Most of us already know about this website but for those of you that don't. Wikileaks is a website that publishes documents leaked by the government.
These documents provide us with information about our governments plans, projects and idea's. But also their mistakes, their failures, ...

What do you guys think about this?



Should all this information be leaked?
Ignorance of certain subjects is a great part of wisdom.
Hugo De Groot (1583 - 1645)

Do we want to know what our government is doing?
There are many things of which a wise man might wish to be ignorant.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)

Or should we know it all?
I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.
Charles De Gaulle (1890 - 1970)


What will our journalist do with the website? *
Journalism largely consists of saying 'Lord Jones is Dead' to people who never knew that Lord Jones was alive.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)


* A Belgium newspaper already referred to the site as a reliable source of information.


Please do share what you think of this website.


*edited for typing errors*

Depends who's perspective you're looking it. Obviously to national security it may be a problem.

The ACMA treaty was leaked on Wikileaks and now that's supposed to be blacklisted. Just goes to show how much parliamentarians dislike the site.

Wikileaks Webiste to be abandoned

I'm asking darksiders.

Offcourse the website might be a problem for national security. The fact that the website is blacklisted in several countries proves that there is truth to be found.

...or propaganda ;).

That sounds like it could be used as official governmental "spin" and I dont think that is necesseraly the case with wikileaks, more like it is individuals blowing the whistle on govenment plans/deeds when we would otherwise kept in the dark by government.
I think it serves an important part of todays society and helps us find the truth about things which would otherwise be kept secret, which can only be a good thing

I believe both things are possible. Propaganda and spins.

To illustrate with a fact. During WWII, the British and the Americans leaked information about the war and their plans to inspire the home front and to mislead the German forces.
Wikileaks is a great tool to do just that.


@ Charnel, how can it be only a good thing?
If the masses lose faith in the government, we'd see civil war in some countries.
I agree that all knowledge is good. But I fear that knowledge, if not handled right, can be more destructive then anything. Especially in a society that thrives on lies.

Even if it is 'spin' as you call it, it stands in awe compared to the spin the newsmedia have been spitting out the previous years. All we heard before the Iraq war was the continous 'WMD' tantra, none of wich turned out to be true. Young kids die over a lie, and not even the clear facts started a civil war, so i dont think these files will either. And if sending the youth to war and die over some obscure reason isnt enough to loose faith in goverment, what is? And the most sadenig if it all was that the press, the people that are there to question everything, only repeated endlessly what the goverment was spewing out. Now, if the people that are ment to ask questions and report it to the world, the press, fails to do its job, someone needs to make it clear to the world how things are going. Every 'leak' there ever was, be it whistleblowers in companies, or soldiers in an army, they only exist because they and their opinions are ignored. Whistleblowers in airline companies about the company knowingly cutting corners that lead to a crash is an example, the whistleblower in british parlement about the expenses-fraude everyone was involved in, and the list is long. Every single one of em was ignored for long periods of time before they did something as final as blow the whistle.
Thats why i think this wikileaks thing now, is a double edged sword. On the one hand there is the public that doesnt need to know everything, i do agree on that, some tihngs are better ignored. Cant expect a fight without casualties. On the other hand there is goverment that knowingly ignored the facts and just went on as before, that same goverment that is responsible for the boys in arms, that same goverment where everyone turns to in hope they are trustworthy....wich in this case they clearly were not. And in my opinion, its the press that failed bigtime, whats on wikileaks now, is something that 30 yrs ago, the press found out by investigating themself. You dont hear a critical word these days in the press, all it is now is a repeat-after-me-machine from the goverment wich in turn ofc helps to support the lie. And when a goverment sends boys to war, its the press' responsibility to find out if the cause is right, if all you do is accept what a president tells you then ofc everything is true, even the most blatant lie.

The media is the knife to the country's neck. And I agree with you. Wikileaks is a double edge-sword.

Julian Assange: "Why the world needs wikileaks."

