So the question is do the cables benefit us (the people) or not? Overall, I think they do and I think the wikileaks people think so too. The self-appointed or forced-upon world policeman slipped up. This is actually a PR bonus for the US, remember Clinton and Lewinsky? ‘That didn’t destroy him, it only made him more human and likable and humorous to the voters. Second, having a bit of the inner thoughts/conversations of US diplomats out and about might actually speed up their dealings with other countries. No need for beating around the bush, just refer to the leaked cables (e.g. push Turkey harder to give back US nukes because they’ll also take others back simultaneously from Germany and Holland).

Basically, I can see quite a few silver linings to Cablegate, which makes me wonder if the US administration might either leaked this info themselves (a little far-fetched, I think so too) or at least they didn’t stop it when they had the chance. So I’d be wary when a government makes too much hue and cry over spilt milk. Remember the last major hue and cry lead the US to the Iraq war on false pretenses. I only wish the real reasons for going to Iraq would be revealed conclusively in the cables. But that is wishful thinking; those plans are probably not even on paper or digitized.

I am at least a wee bit happy the whole US diplomatic and bureaucratic system got shook up a little bit (politicians come and go like one day flies). And let’s be honest here the media has been the one that’s really come off disgusting in my eyes. They have lost most of their investigative interest and capabilities with every passing year, making them more and more insignificant as a watchdog for us. They are only good enough for our entertainment these days. Dam I watch the Dailyshow for my news for Christ sakes (not exclusively of course), how ironic is that?! Thank god we can get some info on how a government thinks and operates from wikileaks! We absolutely need them and let them find their boundaries. Is to out benefit. Piss on secrets and sh*t on the rhetoric of protecting lives and national secrets! So what China is worse, I am not going to choose between lesser evils because I live there. Why do most of the citizens in the Western world not trust our governments these past 30 odd years? For good (instinctive) reasons! Why for example have the majority of our privately educated politicians never held a proper blue-collar job (1 year as a journalist doesn’t count)? None of the bankers involved in the financial crisis have been run out of town tarred and feathered or even hanged for the misery and loss they have caused. Look at the UK about to squeeze the life out of the middle class with their increasing of university tuition fees (what a traitor that Clegg) – only the rich and the poor can go to school??? Out of touch and out of their minds, these politicians and bureaucrats. They only know how to either maintain or destroy, not to actually build something – be it a house or a functioning education or economic system. Sorry for the rant at the end there :) I am just tired of people towing the party line, passing on the rhetoric of the day, and not thinking and discussing a little further when they can and should.

Don’t focus on the specific example, and think instead of the ideas he’s trying to point out. You’re looking at the wrong issue if you’re asking “why” would someone want to do that, when he’s asking “what if” they did.

Just off the cuff… a plan of battle just prior to an attack occurring? While I agree with you (mostly) I would point out that there do have to be SOME restrictions…

I’d also point out that while the press does serve a function in keeping things open and honest, and in so doing provides additional checks and balances to the functioning of our government, it does not in itself have a whole lot of checks and balances. There’s been lots of occurrences where people in the press have done inappropriate things… and those things should have been restricted. Be careful about relying on the press to be a “check” in the same way the the legislative branch is a check to the executive branch.

There’s too many good points on either side to simply say “good” or “bad” off the cuff. We live in a world that gets kinda grey at times.

Here’s another example… 2 of my employees… one whines and complains non-stop at every task. Also has extraordinarily low productivity while constantly stating she’s working overtime to accomplish even that. The second employee is a top performer… has easily 5 times the productivity of the first employee, and has never complained unreasonably that I know of.

Do you think I should take a complaint about too much work more seriously from the second employee than I do the first? Do you think the story about the boy who cried wolf has any applcability?

How about here… do you think “secrets” are a bigger issue from a government which is more open than most, compared to the repressive restrictions utilized in China? Do you think freedom of the press in the US compares favorably with the restrictions on internet sites which can be accessed in China?

In my first example, a compliant about too much work will mean something very different coming from the first employee than one coming from the second employee. In the discussion of “secrets” between the US and China, we’re using the same word “secrets” to describe things… but the context is so different as to make the two completely uncomparable. The word just means something totally different.

