Does Wikileaks need to be more secretive?

Post Reply New Topic

After Julian Assange is sent to prison for a crime he did not commit, will Wikileaks be more secretive than it is now?

It seems to me that conservatives in the U.S. think Assange is a terrorist, and the liberals think he is a hero. Pretty suspicious on part of the consevatives. Any thoughts on this?

I'm a centerist, and I think he is the bravest person since Watergate's "Deepthroat"(Who turned out to be the Assistant Director of the FBI).

Had to repost this because something somewhere messed up.

Within the government, everyone, both liberal and conservative, seems to think he's a terrorist. Among individuals, it seems my sense is that liberals are more supportive of Wikileaks than conservatives.

Wikileaks won't need to be any more secretive. They have well over a thousand mirrors and the full document database has already been released (all they need to do is publish the decryption key) and the files are also in the hands of the press. Try as they might, governments have not been able to shut Wikileaks down.

A lot of "liberals" think he's a terrorist, too. But those are the nationalists.


My question is: why is this the concern rather than that this database was open to people like the Fort Hood shooter and various terror-related military personnel previous?

Why is someone who publicly leaked it in being tortured rather than firing the people who made the information semi-public to the point where any state-side born terrorist who joins the military could get the information? Or not state-side if you pay attention to that whole path to citizenship thing where we're letting aliens (terrestrial) join our military.

The idea Assange is a terrorist and should be executed seems to be quite bipartisan with in the US government. The only elected official that has defended him publicly that I know of so far is Ron Paul.

Dianne Feinstein is one of those Democrats and is up in 2012. Hope Californians won't just vote her back in automatically. I know Berkley wanted to name Bradley Manning and Julian Assange heroes. Hopefully they can find a challenger in the primary or the general. The letter at the end of the name shouldn't be the most important thing to people when they vote.

No, they've just done what these government have always done: leave an inordinately large amount of collateral damage in the wake of something that could have been solved much more easily and diplomatically. And by diplomatically, I mean the actual Oxford Dictionary use of the word, not the US State Department's redefining of the word.

I think wikileaks should be shut down. People have known about government and corporate corruption for a long time and if they don't it is because they don't care or refuse to see it. It is very obvious that all governments are corrupt. Some are less corrupt than others. Leaking these documents is not a smart thing to do. It's only serving to make anyone who questions the government to look like a wikileak terrorist. Why couldn't they shut it down? I don't understand that. I've seen plenty of sites shut down. After a while I think they might just say that free speech can't be contained so maybe they should try a new approach.

From what I see though, most people don't care about politics. It's just a form of entertainment for drunk people or anyone who likes to get their blood pressure raised. If a martyr was killed here on my street corner, people would probably care for about a day and a half and then they would go back to their life. Some people may claim to care but most of them wouldn't do anything to change it. The more messed up your life is, the less you have to lose so if they keep messing with people's lives then they are just creating more rebel groups.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl4NlA97GeQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]