This holds some disturbing footage so you've been warned.

The idea of wikileaks is a very good thing, an aggregator for whistle blowers. We do need to keep track of what our government is doing, won't give a quote because something of the like was said by every Founding Father.

the issue I take with them is the wikileaks people themselves, a thing like this should be unbiased and they are clearly not.

Isn't any information better, whether it's biased or not, then no information at all?

As long as its not lies and misinformation propagated by government for their own ends



If its a corrupt government and it cannot be removed by peaceful, democratic methods -and that is the way the people chose, then so be it. It has happened before and I dare say it will happen again (and usually for the better)

True, but aren't there secrets that should be kept, secrets that might ignite the people into civil war?

If "they" are hiding something that would start a civil war and we find out about it, I say bring it on. Let's get a gun into a politician's hands and see how they like war then.

The fact is the truth can be used to manipulate peoples beliefs depending on how you frame it. Wikileaks does a lot I would commend them on but I take issue with one of their stories in general where they showed raw footage but misrepresented the context to sway peoples opinion to their own not the truth. They ignored evidence right in the video and still tried to use it to spin in the direction of the Anti war movement.

They need to be unbiased to keep any kind of credibility.

Here is a link to a discussion here in the BR about the article I am referring to http://213.155.27.24/forums/index.php?showtopic=118493.

I believe that video is also shown during the interview of TED with Jullian Assange.

It say's you have to be logged in to view the pages....don't see any way to do this. Pity, I would have liked a peek into the site.

Sorry, it's only one page, that say's this when you click on it.

. Collateral Murder

There has been a great deal of media coverage in the last couple of days about the latest wikileaks revelations about various (supposedly confidential) diplomatic emails that have been sent and received by the US government and their representatives abroad.

I'm interested to know how others on this forum, both American and non-American, view this latest tranche of disclosures.

My personal take on it is that it is deeply irresponsible and could cause a great deal of damage internationally.

To analogise the situation in a somewhat microcosmic way, imagine you work for a company as a salesman of software products, for instance. Your boss is a bit of an asshole, and a lot of your clients are pretty clueless, but it's a good job, you enjoy what you do and you make good money, so you rationalise the situation. Nothing is perfect, is it...

Your mates in the same department feel the same way, and you send emails to each other about your clients, what they are like and how to deal with them. You also make the occasional unflattering reference to your boss, and maybe sometimes mention that Joe Bloggs in the development department thinks the boss is a lizard in disguise, or whatever.

This is all normal stuff in a big company. It's how you survive the daily grind. It's no big deal, it's just realpolitik.

Then someone copies all those emails to the boss and all your clients.

Suddenly, it is a big deal.

All your clients take offence and change supplier.

You lose your job. As do your peers. And Joe Bloggs gets fired too. Because a lot of the clients take their custom elsewhere, the company has to downsize, and half the workforce are, over the next year, laid off.

So do you feel that openness and transparency, that is, the publication of those emails, was morally right within my imaginary company?

And with much bigger issues at stake, do you think that the Wikileaks revelations were a public service? Or do you think they were an unnecessarily inflammatory breach of confidence? A breach of confidence with the potential to cost many people their lives?

Should be merged with this.

Ah, you're right. I'd forgotten about that thread. I expect one of those nice mods will be along soon to do just that!

my thoughts are......if I understand some of what I was told........yes this should of been disclosed

further if true....I wouldn't blame the rest of the world if they were to invade us

unless we actually throw the crooks out who are responsible publicly and openly

they though their actions not only almost completely destroyed my country but destroyed and damaged many others........in my name........I take offense with that

the world hates and blames America for a lot..........and while we the people were told one thing.......they did what ever in our name

simply for the world to respect America again.......we need to clean house..........even if it takes armed revolt

and Government , banker's , big business [the ones truly running the show , like Haliburton]should be charged with war crimes............dating present , back to WWI

but thats just the opinion of a pissed off American that hasn't believed a word gov. has said in years........go figure