Truth to tell, we are all criminals if we remain silent…

I said absolutely nothing about the press in my comments. The press is merely reporting on what has already been released. I don’t consider WikiLeaks or the person who stole the information “the press” any more than I consider the Fox News organization “the press.” They’ve overtly crossed the line and are pursuing specific agendas with the information that they decide to disseminate.

Let me ask you, if you worked in a foreign office for the government and I got hold of every email, text message or note you ever jotted down about a meeting you’d just had (even off the official record) and decided that, I could (or even SHOULD) publish those emails, text messages and notes on a well publicized website that everyone in the world could have access to–including those who might be the enemies of the United States and might benefit from such information, would you agree that this should be done? Because that is exactly what just happened in this case. Please think carefully before you answer…

This leak has nothing to do with “starting unjust wars.” I was one of the loudest voices against going into Iraq in my peer group and was only partially in favor of the Afghan mission. This has nothing to do with those actions whatsoever, so using those examples to bolster your current line of defense for this action by WikiLeaks is less than weak… EVERY government has secrets and needs to keep certain secrets. It should not and cannot be left up to some small group like WikiLeaks to release any information that they find offensive or trivial whenever they feel like it just because THEY believe that every party involved has the right to know. Some things should never be said in public for various reasons. We learn such basics even as children and pretending that Freedom will be trampled if every side doesn’t know every detail is both childish and foolish.

Governments don’t just keep secrets, they also lie, steal and cause unjustified wars.. the secrets you approve of tell the truth about their wrong doings.

As long as they do not claim opinion to be fact, they should have the right to say it.

The world have become too diplomatic, too Political Correct, for its own good.

But sadly, this have also resulted in us being a to emotional people. We get enraged about issues that we could at least try to talk about in civilized ways a generation ago. Now we use hate when we mean dislike. Perhaps because our leaders mince words too much, the rest of us have forgotten how to grade them.

If the press can’t have 100% freedom to report on anything. Then who is able to hold organizations accountable? The voters. How do the voters know what is really happening? ONLY through the press (and of course their own senses). If any organization has the ability to regulate the press. They will ultimately do it. And they will do it to the detriment (purposely or not) of the people.

his was clearly an act of seditious treason under the law committed by the person who copied the data in the first place (a US citizen and a member of our armed forces), knowing that it contained information that could lead to the significant setbacks in US foreign policy and relations, knowing that it could expose those who keep our government’s diplomatic officials informed about potential threats to the United States, and knowing that it could potentially strain our alliances and strengthen the positions of our enemies. EVERY government has the right and responsibility to keep some things secret in the security interest of the state AND the people. This one small organization should not have the right to decide what IT thinks everyone in the world should know and what we shouldn’t. They were elected by nobody and they are therefore accountable to NOBODY.

If people that they expose should be politically persecuted, die, be imprisoned or have their families threatened; if terrorists, criminals or madmen decide to act upon the leaked information that would otherwise have been secret; if anything should happen that could cause harm to the United states or its allies because these people “decided” that we should know what THEY think we should know, then THEY [WikiLeaks] are not responsible–right…?

The Internet exists, yes–but guess what? So does the right of people, organizations and governments to keep secrets. This was a major invasion of privacy, besides being a clear case of espionage. This is the equivalent of someone leaking every single document or personal communication that has ever been had between individual members of a private company or non-governmental organization and all of their associates and/or business partners, not only to every one of their customers, clients and/or shareholders, but to all of their competitors and the rest of the world. This would be especially bad when it is obvious that the clear intention is to make an attack on the company or institution and the individuals who work for it. What gives these people the right to decide who should be privy to those conversations and who shouldn’t? What gives them the right to decide what personal and institutional relationships are destroyed by their actions?

I can understand the need to expose big government lies that may be overtly harming the public at large, but this release by WikiLeaks reeks of a “just because we can” mentality and has gone too far in my opinion as well as many others I know whom had formerly given them the benefit of the doubt. I personally believe that any involved in this particular leak should be punished to the full extent of the law for what they’ve done this time–and I believe that they will fully deserve it.