Debunking The Myth That Wikileaks Cable Leaks Haven't Been Important
from the revealing-serious-problems dept
Whatever you might think of Wikileaks -- and it's difficult to deny that it is a severely flawed operation in many ways -- one of the sillier critiques of the recent release of secure State Department cables is the claim that these cables didn't really reveal anything important. Thankfully, the EFF has put together a nice list of key areas where the release of the cables has helped shine light on important things, while benefiting the public discourse around those topics. Included in the list are things like US contractor DynCorp pimping young boys to Afghani police, as well as the US's involvement in trying to get Spain to pass Hollywood-friendly copyright laws. It's been argued that revealing that info publicly helped kill that Spanish copyright reform.The more you read about what's been released, the harder and harder it is to claim that these leaks haven't added to the public discussion on some key, important topics. In many cases, the argument that these things had to be kept secret is not supported by the facts. It's true that some of this information was embarrassing, but the State Department's job is not to prevent embarrassing info from being discussed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Evidence that a United States contracted company, a domestic company (which means they are americans), is not just involved in, but is facilitating the sexual predation, molestation and prostitution of 12 year old boys... yup, guess we never should have brought that to light.
Just because it looks bad for our government doesn't mean it's any less valid or important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting line of thought. I'd say it's more akin to a doctor taking a stool sample. Sure you've got a couple of poop logs in your office, but you also just found out the patient has a dibilitating tape worm eating at his nourishment and making him worse off.
Why do you hate stool samples? My two dogs say they are confused....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to make it seem like a prank or joke
followed by vague claims about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People I talk to who say this are actually trying to express something different though, also equally wrong. "Nothing important" is supposed to mean "nothing of interest to the American public with regards to its relationship to the government", but if I probe them I find that they usually mean this as "nothing of personal interest to me". Then when I tell them about the interesting things that have been revealed they are both surprised and interested. They didn't know.
In my experience, ignorance coupled with a credulous reactionary faith in their government is always the foundation of such claims like "nothing important" and "somebody will die".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WikiLeaks
I cannot support in any way leaking information that is hazardous to armed services personnel. For that I hope that everyone involved is prosecuted to the fullest extent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WikiLeaks
Sorry, but you shouldn't have that belief (which is probably the appropriate word in your case) unless you have SOME reason for it. Is there even a SINGLE example of Wikileaks releasing something that has endangered anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WikiLeaks
Ooooh... my favorite! You shouldn't have! No, really... you shouldn't have. Please provide one shred of evidence that would back up the assertion that this will lead to any increased risk to any service person.
As for "may well have"... look, setting aside that it's an un-provable hypothetical and a logical fallacy(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc), many MANY things could be said to "may well have" lead to increased danger... hell, Chaos Theory says that a butterfly flapping it's wings could have lead to increased danger. Should we all now kill some butterflies?
Does anyone else think that "Think of the SOLDIERS!!" is quickly surpassing "Think of the CHILDREN!!" as the political cry du jour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WikiLeaks
I get that you don't like having entirely speculative arguments thrown out that you're unable to disprove as much as the GP is able to prove them but there is no logical fallacy in his argument. If it is at all, under any circumstances, possible that his argument could wind up being correct, it is a valid argument. Yes, even if you don't like it and even if it is completely unsubstantiated speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
It doesn't matter whether I like the statement or not... it is logically fallacious if it is not backed up by fact showing the correlation of the two parts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
Never argue logic with a programmer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
The statement of "May well cause..." is, in the mouths of those using it, is the same as "WILL cause". It is making a claim. It's a statement to appeal to the patriotism-cum-nationalism that pervades this country... "Think of the SOLDIERS". And it is for that usage that I call them out on needing something to back it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
I'm not going to let them slide just by making it in the form of a question... that's not being insightful; it's being a contestant on Jeopardy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
A la a Sprite commercial from roughly four years ago, you are in receipt of a remote control that allows you to turn anything into something else at your whim. Upon receipt, you walk out of a local bar with your friend, and subsequently turn him into an amazingly smoking hot girl. You then proceed to make out with this girl.
Are you gay, bisexual, or straight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WikiLeaks
The sad part is, given the age of many of our soldiers, they're the same thing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
18 isn't the age you can vote/serve because they thought children should be able to vote too. It's voting age because back then you were absolutely, definitely, no questions asked supposed to be thinking and acting like an adult by 18. We've since gotten a hell of a lot more lax in expecting maturity but it's no less possible to be a responsible adult at 18 than it was back then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
Oh, and new rule: if you can't legally drink, you aren't an adult. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
Also, the 21-rule is bad for college students. College deans say so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
you know, for those times you know a statement is ridiculous but can't get past the resultant mental 'why would you even think that?' enough to form a coherent logical explanation of your point in response... (note that this is not the same thing as such explanation not existing)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
you know, for those times when the obvious is missed, but it's ok because it's not really their fault… what with our educational system and the TeeVee’s doing such a bad job raising our country.
He's talking about how the government has passed laws and taxes to try to stop people from doing things "for their own good". Where's my adult choice in whether I want to smoke or ride without a helmet or not carry health insurance? So the government considers us children incapable of making our own choices.
[pat on head]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
Politicians and demagogues understand how to use these well. The Nazis employed the last one in particular with great success.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/hermann_goering_quote_65d2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WikiLeaks
The defense department condemned this at the time, then later admitted that, despite talking about how the info would compromise their intelligence sources, not a single source had been compromised. Not one single person has been killed, attacked, or even hassled, and not one single intelligence source was ever compromised. By the words of the Defense Secretary, nothing even remotely bad happened from one of the largest military information breaches in history, thus all their alarmist claims were fabrication.
Please stop claiming military compromise from this information. It's total fiction, and purely reactionary.
Also if you're talking about prosecution, then we should prosecute The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The New York Times, and the other media outlets that are actually publishing this information. Wikileaks isn't publishing it, they're vetting it, redacting anything that might be sensitive, then making it available to news outlets, who recognize it as news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WikiLeaks
You realize that Wikileaks is not an act, right? Do you mean running Wikileaks? If so, what crime did they break? Do you mean the release of American information? If so, what laws were broken? If you don't mean either of those, what do you mean?
I cannot support in any way leaking information that is hazardous to armed services personnel.
What information are you referring to, and in what way was it hazardous to which personnel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree the wikileaks are devistating to the US's reputation. Though, compared to every other country out there and all the baggage they hold, its not that bad. Its the perception that everyone has of the Governement being perfect that is false. Yes, there is stuff they did that they shouldn't have. Yes, they are going to be embarassed. Should we know about all of this? Yes. Is the gov going about this in the wrong way? Yes. Either way, Wikileaks recieved stolen goods. In most countries that is a crime as far as I am aware. If a man stole a radio and gave it to you for free, does that make it yours? No. The information was stolen, then given away, that doesn't make it right to post it. It doesn't matter what amendment or freedom of speech/press you throw at it, Wikileaks received stolen property and is using it accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But you’re right… they may have broken our law, but they’re not subject to it, so does it matter as much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @anon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What has it accomplished?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]