Identical topics merged

we are always taught that if we do something against the rules we must apologise and pay the consequences of our Actions. I have stated my case many times about lying Government officials and politicians and now we are beginning to see the tip of what will turn out to be a Huge ice berg of deceit and BS given and spoon-fed to the public by greedy and conniving politicians across the globe. What are going to be the repercussions against the politicians that have been found wanting? NONE, what is the price that is going to have to be paid for the transgressions against the very people they are elected to govern? NONE.. Will anyone of the sneaky rat bags be held to account about the fact that people have died because of their inability to tell the truth? NO..We can come here and bitch and moan and whine about it all day and all week long (And I love to do that very thing ) but we cannot do anything to change the fact that we have allowed those in power to strip our souls out by remaining wide asleep to the blatant lies and BS the governments ALLOW to be aired by news programs and channels all over the world. Wiki leaks is a great thing in my opinion. I think everyone should know EXACTLY what the government of their country is getting them involved in, And I mean everything, so they have a chance to air their worries and reservations about the actions that are proposed.. I really don't know what we can do as an alternative to present government activities, We know for sure they will not change tack on what ever they are doing,(Piling money and assets into their own pockets.) I don't think revolt is on the cards, politicians have been working hard for the last few years splitting communities so they can not use an effective response to the local and national government lies. All we can do is hope that people like those at Wiki leaks keep us informed of TRUTHS that are not just told to get voters on side.

Forbes just came out with an interview w/ Assange which can be found here

I will copy/paste the part I'm sure many here will find interesting:

But in the meantime, there could be a lot of pain from these scandals, obviously.

Pain for the guilty.

Do you derive pleasure from these scandals that you expose and the companies you shame?

It’s tremendously satisfying work to see reforms being engaged in and stimulating those reforms. To see opportunists and abusers brought to account.

You were a traditional computer hacker. How did you find this new model of getting information out of companies?

It’s a bit annoying, actually. Because I cowrote a book about [being a hacker], there are documentaries about that, people talk about that a lot. They can cut and paste. But that was 20 years ago. It’s very annoying to see modern day articles calling me a computer hacker.

I’m not ashamed of it, I’m quite proud of it. But I understand the reason they suggest I’m a computer hacker now. There’s a very specific reason.

I started one of the first ISPs in Australia, known as Suburbia, in 1993. Since that time, I’ve been a publisher, and at various moments a journalist. There’s a deliberate attempt to redefine what we’re doing not as publishing, which is protected in many countries, or the journalist activities, which is protected in other ways, as something which doesn’t have a protection, like computer hacking, and to therefore split us off from the rest of the press and from these legal protections. It’s done quite deliberately by some of our opponents. It’s also done because of fear, from publishers like The New York Times that they’ll be regulated and investigated if they include our activities in publishing and journalism.

I’m not arguing you’re a hacker now. But if we say that both what you were doing then and now are both about gaining access to information, when did you change your strategy from going in and getting it to simply asking for it?

That hacker mindset was very valuable to me. But the insiders know where the bodies are. It’s much more efficient to have insiders. They know the problems, they understand how to expose them.

How did you start to approach your leak strategy?

When we started Suburbia in 1993, I knew that bringing information to the people was very important. We facilitated many groups: We were the electronic printer if you like for many companies and individuals who were using us to publish information. They were bringing us information, and some of them were activist groups, lawyers. And some bringing forth information about companies, like Telstra, the Australian telecommunications giant. We published information on them. That’s something I was doing in the 1990s.

We were the free speech ISP in Australia. An Australian Anti-church of Scientology website was hounded out of Victoria University by legal threats from California, and hounded out of a lot of places. Eventually they came to us.

People were fleeing from ISPs that would fold under legal threats, even from a cult in the U.S. That’s something I saw early on, without realizing it: potentiating people to reveal their information, creating a conduit. Without having any other robust publisher in the market, people came to us.

