Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to bcfcforum.co.uk. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Wikileaks; Survive or Die ?
Topic Started: Dec 10 2010, 06:20 PM (322 Views)
elvis ok
Member Avatar
Malcom Page
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 

WikiLeaks is an international new media non-profit organisation that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous news sources and leaks



Wikileaks is a non-profit organisation that believes in the people knowing what their governments and multi-national companies don't want them to know.

They have run foul of so many governments and organisations that the existence of such a body raises serious questions about freedom of speech and basic freedom in many repressive countries.

They started from amongst chinese dissidents and have grown so quickly that the papers that they are now releasing are embarrassing everyone from the Pentagon to the Royal Family.

As the claws of multi-nationals slowly take over the internet ---from music downloads to free speech (Facebook) --should we support Wikileaks or should we reign them in ?

The US Secretary of State has allowed her spokesman to say that Wikileaks is endangering US personel by their distribution of cables and eMails.
The Pentagon have said they are all lies. The Royal Family have not commented on their various Ambassadors eMails about the problems caused by HRH Prince Andrew.

Quote:
 

The US has never used the law to charge a recipient who has published classified information.

But a senior legal aide said the government might argue that WikiLeaks is functioning as a kind of storehouse, gathering and maintaining the classified material rather than acting as a traditional media outlet.



The Aussie founder of Wikileaks is now being deported on sex charges by the Swedish government, from the UK, even though one of the two girls withdrew her allegations, the UK refused his extradition, but then changed it's mind.

Wikileaks has removed it's IT servers to an old cold war bunker.To protect them.

Splinter groups from WL have now started targetting multi-national companies via the internet, that they think have succumbed to US pressure.

As a retro-luddite I feel my support goes to Wikileaks as an avenue for freedom and knowledge.

As a realist I feel that some of us in the West are not yet ready for this exposition..

And yes like, I know that sooner or later, if not already, false cr@p will be submittesd to WL - but so far they've managed to shift it out.

This is a serious challenge I think - what do you think?
Will this go the mormal way on this forum ---right versus left.....I don't think so like. I think this crosses barriers of political persuasion.

Do you best like. :D



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyle-KRO
Member Avatar
Ian Handysides
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Survive!

If anything is being endangered by these leaks it's credibility, no matter what hyperbolic language the US AG, Sec. of State, etc. use.

Anything that helps expose to the masses the machine for what it actually is, will always be welcomed by this poster, and these leaks certainly pull back the curtain of international diplomacy well enough.

I'm having a brilliant time with all of it. **thumbup
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mr Assange, according to his lawyer, is likely to be charged with espionage by America.
When you consider the actions of the US just over the last 10 years, without delving into the bowels of history, words literally fail me on this one.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Assange is being stitched up, he reveals some secrects and the next thing you know he's a sex beast, coincidence?

This leads me to believe that he's got hold of some quite damming stuff.

Im all for freedom of speech as long it isn't going to put lives at risk and from what I understand so far it hasn't.

So keep it comming and I hope that the respective governments own up and show the world their hypocrisy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Jimmeney
Member Avatar
Paul Tait
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I am a big fan of Wikileaks not least because an awful lot of what they have exposed is very mundane and ordinary - human if you like. The vast majority of the leaks are the sort of gossip, tittle tattle, finger pointing and ego battles between different departments/countries that you see in the work place every day.

Above all else the governments involved must simply find it embarrassing how puerile and petty a lot of the cables actually sound. Who that has read them is genuinely surprised that American and English forces in Iraq slagged each other off, that American allies in the middle east want them to spank Iran's bottom but don't want any direct involvement in the spanking?

Libya put political pressure on the UK to release al-Megrahi, powerful people around the world are corrupt, long term enemies are suspicious of each other all shocking, shocking stuff. Honestly the only people more disappointed than governments at how ordinary it all is will be the conspiracy nuts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
midland red
Member Avatar
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Survive of course

:banghead:

Otherwise, in this country we are going to have dribs and drabs of 'leaks' and show trials of journos ( always the Guardian/Independant - never the Mail,or Exprees or Sun - funny that :LMAO: )

The WikiLeaks I've read so far show how thick, ignorant and racist the US diplomats are. Racist in the fact that 'England' is a foreign country, just like France)... a point I think our rightwing loonies on this site don't realise. The US supports the US. England is
"foreign".
We have a creepy ( demented one text said) heir to the throne who is causing problems as he helicopters his way around the middle east. Antagonising Jews and Arabs by his music hall version of a sub-race.

Thats HRH Andrew and his impersonation of Ron Moody impersonating a Jew.In Saudi.
And then repeating the performance in Jerusalem.

The mind boggles. The US diplomat in Tel Aviv called him a liabilty and an oaf.

