• CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.

WikiLeaks, the pink elephant

rrhill

BSB Addict
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Posts
3,299
Reaction score
8
Location
Amsterdam
So what do you think about the daily WikiLeaks cables?

World-leaders claim that the release of this documents is a threat to global stability. If global stability is based on deception and lies, maybe the good thing will be that the international community wakes up now.

It's hard to think of everything, except of the pink elephant in the room.
 
There are limits to everything...

So what do you think about the daily WikiLeaks cables?

World-leaders claim that the release of this documents is a threat to global stability. If global stability is based on deception and lies, maybe the good thing will be that the international community wakes up now.

It's hard to think of everything, except of the pink elephant in the room.

Dear rrhill,

With all of the turmoil in the world already, I think it is foolish to think that every private communication should be made public. The last thing we need is simplistic thinking on complex topics concerning highly complex world matters. If we are to encourage active exchanges of ideas between world leaders and other diplomats, then it does not seem to big of a stretch to realize that some ideas are merely "brainstorming" or "initial offers beginning actual long-term negotiations" and not really meant as "final policies" fully developed and with full-approval from all the parties involved. Diplomacy is largely done with the understanding that ideas, until fully developed and approved, should not become material with the media only to further sensationalize a mere suggestion. If you want utter chaos in the world, then further irresponsible leaks can be the trigger.

You only have to look at the ridiculous campaign here in the US to provide universal health care. It was a free-for-all with all sorts of exaggerated ideas being floated around that no one involved in the negotiations truly felt they had a "snowball's chance in hell" to get approval. Yet, we were bombarded with these false ideas as if they were actual policy. The side most against providing universal health care, the Republicans along with the Health Insurance Companies, were in an orchestrated attempt to provide alot of "disinformation" as a weapon for defeating the passage of universal health care. The results speak for themselves. We have an extremely watered-down universal health plan no where near where it needs to be to be truly effective for the largest number of Americans. No one in America is happy with it either. The media loved all the skirmishes and sensationalized it to the max all at the expense of a proper health care plan.

We had a war in our history The "Spanish-American War" of 1898 over Cuba which was a media free-for-all and largely created due to "yellow journalism" which over sensationalized the war and helped to get the war going. WWI began with the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand and again was over-sensationalized by the media and further fueled with a tradition of "ethnic hatred" existing for centuries. All of this then lead to WW1.

In a pure democracy, definitely you want transparency and free flowing ideas, but there does not exist a "true pure democracy" in the world because this would be too volatile a situation and could lead to collapse and greater chances for anarchy instead. These government documents in question were never intended for public viewing for a reason.

With irrational leaders in North Korea and Iran, to name just a few, we certainly don't want to create more world-wide instability in fragile countries or regions where possible illegal nuclear weapons may exist or anywhere else where terrorist already exist or could be about to begin another terrorist campaign creating another hotspot in the world.

Finally, this so called work by Wikileaks has done a big disservice to the entire world in that it makes national leaders more resistant to communicate and attempt to negotiate with their enemies. This is the last thing the world needs.

Sincerely,

Cumrag27, aka Stimpy
 
Hi Cumrag,

Till now not even 1% of the documents is leaked, and the last days I've learned so much.


Frightening thought is that nobody can stop Wikileaks... Block all webservers, and they will publish in the newsgroups. Wikileaks shared all the data with the five best newspapers on the world. And they are publishing this information too.


If a journalist can't publish information from a whistle-blower, there's no need to print the paper.


Would you rather had Bob Woodward en Carl Bernstein not publishing about the Watergate scandal? And left Nixon in his function as president?


It was shocking to read that Hillary Clinton ordered to collect fingerprints, DNA, credit card numbers, air miles and so, from UN diplomats.


But it's good to hear that Arabic states do not want to wait till Iran has the bomb, and we are all worried. It's no longer a secret... and guess what... since yesterday(!) Iran is suddenly prepared to resume talks.


The day we learned China was prepared to drop North-Korea, the
the North-Korean special envoy had an appointment in Beijing. No doubt: North-Korea understands now that China's patience is coming to an end.

Today I learned to write off Russia as a potential newborn democracy. Putin runs Russia as a godfather, is tied to Mafia himself.

It goes on and on. WikiLeaks really shows off the skills of U.S. diplomats!

And the responses of the public leaders to these leaked cables, are a remarkable form of denial that must make sense for themselves maybe, but not for me.

If someone asks you, think of everything you want for a minute - except a pink elephant in the room - that's a mission impossible. The world ( me! ) is changing it's perception every day.
 