I wanted to ask you about [Peiter Zatko, a legendary hacker and security researcher who also goes by] “Mudge.”

Yeah, I know Mudge. He’s a very sharp guy.

Mudge is now leading a project at the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to find a technology that can stop leaks, which seems pretty relative to your organization. Can you tell me about your past relationship with Mudge?

Well, I…no comment.

Were you part of the same scene of hackers? When you were a computer hacker, you must have known him well.

We were in the same milieu. I spoke with everyone in that milieu.

I think Wikileaks is kind of a huge let down.

At first I thought the whole idea was cool. Who shot JFK, existence of Aliens at Area 51, who's behind 9/11 and so on.

But really all I've seen is a bunch of in-house documents, probably state level, that don't really reveal anything.

I mean who knew Govts discuss other Govts business? WOW! like I never knew that ....

If the information was classified Top Secret with real juicy world changing mysteries, then I'd be Wikileaks biggest fan.

But what I've seen thus far, meh, its nowhere near as huge as they made it out to be.

I would argue that Burginthorn. It isn't that it is sensationalistic journalism, we already have that, but more that it is the everyday mundane workings and goings on that takes place. That means that a politician must be aware that if they get involved in unscrupulous activity it can't just be part of their everyday dealings or they will be found out, and have to answer for it. It at the very least makes politicians more answerable for how they spend their days. I remember back maybe 10 years ago there was a government watch dog type web site that posted the attendance and how someone voted on each topic in congress or if they didn't vote. It was all listed out in an easy to follow chart. Congress immediately wanted to make it private how they voted and so they argued it should also be confidential who was in attendance. It was shot down and never went anywhere as they are public servants and the sessions are protected as being open to the public so didn't really have a leg to stand on. Upon reviewing the chart on that web site you could very quickly see why they didn't want their attendance and voting published. There were all manor of politicians that either never attended a session or only did a very few times, so what had they been doing during their term? They didn't even bother to go to work yet were being paid with all the benefits and some had been in their office for multiple terms. I see WikiLeaks as a way of keeping that kind of stuff from happening as well as at least making so they have to hide their underhanded activities, in this way if they do have to answer for something one day not only do they have to answer for the questionable dealings they had but also why they hid it if their claim is that it was on the up and up.

The hypocrisy of the media attack on Wikileaks

WHISTLEBLOWING website WikiLeaks came under a "malicious" cyber attack today which forced it to shut down in Europe and the United States.

The mysterious online ambush appeared aimed at stemming the flow of leaked US diplomatic cables which have caused worldwide controversy.

No one claimed responsibility but the method used was typical of experienced computer hackers.

One expert said: "It looks like someone is trying to plug the leak."


The site was blitzed with requests for information which would have meant downloading the equivalent of a movie-length DVD per SECOND.

It was the second assault since Sunday, when the first of the latest batch of private messages was posted on the site.


Senior government figures in London and Washington had condemned the release of more than 250,000 confidential dispatches from US embassies around the globe.

WikiLeaks, which is hosted in Sweden, announced the attack in a Twitter message.

It claimed that the site was under a "distributed denial of service attack" which it said was a method used by hackers to force a site to slow down or close.

The whistleblowers said that "malicious traffic" was coming in at such a volume as to indicate a "relatively large effort".

First reports of the attack surfaced at 1pm.

Internet investigator and author Neil Doyle confirmed: "WikiLeaks was the target of a massive cyber attack which was an attempt to knock the site offline and prevent further damaging disclosures.

"Known as a distributed denial of service attack, it was aimed at forcing the computers hosting the website to shut down by overwhelming it with information requests.

"This is often done by hijacking hundreds or thousands of computers and using them simultaneously to bombard the target site with traffic.

"WikiLeaks said it had measured the traffic levels to be around ten gigabits per second, which is near the top end of the scale in terms of severity.

"The attackers bombarded the site with requests to download pages at a rate that the website's servers struggled to keep up with.

