds more like the arab/american/jewish/neocon conspiracy. gives it more credence and justification. now if we can get the leftylibs on board we'll have a true quorum. but in the scope of saving the world who needs their input anyway?

    • 2 years ago
  • kurthsb27
  • boothanew
    • +6
      boothanew  

    • Why should we hate the messenger and not the criminal???

      I believe the truth has a right to every man and woman..
      and honestly , none of it surprised me.

    • 2 years ago
  • toastyguy11
    • 0
      toastyguy11  
    • boothanew:

      yeah I agree, if other countries are spying like we are, and they more than likely are, they know all this already. Oh, some of our diplomats said bad things about other countries' leaders? We already know that happens. The gulf countries don't like Iran? We also know that. None of this is surprising

    • 2 years ago
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • kurthsb27
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy [removed]  
    • kurthsb27:

      govermint. dude, anything that would be a security risk. put americans, our soldiers or our allies in harms way. stupid gossip should be sent directly to the national inquirer for disemination and publication for the morons who think they have the right to know any info or secrets the government is hiding from the purple people. no we dont have the "right" to everything. get over it!

    • 2 years ago
  • alexandrek
  • congoboy
  • kurthsb27
  • Nephwrack
  • congoboy
  • Nephwrack
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • Nephwrack
  • Nephwrack
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • Nephwrack
    • 0
      Nephwrack  
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      really. so if everyone appealed to the demons of their selfish nature and only those who paid in to government programs , the world would be a better place? how long would that last exactly?we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves from a foreign invasion, disease would run rampant, poverty would be an epidemic, crime would be out of effing control, and do you honestly think that the country wouldn't be split up into brutal fiefdoms controlled by the highest bidder? do you? how long do you think the "do as thou wild as long as you harm none" maxim would last?

    • 2 years ago
  • toastyguy11
  • Nephwrack
    • +1
      Nephwrack  
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      i've looked around me and if we go any more playground-selfish than the robber barons who rule us already are we'll devolve into barbarism. i mean libertarianism. yeah i said it. what would you opt in to as far as social programs if a libertarian government was elected tomorrow? do you really have that much faith in humanity? or corporations? if you think i like spanklin you're out of your fucking mind. i am a SOCIALIST. not a libertardian.

    • 2 years ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • Nephwrack
    • +1
      Nephwrack  
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      bullshit. our constitution has nothing to do with libertarianism. i'm a socialist out of my own greed? no. i'm just too cynical to believe that libertardianism would work in the 21st century. i am for any government programs that would help the common people, that's part of being a socialist, but i'm also for everyone shouldering the burden that they can. severely limited government breeds tyranny. no questions there. i have read the constitution and it has NOTHING to do with libertarianism. your far right propaganda isn't going to work here. not only did i take civics, but i'm a political science major. how exactly then would you propose that we pay for things like roads? you didnt give any answer. don't try and wave the constitution in my face and assume that i'm some plebeian. the constitution is about as libertarian as the third reich was based on personal liberties.

    • 2 years ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • Nephwrack
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
    • -1
      congoboy [removed]  
    • Image
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      Q:
      Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?"
      Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?" He has never denied it, and it appears that there were several witnesses.
      A:
      Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories.
      The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.

      We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.

      The Quote

      The report was posted on Dec. 5, 2005. According to author, Doug Thompson, unnamed Republican leaders complained to Bush during a White House meeting about "onerous" portions of the USA Patriot Act, prompting the following:

      Capitol Hill Blue: “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

      “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

      “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

      The evidence

      There's no record of Bush ever using these words in public and no other news organization has reported him using them privately. Thompson based his report on three sources whom he didn't name. He gave the date of the quote as "last month," which would put it sometime in November 2005.

      Thompson told us he once removed the story from his Web site when others raised doubts and no other news organization came up with a similar story. But he said he later reinstated it and currently believes it to be true. "I wrote the story and I stand by it," Thompson said in a telephone interview.

      Thompson told us he based the story on e-mail messages from three persons he knows, all of whom claim to have been present at a White House meeting and to have heard Bush make the statement. He said he finds their account credible: "Sometimes I just have to go with my gut, and my gut tells me he did say this."

      The unreliable gut

      Thompson's "gut" has proven to be a unreliable guide in the past, however. He has admitted quoting trusted sources in the past who later turned out to be frauds -- twice.

      * In 2003 Thompson confessed that he had been "conned big time" by a source who claimed to be a former CIA contract consultant named Terrance J. Wilkinson. Thompson quoted this "source" as claiming to be present at two White House meetings in which Bush ignored intelligence officials' doubts about reports of Iraq seeking uranium. Thompson said he had been relying on the same man for two decades and had "no doubt" about his credibility, only to discover that "someone has been running a con on me for 20 some years and I fell for it like a little old lady in a pigeon drop scheme." He erased a number of stories from the site that had been based on information from "Wilkinson" and deleted anonymous quotes given to him by "Wilkinson" from other stories.