Last edited:
It is far too soon to know the impact of these leaks!

Hi Cumrag,

Till now not even 1% of the documents is leaked, and the last days I've learned so much.


Frightening thought is that nobody can stop Wikileaks... Block all webservers, and they will publish in the newsgroups. Wikileaks shared all the data with the five best newspapers on the world. And they are publishing this information too.


If a journalist can't publish information from a whistle-blower, there's no need to print the paper.


Would you rather had Bob Woodward en Carl Bernstein not publishing about the Watergate scandal? And left Nixon in his function as president?


It was shocking to read that Hillary Clinton ordered to collect fingerprints, DNA, credit card numbers, air miles and so, from UN diplomats.


But it's good to hear that Arabic states do not want to wait till Iran has the bomb, and we are all worried. It's no longer a secret... and guess what... since yesterday(!) Iran is suddenly prepared to resume talks.


The day we learned China was prepared to drop North-Korea, the
the North-Korean special envoy had an appointment in Beijing. No doubt: North-Korea understands now that China's patience is coming to an end.

Today I learned to write off Russia as a potential newborn democracy. Putin runs Russia as a godfather, is tied to Mafia himself.

It goes on and on. WikiLeaks really shows off the skills of U.S. diplomats!

And the responses of the public leaders to these leaked cables, are a remarkable form of denial that must make sense for themselves maybe, but not for me.

If someone asks you, think of everything you want for a minute - except a pink elephant in the room - that's a mission impossible. The world ( me! ) is changing it's perception every day.

Dear rrhill,

I lived through the Watergate scandal and, definitely, Richard Nixon was corrupt and stole a Presidential election from the American People. To date there are still many Americans that think he was treated wrongly. It is hard to explain their views. I have always applauded the investigative journalism practiced by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and they were completely in the right in doing what they did. In my personal experience, Nixon's presidency represented a stolen election from the American people. I had complete and utter contempt for Nixon in this matter. On the other hand, Nixon was gifted in dealing with international affairs and rightly opened up diplomatic channels with China, which went way beyond what most Americans wanted at the time.

It seems Americans suffer as hostages normally do from the "Stockholm Syndrome" as they view our national government as alternating red and green lights. Red for "Stop" and the Republican/more conservative view and Green for "Go" and the Democratic/more liberal view. This syndrome refers to when the hostages get to the point that they begin to love their captors despite being held as hostages. We see this phenomenon played out again and again in American Politics. It is as if we are locked on to a merry go round and we can't seem to free ourselves.

Americans seen to only know one simplistic strategy in dealing with both political parties. We constantly are flipping back and forth between the two extremes regardless of their actual legislative direction. Americans were taught that office holders in the federal government have built-in balanced of powers and don't seem to realize that this in itself is insufficient when simply flipping back and forth between Democrats and Republican office holders. Yet they are complacent enough to let things work out without their personal involvement. That is why there is so little progress made in the US. Even the recent addition of the Tea Party is just a minor aberration to the conservative Republican view. It seems complacency is the guiding principle of the American voter.

Concerning Hillary Clinton, she is a brilliant woman and really deserved to be President. I voted for Obama but I did so thinking, as intelligent as he is, he was not sufficiently prepared to deal with the Republican & Tea Party extremist, much less the Democrats that are Democrats in name only and won't support Obama as they fear not being re-elected more than what is good for the country. I feel Hillary would have been the better choice then and now. Consequently, when she goes on record opposing this uncontrolled leaking of government and diplomatic documents, then I have the tendency to support whatever she feel is the wisest thing to do. Hillary will always have my support!

I view this Wikileaks situation as "putting the inmates in charge of the asylum" and not all journalists are ethical or have the best interest or sufficient insight for world peace in mind. That is not their job normally. Their main job is financially motivated to increase the circulation of their newspaper. This, then, scares me just as if Fox News was being put in charge of American diplomatic efforts. I feel whatever momentary insights, just as hearing the Nixon secret tapes added some insight into this man, but did little in improving the world or the daily lives of the people he was elected to represent as President.

These leaks may be titillating when first coming to light but, it is far too soon to declare victory for humankind.

Sincerely,



Cumrag27, aka Stimpy
 
Pink Elephant

Robert, why is the elephant pink?

We as a society at many levels I feel is still learning how to deal with easy access to an abundance of information. This wasn't the problem it is today 20 years ago before digital mobile technology and the internet. As always we will live and learn.

Good post.