"The volume of traffic was the equivalent of downloading one movie-length DVD every second."

More attacks are likely once WikiLeaks is up and running again, he foreca

Another version of that story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11875830

I wonder who could be responsible for that

hhhhhhhmmmmmm... let me think!!!

who would have a reason to crash that site....HHHHHHHmmmmmmmmm...that is a tough one.......

anyone got any ideas.....

This article by Frank Furedi (Google him) pretty well sums up my feelings on the subject. Simply, it is not "in the public interest" to know all the machinations of government.

The complete and utter governmental hypocrisy.

I really would like a transparent government, though. As for being "in the public interest," what about the hundreds of times government officials have broken the Logan Act? It's all a matter of perspective.

It would be wonderful if the world was like DSRG, where geopolitical and religious boundries really count for nothing. But we here are but a small section of society, united only by a common ethos.

The bottom line, however, is that we are still slaves to our genetic programming, of which the primary concern is survival.

Firstly of self, secondly of family, thirdly of tribe, and fourthly of nation. Global humanity doesn't get a look in.

And with that in mind, we are fools if we divulge our concerns, appraisals and plans to those who would destroy us.

That is why some things are marked "confidential". Because they are potentially damaging to our self/family/tribe/nation.

I can understand the thought processes behind the Logan act, but I think it is so vague and open to interpretation it would be a nightmare to prosecute, which is probably why it's never been invoked.

Survival. It's the basic instinct.

I was referring largely to the Bilderbergers and the like including Bernanke and Clinton and hundreds of other.

Think of a completely transparent world. Think about how much conflict would end. Only a theory.

Why not bud?..If it wasn't for a leaked document we would not have known about how much the politicians were ripping us off for every day.If it wasn't for a leak we would not know half the things that go of in parliament that we should be informed of that can and do take away our freedom of movement and liberty everyday..the Normal press have been used as press offices for the government for long enough and I feel that its time we heard exactly what they do every day that concerns our national interests.. just because some foreign politician loses his temper and throws the teddy out of the cot and fires off some dastardly Email's about how he feels about some other politician in some far off land doesn't concern me one bit..you said in one of your posts that it happens at "normal places of work every day" indeed it does, but if I upset someone at work they really haven't got the power to get upset and start making plans to kill thousands of people.What does concern me is that these people have proved time and time again that they are the ones who needs big brother watching them not us. while we sit and protest about how much its costing for a packet of cigarettes or how much flights are now, they are making plans to use "OUR" money as they see fit. not as "We the people" want it spent..I would sooner see 3 more hospitals built paid for and running here in the UK rather than these n00bs spending billions of our pounds fighting a war on behalf of a nation that should do it itself if that's what they want.. Perspective is a valid point but what perspective can explain that the Arab nations want the USA and inevitably their Puppet the UK to follow them into a illegal war on the say so of some Arab leader or some n00b who can't even say the word "nuclear"? I don't want to be in the Dark about anything these lying rat-bags do any more knowledge is Power and us knowing what they are doing will make sure what they are doing is in our interests not their own. [/rant]

Yes I agree, a transparent world may well be conflict-free. But that means everyone has to be transparent. And honest.

Can you really see that happening? Don't forget the survival instinct which runs strongly through all of us...

Hence the concept of realpolitik.

A transparent world is like pure communism. A wonderful concept.

Trouble is, it doesn't take into account human nature...

You know, some are more equal than others...



Indeed not, knightron. All they can do is fire you. But if a national power gets hold of sensitive information about how an enemy state is predisposed, then thousands of lives are potentially at risk.