For me I'm glad to hear that. It means they are on the ball.

But when it comes down to rations of explosives and bullets as a means of determining support or commitment, then these self same, stay-in-the Embassy and send a telext pr@tts explain exactly what the US force is about.By default.

Cowards and excuse finders.

Blame anyone, especially the support countries, for a bungled operation and an obscene invasion.

Wikileaks got to keep going. **thumbup




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Assange just been granted bail, Sweden is appealing the decision.
They must be under a lot of pressure from somebody.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
keepthecityblue
Member Avatar
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Without wanting to be too cynical....

I think that the majority of these "leaks" are probably intentional leaks.

So I dont think Wikileaks is as "exciting" or revolutionary as is made out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
alfred E nueman
Member Avatar
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
keepthecityblue
Dec 14 2010, 06:37 PM
Without wanting to be too cynical....

I think that the majority of these "leaks" are probably intentional leaks.

So I dont think Wikileaks is as "exciting" or revolutionary as is made out.

:LMAO:

So why do Amazon, PayPal, MasterCard and Visa
all cut services and linkage to Wikileaks.Why were they under pressure to do that?

Quote:
 
I think that the majority of these "leaks" are probably intentional leaks.


:banghead:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
keepthecityblue
Member Avatar
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
alfred E nueman
Dec 14 2010, 07:04 PM
keepthecityblue
Dec 14 2010, 06:37 PM
Without wanting to be too cynical....

I think that the majority of these "leaks" are probably intentional leaks.

So I dont think Wikileaks is as "exciting" or revolutionary as is made out.

:LMAO:

So why do Amazon, PayPal, MasterCard and Visa
all cut services and linkage to Wikileaks.Why were they under pressure to do that?

Quote:
 
I think that the majority of these "leaks" are probably intentional leaks.


:banghead:

Oh come on thats not a hard one is it!

The point is.......they want it to appear that the "leaks" are real leaks?

Here we go try it like this...if you leaked information intentionally - yet wanted it to appear as if it was an accident... how would you react to the leak?

Suprised maybe? Maybe you would publicly put pressure on the websites hosting the leaked data? Maybe even get it taken down - see you would still got the information out there - your points still been made.

And maybe this even gives the state a good excuse to start some form of censorship of the internet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abblue
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
dr.nick
Dec 11 2010, 11:05 AM
Im all for freedom of speech as long it isn't going to put lives at risk and from what I understand so far it hasn't.

This is exactly the reason that Wikileaks must be quashed.

It is already a matter of opinion as to whether or not lives have been put at risk or not and the way things are going it won't be long before they undoubtedly are. Some form of censorship is an absolute must if it survives, but since that is against the whole point of it, it must go.

Remember, having the freedom of speech does not entitle you to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thehod
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
abblue
Dec 14 2010, 09:44 PM
dr.nick
Dec 11 2010, 11:05 AM
Im all for freedom of speech as long it isn't going to put lives at risk and from what I understand so far it hasn't.

This is exactly the reason that Wikileaks must be quashed.

It is already a matter of opinion as to whether or not lives have been put at risk or not and the way things are going it won't be long before they undoubtedly are. Some form of censorship is an absolute must if it survives, but since that is against the whole point of it, it must go.

Remember, having the freedom of speech does not entitle you to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

No, but it does allow you to say "So why exactly did you try to cover this up, Mr President."

If lives are being put at risk by wikileaks actions, its the government actions in the first place that is risking lives, not wikileaks exposure of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abblue
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
thehod
Dec 15 2010, 12:13 AM
If lives are being put at risk by wikileaks actions, its the government actions in the first place that is risking lives, not wikileaks exposure of it.

Absolutely not !

If no-one knew what the Government was doing, no-one would be in danger, unless someone brought it to attention, as in Wikileaks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Wikileaks.......sounds like an ewok tacking a P.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyle-KRO
Member Avatar
Ian Handysides
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
abblue
Dec 14 2010, 11:43 PM
thehod
Dec 15 2010, 12:13 AM
If lives are being put at risk by wikileaks actions, its the government actions in the first place that is risking lives, not wikileaks exposure of it.

Absolutely not !

If no-one knew what the Government was doing, no-one would be in danger, unless someone brought it to attention, as in Wikileaks.

:o

I assure you that your statement is far more terrifying and dangerous than anything wikileaks will offer...

You seem to be saying, let the state do whatever it likes so long as we are left unawares and everything will turn out fine? B*****ks to that!

These leaks are similar to the pentagon papers and the like in how those being exposed have the audacity to shift blame onto those who've exposed them, instead of holding their hands up, taking responsibility, and being held accountable for their actions.