Undie
 
Some information whether it be in strategy sessions or private conversations, is not only not meant to be shared, but can have potentially harmful consequences if it is shared.

When I sit on an interview committee, and we discuss the candidates in order to come to a decision, I do not want someone to tell the unselected candidates what we found lacking with them.

When I am in a competition, I do not want someone telling the rest of the competitors what is discussed in my strategy sessions.

There are valid reasons for confidential information to be just that, confidential.
 
The Chatham House Rule

You may be interested. In the UK in 1927 the Chatham House rule was devised. The Chatham House Rule reads as follows:

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".

The rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. Meetings do not have to take place at Chatham House, or be organized by Chatham House, to be held under the Rule.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/

Undie
 
Interesting new insight

You may be interested. In the UK in 1927 the Chatham House rule was devised. The Chatham House Rule reads as follows:

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".

The rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. Meetings do not have to take place at Chatham House, or be organized by Chatham House, to be held under the Rule.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/

Undie

Dear Undie,

I have never heard of these rules from The Chatham House but it has to be conducive to free and open exchanges of ideas. I always think this is a positive idea to promote, just as when overly provencial Americans were demanding that the US abandon the UN. Both the UN and its predecessor the League of Nations, promoted more open exchanges of ideas among nations. Even so, with the UN currently in place, there has to be negotiations constantly going on behind the scenes to arrive at workable policies to preserve peace.

Thank you Undie for sharing this information. I had not heard of this previously.

Cumrag27, aka Stimpy
 
As far as I can tell, and from what I have read, all the info falls under the Freedom of Information Act. Though I agree that top secret documents and cables should be kept away from the prying eyes of a world wide audience there seems to be more name calling than anything else.

If info needed to be kept safe, why not use the "black marker" method, blacking out all sensitive material? Worked during the early years of the CIA and NSA...Kind of. But then again, it was those documents and many more that were the reason the Freedom of Information Act was created.

I may change my view after reading more, but for now...
 
I have to agree too...

As far as I can tell, and from what I have read, all the info falls under the Freedom of Information Act. Though I agree that top secret documents and cables should be kept away from the prying eyes of a world wide audience there seems to be more name calling than anything else.

If info needed to be kept safe, why not use the "black marker" method, blacking out all sensitive material? Worked during the early years of the CIA and NSA...Kind of. But then again, it was those documents and many more that were the reason the Freedom of Information Act was created.

I may change my view after reading more, but for now...

Dear Panzer104,

I will have to say that I fully support the Freedom of Information Act and too much secrecy only feeds upon itself for more and more secrecy, point in case former VP, Dick Chaney cloned from DNA samples of J. Edgar Hoover, founder of the FBI and Cross-Dresser extraordinaire (this last descriptor only refers to J Edgar).

Hopefully, there will not be any irreversible consequences sparking a war or people getting killed!

Sincerely,

Cumrag27, aka Stimpy
 
Today the domain name wikileaks.org was removed from the internet.nic A few hours later all information became available via wikileaks.de, wikileaks.nl, wikileaks.fi

As I understand now, all documents published are screened by the newspapers: Der Spiegel, the New York Times, The Guardian and El Pais. The foreign office refused to help Wikileaks, but they did assist The New York times with the job.

In the four years Wikileaks publishes documents, nobody did get hurt yet. Till now none of these leaked cables threatens the national security of the US, as Hillary Clinton claimed.

None of these documents are classified 'top secret'. How can a soldier in Afghanistan have access to confidential cables from ambassadors? That's the question!
 
Thanks for the update on Wikileaks

Today the domain name wikileaks.org was removed from the internet.nic A few hours later all information became available via wikileaks.de, wikileaks.nl, wikileaks.fi

As I understand now, all documents published are screened by the newspapers: Der Spiegel, the New York Times, The Guardian and El Pais. The foreign office refused to help Wikileaks, but they did assist The New York times with the job.

In the four years Wikileaks publishes documents, nobody did get hurt yet. Till now none of these leaked cables threatens the national security of the US, as Hillary Clinton claimed.

None of these documents are classified 'top secret'. How can a soldier in Afghanistan have access to confidential cables from ambassadors? That's the question!

Dear rrhill,

I want to thank you for being on top of this situation with Wikileaks. If this doesn't endanger the lives of anyone, then by all means I don't have a problem with these leaks as it stands now.

I haven't yet had time to check the news on further developments as I just got home. Certainly, it appears that these documents seem to be useful information to have. Thank you for sharing this on the forum.

Sincerely,

Stimpy
 
Top