Yay or nay? I tend to lean toward the yay side, but I'd like to see some arguments on both sides of the coin.

I think it should exist. And i think the site should publish whatever is given to them. However, I understand that not everything should be leaked. But that prevention should be on the side of the leakers, not the site publishing the information.

My primary worry is about them not taking proper precautions re: US informants, and placing lives at risk in the process. Haven't heard as much about that this time around, and I'm not sure whether any harmful effects stemming from that ever materialized in earlier cases (coverage has seemed to begin and end with the leak itself, the media taking no look at the aftermath).

Ignoring concerns, at least the leaks are pretty interesting this time around.

Oh, and this can't be good for intelligence sharing between agencies.

Anything that exposes the government for the lying pieces of shit they are is good in my book.

I'm all for more transparency in government, but this kind of shit is just utterly juvenile. "Oh, let's release all these secret documents to show how PHONY they are with no regards to the consequences" is just a high school anarchist thought and nothing more. I don't think there's going to be any huge fallout here--anyone involved in diplomacy knows that this shit goes on, and if anything, Iran is now more aware of how isolated they are. The UN spying part is probably the worst, but really, that's nothing new. It's more the attitude that strikes me as dangerous and childish. The supposed leaker released everything he had clearance for. What if he had higher clearance? It doesn't appear this would have stopped him in the slightest. I think the thing is that you can't compare personal deceit with international diplomacy--in real life, it's okay to expose someone as a liar because they bear the responsibility for their lies. It doesn't equate that the government should be exposed because its real people, not the nebulous government, that would bear any responsibility from this. Even the mildest consequences--strained relations with Italy, say--are felt by the American people more than by the American government qua government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -wikileaks

‎"Anything said or done in the name of a democracy is, prima facie, of public interest. When that democracy purports to be "world policeman" – an assumption that runs ghostlike through these cables – that interest is global."

Would redacting actual names solve this worry?

Agreed and agreed, but just because something is public interest, does that necessitate that something be public knowledge?

Hey guys, it's a good thing the Department of Homeland Security is out there making sure you can't download illegal rap music.

Wrong thread?

Yeah, that would go a long way. While there are probably other ways the informants could be found out through the documents using context, I don't think I'd expect wikileaks to do more than redact names on protection of informant grounds alone.

So, yay or nay for you, and why?

do people just now think our government does things in the shadows they dont want everyone to know? people act like bush and cheney are the first to do things on the sly to absolve their hands of the mess. this has happened for like ever and its just the way it is.

you dont want to know what your government does when youre not looking. im perfectly fine with that.

Yeah, remember when JFK was fucking Marilyn Monroe?

I pretty much agree with Mick.

For those of you that say "yay", do you believe that the U.S. government should not have any clandestine operations of any kind? That everything we do should be common knowledge to every citizen and therefore every person on earth? Just curious where your line is for protection of this country vs. the right to know.

I'm not sure, hence why I started this thread. Leaking something like future tactical operations doesn't seem right to me, and could be construed as treasonous. I'm sure I could think of other possibilities if I tried.

What do you think? My initial response is that nothing that I've seen so far crossed the line, but I'd be willing to consider otherwise if you or whoever made a good argument.

From what I understand many undercover agents have been severely compromised. But it's not Valerie Plame, so who gives a fuck. We have people who want to get on airplanes that need to be sexually assaulted.