We should know.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abblue
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Kyle-KRO
Dec 15 2010, 01:59 AM
You seem to be saying, let the state do whatever it likes so long as we are left unawares and everything will turn out fine? B*****ks to that!

I'm saying nothing of the sort. Let me put this to you:

The Government, or any other organisation for that matter, holds information (secretly)which in itself is completely benign but concerns national security (believe me, this can happen - not all national security is about bombs, war etc.). Wikileaks gets hold of it and publishes it. Terrorists then have vital information, can act on it and then bring this country to its knees.

Who is in the wrong ?

The Government for holding BENIGN info or Wikileaks for publishing it ?

Wikileaks does not filter anything and sees all info as fair game.

Correct in this case ?

I think not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thehod
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
abblue
Dec 15 2010, 11:40 AM
Kyle-KRO
Dec 15 2010, 01:59 AM
You seem to be saying, let the state do whatever it likes so long as we are left unawares and everything will turn out fine? B*****ks to that!

I'm saying nothing of the sort. Let me put this to you:

The Government, or any other organisation for that matter, holds information (secretly)which in itself is completely benign but concerns national security (believe me, this can happen - not all national security is about bombs, war etc.). Wikileaks gets hold of it and publishes it. Terrorists then have vital information, can act on it and then bring this country to its knees.

Who is in the wrong ?

The Government for holding BENIGN info or Wikileaks for publishing it ?

Wikileaks does not filter anything and sees all info as fair game.

Correct in this case ?

I think not.

You have an example of this happening?

Wikileaks is not in the buisness of putting countries at risk. It is in the buisness of making governments accountable for their actions.

Governments put far more peoples lives at risk every day than wikileaks could manage in a lifetime.

So on that basis, we should probably do away with governments to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
alfred E nueman
Member Avatar
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
keepthecityblue
Dec 14 2010, 08:57 PM
alfred E nueman
Dec 14 2010, 07:04 PM
keepthecityblue
Dec 14 2010, 06:37 PM
Without wanting to be too cynical....

I think that the majority of these "leaks" are probably intentional leaks.

So I dont think Wikileaks is as "exciting" or revolutionary as is made out.

:LMAO:

So why do Amazon, PayPal, MasterCard and Visa
all cut services and linkage to Wikileaks.Why were they under pressure to do that?

Quote:
 
I think that the majority of these "leaks" are probably intentional leaks.


:banghead:

Oh come on thats not a hard one is it!

The point is.......they want it to appear that the "leaks" are real leaks?

Here we go try it like this...if you leaked information intentionally - yet wanted it to appear as if it was an accident... how would you react to the leak?

Suprised maybe? Maybe you would publicly put pressure on the websites hosting the leaked data? Maybe even get it taken down - see you would still got the information out there - your points still been made.

And maybe this even gives the state a good excuse to start some form of censorship of the internet.

:D **thumbup

Yes, I know that that is the basis of your conspiracy theory.

So following your principle, the 400,000 jobs to be lost in the UK are not real.

Just something the Coalition wanted leaked, so that when only 20,000 jobs go it improves their image?

Those companies have all lost money, rspect and future customers - they even face sabotage by the "Anonymous" group.

And, if the US government or the Pentagon really wanted thses "untrue" leaks to come out, couldn't it have been better to concentrate more on how their allies have let them down, rather than on how stupid they are themselves?

I've no doubt that Wikileaks will be fed untrue stuff - the old dis-information ploy. But they know their sources and this is what is really annoying the US etc. There are so many sources providing support and verification, it is no longer one journalist and one whistle blower.

This is huge and international scale.

No wonder they are worried.

And sooner or later they may decide it is cheaper and more honest to be transparent, rather than routing out those seeking fair play or hounding those on the side of open-ness.

**thumbup
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
keepthecityblue
Member Avatar
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
alfred E nueman
Dec 15 2010, 12:58 PM
:D **thumbup

Yes, I know that that is the basis of your conspiracy theory.

So following your principle, the 400,000 jobs to be lost in the UK are not real.

Just something the Coalition wanted leaked, so that when only 20,000 jobs go it improves their image?

Those companies have all lost money, rspect and future customers - they even face sabotage by the "Anonymous" group.

And, if the US government or the Pentagon really wanted thses "untrue" leaks to come out, couldn't it have been better to concentrate more on how their allies have let them down, rather than on how stupid they are themselves?

I've no doubt that Wikileaks will be fed untrue stuff - the old dis-information ploy. But they know their sources and this is what is really annoying the US etc. There are so many sources providing support and verification, it is no longer one journalist and one whistle blower.

This is huge and international scale.

No wonder they are worried.

And sooner or later they may decide it is cheaper and more honest to be transparent, rather than routing out those seeking fair play or hounding those on the side of open-ness.