      Thompson said then: "It will be a long time (and perhaps never) before I trust someone else who comes forward and offers inside information. The next one who does had better be prepared to produce a birth certificate, a driver's license and his grandmother's maiden name."

      * That was two years before the "piece of paper" quote attributed to three unnamed sources. But, far from demanding solid proof, Thompson continued to quote at least one more phony source until 2006, when a blogger started to question the existence of "George Harleigh." Thompson had for years quoted this supposed former Nixon and Bush appointee. But when no records of such a man could be found, Thompson admitted he had never even met him:

      Doug Thompson (July 26, 2006): We would get quotes via email on current topics. He claimed to be a retired political science professor from Southern Illinois University and an appointee of both the Nixon and Bush administration. I was told he had been checked out. But he wasn't who he said he was and we used his phony name in stories.

      This time Thompson says he revised or deleted 83 stories that had relied on information from "Harleigh" or quoted him.

      In his defense, Thompson says: "[The] 83 articles that we revised or removed represent less than 1 percent of the total production of this Web site over the past 13 years. While errors must never be condoned, a 99+ percent of accuracy is a percentage I can live with. "

      But we also note that Thompson described his own reporting habits this way:

      Doug Thompson (July 26, 2006): I started taking more chances with stories, jumping on ones with sketchy sources, always trying to outdo the last "big" story. I had people willing to help me and they would send me info that I used often on their word alone.

      . . . I wrote stories based on emails from sources I never met. I would meet self-proclaimed "important people" in out-of-the way bars, taking what they told me at face value. Washington is a breeding ground for phonies and wannabes. Too often I printed what they told me because I was so full of myself that I was sure it was true and did not require further verification.

      By Thompson's own account, these were the habits still in place when he reported the "piece of paper" quote in 2005.

      We also note that Thompson expresses extreme personal hostility toward Bush, calling him in one recent article a "madman," a "despot," and "a man without honor, a leader without conscience and a human being without a shred of decency or humanity."

      Thompson is a former Republican congressional aide and political consultant. He was manager of the National Association of Realtors political action committee for several years, ending in 1992. But his experience as a journalist prior to launching Capitol Hill Blue was limited to working as a local reporter at the Roanoke Times and a columnist at The Telegraph (Alton, Ill.), ending in 1981. He currently lives and works from his home near the town of Floyd in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, nearly 290 miles away from the White House.

      Good advice

      Capitol Hill Blue does offer one sound bit of advice, under the heading of "Just the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions):"

      Capitol Hill Blue:

      Should we believe what you print simply because you say it is so?

      Absolutely not. You should read many publications and draw your own conclusions.

      We agree with that. Even taking Thompson at his word, and dismissing the possibility that he just made up his quotes and sources, we conclude that the "piece of paper" quote is probably about as genuine as "George Harleigh" or the phony CIA "source" whom Thompson quoted in 2003.

      -Brooks Jackson
      Sources
      Doug Thompson, "Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’" CapitolHillBlue.com 5 Dec. 2005.

      Doug Thompson, "Conned big time," 9 July 2003.

      Doug Thompson, "Screwing the Pooch," 25 July 2006.

      Doug Thompson, "The eyes of a madman" CapitolHillBlue.com 6 Dec 2007.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a...

    • 2 years ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • congoboy
  • southrabbit
  • congoboy
  • dsfwefk
  • Nephwrack
  • EvilDoer
  • Nephwrack
  • toastyguy11
  • Vierotchka
  • Nephwrack
  • hanhan987
  • Nephwrack
    • +1
      Nephwrack  
    • hanhan987:

      rise up and slay your corporate masters who make you copy-paste till your fingers bleed! use the shoddy pcs they give you to fashion weapons and slay them! workers unite!

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
    • +7
      Nephwrack  

    • i wish that i could post orwell's 1984 in it's entirety here... the conservatards and the libertardians have a lot to learn from that story. see also Fahrenheit 451.

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
  • Nephwrack
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • Nephwrack
  • Nephwrack
  • Nephwrack
    • +3
      Nephwrack  
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      how about sending the kids to public schools.... or getting anything in the mail.... or , worse...what the fuck do you think your childish philosophy would do if a foreign government like say china decided to kick our ass? last i heard the PLA has over 200 million soldiers. i dont fucking care how secure you think the fat nra types make us, our 3 million vs the 200 million hungry, highly trained and infinitely equipped in the PLA reminds me how childish , quaint and antiquated the libertardian ideal is. fuck libertarianism. it might have worked 200 years ago, but then corporatism also did, 200 years ago. if you can give me a few reasons why libertardiasim would work in the modern world, i'll still laugh at you. greedy fucktard.

