Hammer Birchgrove
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 May 2009
- Messages
- 583
- Reaction score
- 45
I'm - to say the least - conflicted about Wikileaks, and leaks in general. For starters, I don't like Julian Assange as a person. When a few women and the Swedish police accused him for rape or sexual offence, his own son didn't say to the press "He's innocent, he would NEVER do such a thing!" but something like "He often get into trouble like that". So even if he's not a rapist - he has neither been judged or cleared yet - it looks like he has issues with women.
I "know" that doesn't prove anything as far as Wikileaks goes, but I do think I should acknowledge that I have a bias against him.
As for Wikileaks: Not everything that gets "leaked" is really that interesting. My first (and so far, only) visit made me find a lot of unverified conspiracy nonsense, a "study" that "proved" that (some?) pedophiles are better than certain - violent - parents to take care of children... and then I left the website. Gatekeepers (editors etc) in media are underrated and under-appreciated.
As for the leaks: It depends on what type of leaks, IMHO. If someone reveals another Gitmo or CIA kidnapping-and-torture operation, then great. If someone reveals the identity of a CIA-agent for, lets say political reasons, then it's treason. And yes, all those examples were before Wikileaks got started.
To make a comparison to older days: I think most people don't cry over that the Hoare-Laval plan (to allow fascist Italy to conquer most of Ethiopia) was exposed, even though that plan might have kept Italy on the side of the Entente, and despite that League of Nations was too chicken to help Ethiopia when it was invaded, bombed and raped by Italy.
But I think everyone here agrees with me that it was extremely stupid to let US media tell the world that US torpedoes - or was it submarines? - had technical issues so that the Japanese Imperial Navy could escape torpedoes/destroy submarines.
Also, whenever I hear or read about Wikileaks, I keep thinking: It was a good thing Internet didn't exist during WWII, think how many Allied soldiers would have died at Sicily if Operation Minced Meat had been exposed, for example.
I "know" that doesn't prove anything as far as Wikileaks goes, but I do think I should acknowledge that I have a bias against him.
As for Wikileaks: Not everything that gets "leaked" is really that interesting. My first (and so far, only) visit made me find a lot of unverified conspiracy nonsense, a "study" that "proved" that (some?) pedophiles are better than certain - violent - parents to take care of children... and then I left the website. Gatekeepers (editors etc) in media are underrated and under-appreciated.
As for the leaks: It depends on what type of leaks, IMHO. If someone reveals another Gitmo or CIA kidnapping-and-torture operation, then great. If someone reveals the identity of a CIA-agent for, lets say political reasons, then it's treason. And yes, all those examples were before Wikileaks got started.
To make a comparison to older days: I think most people don't cry over that the Hoare-Laval plan (to allow fascist Italy to conquer most of Ethiopia) was exposed, even though that plan might have kept Italy on the side of the Entente, and despite that League of Nations was too chicken to help Ethiopia when it was invaded, bombed and raped by Italy.
But I think everyone here agrees with me that it was extremely stupid to let US media tell the world that US torpedoes - or was it submarines? - had technical issues so that the Japanese Imperial Navy could escape torpedoes/destroy submarines.
Also, whenever I hear or read about Wikileaks, I keep thinking: It was a good thing Internet didn't exist during WWII, think how many Allied soldiers would have died at Sicily if Operation Minced Meat had been exposed, for example.