My point is that if countries stayed within their own boundaries (politically) and kept their own house in order in their own cultural way we would not have half the problems we have today.. personally I really don't care if the Arabs are pissed off with the Iranians, its none of My business, but I as a tax payer am expected to pay for our troops that are employed to "protect against enemies both foreign and domestic" (meaning if we are invaded or we have terror or invasion from within) its ridiculous, in no part of the Oath of allegiance I took when I joined the army did it say I must allow some foreign dignitary force me to go and fight an illegal war on behalf of a nation I don't even care about. If we had a totally open society and had no government keeping stupid secrets about what they are doing with "our" money, we wouldn't need to spend billions on anti-terror officers, or ruin our own economy cos we have been meddling in foreign affairs that are blatantly nothing to do with us as a nation,we would therefore not be upsetting people from other countries enough for them to want to come and blow us up.! would we?

Essentially, mind your own business. Very good, Knightron. I concur.

Me too.

I heard on BBC news24 about 20-30 minutes ago that the founder of wikileaks is wanted by interpol for "sex crimes"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/3...-julian-assange

That's what you get when you upset the apple-cart and show powerful people up for what they really are..scum bags.. In all seriousness would you put yourself in the media limelight if you had done anything like that, that could bring you into the public eye? I don't think so..
Is it just me or can everyone see a mysterious Death coming on?

Ah, how true. But I reiterate, the reality of the situation is not so simple.

Unfortunately, we have nations idealogically opposesd to our very way of life. They would like nothing better than to destroy that way of life that we have chosen.

Are we, then, to provide them with information which will further their aims? Do we tell them our weaknesses? Already we are at a disadvantage because we place a higher value on human life than those who would subsume us.

They are only opposed to our going into their country and trying to take away their heritage and instil a western style democracy bud, I will say again if they come to our country and try to invade our borders I would fight for our nation, until that time I have no interest in British foreign policy of following other countries on to foreign soil to fight for what I really don't think is anyone else's business but that country.

It's entirely possible that had we not meddled in their affairs they wouldn't:

A) Be as well trained in the art of guerilla warfare.
It was our troops and special forces that trained the Afghanies and the Taliban, AQ, etc.
B) Give a toss that people half a world away had different ideas.

In fact, the Taliban may never have even existed.


I can't imagine they would remain weaknesses for very long if they were public knowledge.

Edit:

Wikileaks.org is (unsurprisingly) inaccessible right now. secure.wikileaks.org however, is accessible.

Something I found interesting is the alexa traffic graph which can be found here: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikileaks.org

That phrase is overused far too much by the governments and has almost lost meaning. Any time the US government doesn't want something to happen and can't give a valid reason it's always "national security" that gets mentioned.

Yes we do have a right to know everything.

An old saying, "When the people fear the government it's opression. When the government fears the people it's freedom"

I really cant figure out whether wikileaks, was a good or a bad thing, as much as i disagree with our government, if i have my freedom they can have there secrets.

Darn it, I hate these threads where BOTH points of view make sense

But what if your freedom comes in the way of their secrets i saw this on wikileaks.org about two reuters journalists who were shot by an apache crew .The army did not reveal it inspite of reuters trying to acquire it through freedom of information act until a whistle blower 22 yr old Pvt Bradley Manning released a video of it and is now jailed in kuwait because of it.
video link1
shorter version link2

I know in war things are not black and white and accidents do happen if it was an accident why did they withhold the information in the first place and if it was not why are the apache crew not arrested any way my point is we feel the government is fair and right until something like this happens to us or someone we know
hope my american friends can access those links

Very true Pheonix, and when I made that statement by no means was i reffering to that I think we have are freedom. Becuase we do not have our freedom in the US. I was just stating in general, that if we did have our freedom I could care less what secrets they were hiding, but by no means do i think we are free in this country. The sad thing is most americans do believe they have there freedom, the US has so much hype in other countries as being a free world, only if they were to come and live here for a couple years, would they figure out the truth. I recently visited Greece and Albania, and have never felt the kind of freedom that I felt while being in Albania. The people of a lawless state have more freedom, then the supposed, land of the free.

unfortunately the governments across the world don't want us to have freedom. If we did they would have no power over us and they couldn't make a ship load of money for themselves ..

It all boils down to money in the end.