    • 2 years ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • Nephwrack
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • Nephwrack
  • congoboy
  • Jake_Leonard
    • 0
      Jake_Leonard  
    • Nephwrack:

      While I agree 1984 would provide a great lecture, let's not stoop to their name calling. We have logic, reason, and even ethics on our side (hate to call it a "side," as suggesting exclusivity), and if we're attempting to truly discuss and change some people's minds, or enlighten those who sit on the fence, name calling is a fast turn-off. Of course, you're entitled to do whatever you wish, and I'm only speaking out from my own opinion (and I've let slip name calling here and there, myself, as it is frustrating), so let me know what you think. Upped.

    • 2 years ago
  • kurthsb27
  • Nephwrack
    • +4
      Nephwrack  

    • the mainstream news is twisting this as per the standard MO. funny thing is is that most of this is from the bush administration. maybe you rabid feral conservative bush-worshipers should think twice before calling us libs crazy. maybe you just have short memories.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • tobleronie
    • 0
      tobleronie  

    • What scares me the most is how there's all this media coverage that says how disastrous this leak is-- sounds to me like it's giving the government an easy segue to censor the internet...

    • 2 years ago
  • telcod
    • +3
      telcod  

    • Down goes the veil. Governments are scum. Banks are governments. As the 22 year old daughter says, "We are doomed" All hail Caesar.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • telcod
  • Peacey
    • +2
      Peacey  

    • U.S. Foreign Policy sucks anyhow! They need to be consistent in their dealings.
      If you honestly think the Safety of the Nation is paramount, then change your Foreign Policy.

    • 2 years ago
  • sffsmessiah
  • unimatrix0
    • +7
      unimatrix0  

    • The individual(s) who released the stuff to Wikileaks may have committed a crime of conscience, but Wikileaks is guilty of no crime, and is serving a vital function.

      Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

      Long live the fourth estate.

    • 2 years ago
  • congoboy
  • pukemnukem
    • +1
      pukemnukem  

    • The problem these releases cause is that it may result in the US government doing away with the SIPRNET, which was created to allow for easy dissemination of classified material to various branches of the DOD and the government. It was set up to prevent say the CIA withholding stuff from the FBI, causing slow response to threats.

      Pretty much the only result of this is that the government is going to have to spend a crap load more money on training and background checks, impairing the effectiveness of the various intelligence groups because one kid had an issue with the army (Assuming that it was SPC Manning).

    • 2 years ago
  • andreii
    • +2
      andreii  

    • We're getting a glimpse of how the US controls and manipulates the world...

      It's not anything particularly evil or scandalous like others have said, but I think it will definitely do what it was meant to do, which is further damage our government's ability to be trusted.

      Which it deserves and is nothing new, just out there for the world to see.

    • 2 years ago
  • congoboy
  • PzLuvHappeniz
    • +4
      PzLuvHappeniz  

    • It is truth and telling the people the truth in an unbiased and timely manner is what real journalism is about not the partisan bullshit that we get from cable news

    • 2 years ago
  • congoboy
  • ReverandG
    • +3
      ReverandG  

    • I hear Hillary is calling Julian an "Enemy of the World"....move over Sadam lol.
      They can pretend to be outraged and say we are going to prosecute him.....this is just more propaganda. Julian is NOT an American and he can NOT be tried for treason or anything else by the US. Now on the news they are trying to call Wikileaks a "Terrorist Organization". People you don't shoot the messenger!

    • 2 years ago
  • oppressed1
    • +1
      oppressed1  

    • It would be wreckless if any of these documents were things that we already didn't know. The best stuff in here was the way the diplomats talk badly about the other world leaders. The Iraq stuff was pretty damning, and should never have been released. Compared to that these later documents were like something out of the Soap Opera Digest Washington style.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • CalgarC
  • CalgarC
  • congoboy
  • mitekillem
    • +1
      mitekillem  

    • Check it out for yourself.
      http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/

      There's summaries on the entries, or you can download the entire 250k docs.
      So far, I haven't seen anything scandalous, or evil.
      It's like Internal news from American Embassy's to America, and so forth.
      I've yet to find anything condemning.

      Sorry if this disappoints. Just reporting on what I've seen so far.
      But don't trust me, read it yourselves.

    • 2 years ago
  • observer2121
    • +2
      observer2121  

    • The people deserve the truth, if things are being done and said on our behalf then we deserve to know what exactly is going on. There should be very little in the way of secrets held from the people by their own government. We are the ones who fund these people what right do they have to have any secrets? I don't believe for one minute that these documents add to our security in any way. In fact by not revealing that several Arab nations want us to invade Iran we risk looking like the bully should that ever happen. These same Arab nations turn around and refuse to calm their people when they call for jihad. If Saudi Arabia would let their people know their concerns about a nuclear Iran maybe they wouldn't be so anti USA. Keeping these secret documents under wraps is putting us in greater danger.

    • 2 years ago
123
1 - 100 of 224
more from Community:
from the community

top videos