**thumbup

Fair enough I see what you are saying, and I have no doubt that "the powers that be" certainly would be worried if there was a central point for all their leaked information which had world wide reach.

Maybe I have come down too strongly on the conspiracy theory side, and I can see the advantages of a site like Wikileaks - I just still worry how we know what is actually a real leak - and what is being intentionally fed as "leaks" to muddy the waters if you know what i mean.

And the censorship of the internet thing is what is bugging me at the moment, because I think they may be looking into that, under some "Terror laws" etc.

**thumbup
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abblue
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
thehod
Dec 15 2010, 01:29 PM
You have an example of this happening?

Wikileaks is not in the buisness of putting countries at risk. It is in the buisness of making governments accountable for their actions.

Governments put far more peoples lives at risk every day than wikileaks could manage in a lifetime.

So on that basis, we should probably do away with governments to.

Errr, if I had, don't you think it would be a bit late by now ? Just think, did anyone have any examples of a plane being flown into some New York buildings on 8/11/2001 ?

I think you give Wikileaks too much credence in what it does and does not choose to publish.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
alfred E nueman
Member Avatar
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
keepthecityblue
Dec 15 2010, 01:41 PM
alfred E nueman
Dec 15 2010, 12:58 PM
:D  **thumbup

Yes, I know that that is the basis of your conspiracy theory.

So following your principle, the 400,000 jobs to be lost in the UK are not real.

Just something the Coalition wanted leaked, so that when only 20,000 jobs go it improves their image?

Those companies have all lost money, rspect and future customers - they even face sabotage by the "Anonymous" group.

And, if the US government or the Pentagon really wanted thses "untrue" leaks to come out, couldn't it have been better to concentrate more on how their allies have let them down, rather than on how stupid they are themselves?

I've no doubt that Wikileaks will be fed untrue stuff - the old dis-information ploy. But they know their sources and this is what is really annoying the US etc. There are so many sources providing support and verification, it is no longer one journalist and one whistle blower.

This is huge and international scale.

No wonder they are worried.

And sooner or later they may decide it is cheaper and more honest to be transparent, rather than routing out those seeking fair play or hounding those on the side of open-ness.

**thumbup

Fair enough I see what you are saying, and I have no doubt that "the powers that be" certainly would be worried if there was a central point for all their leaked information which had world wide reach.

Maybe I have come down too strongly on the conspiracy theory side, and I can see the advantages of a site like Wikileaks - I just still worry how we know what is actually a real leak - and what is being intentionally fed as "leaks" to muddy the waters if you know what i mean.

And the censorship of the internet thing is what is bugging me at the moment, because I think they may be looking into that, under some "Terror laws" etc.

**thumbup

**thumbup

Goes without saying that they'll try to use it.
Even set up clone Wikileaks.

The censorship debate is money driven at the moment and beyond people losing royalties on music/film etc, Homeland Security has a hell of a way to go before they breach their Bill of Rights.

Where would the rightwing militias/KKK go ?

Where would all the hate sites go?

Even Howard Stern can't give them the oxygen that the internet provides.

**thumbup
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyle-KRO
Member Avatar
Ian Handysides
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
abblue
Dec 15 2010, 01:41 PM
thehod
Dec 15 2010, 01:29 PM
You have an example of this happening?

Wikileaks is not in the buisness of putting countries at risk. It is in the buisness of making governments accountable for their actions.

Governments put far more peoples lives at risk every day than wikileaks could manage in a lifetime.

So on that basis, we should probably do away with governments to.

Errr, if I had, don't you think it would be a bit late by now ? Just think, did anyone have any examples of a plane being flown into some New York buildings on 8/11/2001 ?

I think you give Wikileaks too much credence in what it does and does not choose to publish.

The Daily Briefing received by George Bush on 6 August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" reported that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft.

It may not be an example of a plane being flown into a building, but it is confirmation that the idea to do it was not unheard of.

You say benign (though secret) government information could be viewed as vital to "terrorists" and thus be used against a particular country to "bring it to its knees". I've seen nor read anything that would validate your claim, though i have heard a US intelligence official state that on a scale from 1 to 10, these leaks have been a "3 or 4"; more embarrassing than a threat to national security.

If governments were more transparent and the information given down to those they govern/represent factual, perhaps hundreds of thousands of human beings would be alive today (among other things).

If anything there needs to be more exposing of the truth to the point that the worlds leaders eventually are held accountable for their decisions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abblue
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Kyle-KRO
Dec 15 2010, 03:19 PM
You say benign (though secret) government information could be viewed as vital to "terrorists" and thus be used against a particular country to "bring it to its knees". I've seen nor read anything that would validate your claim.

In that case, I may know something that you don't - but obviously, I can't tell you !

**thumbup
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · General Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Forum Design by Hirsty.