Comments:Wikileaks to release thousands of secret documents; 'international embarrassment' likely

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Comments from feedback form - "Keep it up."023:15, 5 December 2010
Comments from feedback form - "reliabiity is ok"015:03, 1 December 2010
Comments from feedback form - "Telling the truth it will emba..."007:39, 30 November 2010
HA!801:38, 30 November 2010
Comments from feedback form - "I think this a great release,b..."101:30, 30 November 2010
Comments from feedback form - "Thank God for freedom of the p..."101:28, 30 November 2010
Comments from feedback form - "Good Work"001:03, 30 November 2010
Comments from feedback form - "this site is a good thing"000:03, 30 November 2010
Comments from feedback form - "well done"014:06, 29 November 2010
Comments from feedback form - "good"005:17, 29 November 2010
Good021:57, 28 November 2010

Comments from feedback form - "Keep it up."

Keep it up. (talk)23:15, 5 December 2010

Comments from feedback form - "reliabiity is ok"

reliabiity is ok (talk)15:03, 1 December 2010

Comments from feedback form - "Telling the truth it will emba..."

Telling the truth it will embarrass the ones who lie. Now we know what “top secret” means every time we hear it from our autorities. (talk)07:39, 30 November 2010

Well then, government, you claim there's nothing to fear when there's nothing to hide, let's see how that fallacy plays when you're the focus. (talk)06:35, 27 November 2010

So they say revealing their secrets will damage their relations with their allies. That means that either the US is internally communicating things about their allies that these allies won't like - which they deserve to know about; that the US is having secret dialog with its allies about third parties, which I can only see as acceptable if the third parties are terrorist organizations, or rogue states who hate the US anyway; or that the US is communicating with other States in confidence about things the public would be very displeased about learning - which, again, means the public probably deserves to know; or, finally, that the US and others are sharing secrets pertaining to real national security threats with one another - this is the only situation where I agree that a leak would really be irresponsible. If the documents are so numerous, however, it's probably safe to assume there will be a little of everything, for good or ill. (talk)07:11, 27 November 2010

I for one can hardly wait for the US State Department's bullying tactics to be revealed. This may well be one of the best things that will have happened since the end of WWII. (talk)12:34, 27 November 2010

'It's a complete game-changer, and one that has long been needed. Media consolidation has rendered the "free press" an appendage of the global corporate powers and the "governments" that are their lapdogs. WikiLeaks has stepped in to fill the vacuum. If Assange manages to survive as a free man for the next decade (which seems unlikely given the enemies he now has) this could even represent a paradigm shift in public oversight and government transparency. (talk)01:38, 30 November 2010

National security is often overplayed for its own sake. For example, one (now rather long ago) attempted bombing trial in Scotland involved evidence from the man who defused the device. 'No' he says (paraphrased; I have no idea what the exact quotes of the conversation are) 'I can't possibly tell you publicly how I defused it'. 'Would it have anything to do' the defence asks, pointing to a public-record-diagram-thingy of the bomb 'with a pair of pliers, and cutting that wire there?'

'Er, yes' a rather embarrassed bomb disposer admits. 'Yes, it would'.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)12:39, 27 November 2010

My father survived D-Day, landing on the beaches of Normandy was Hell to the tenth power..Maybe if there was a Wiki back then, and they gave the plans for the Normandy invasion to the Nazi's, my father and a million more soldiers would have never come home.Some secrets are ment to remain secrets..

Spock1 (talk)15:34, 27 November 2010

Wow, I dont know where to start on this one. First off wiki's are a design of website that allows for modification by anyone, wikis arnt the issue at hand, wikileaks is, learn what your talking about before you speak next time. Second, if someone was going to give the plans to wikileaks then they would have also presumably given them to the nazis, if wikileaks had it at least the allies would know that everyone knew what was happening, and the invasion could have been changed.

If an organization or government has secrets it wants to hide then it should ensure that secrets remain secret, not vilifying a website that released them to everyone after they were knowing leaked by an insider in said organization. It is better that information that has been leaked is known to be leaked as opposed to our enemies having information that we do not know they have. (talk)03:21, 28 November 2010

All the publishing newspapers, removed information that might endanger people. The New York Times also asked the U.S. Governement wheteher they wanted to keep secret any further cables. The Government refused (!) to talk to Wikileaks about which pieces of information should be kept secret in the near future to protect people's lives. (talk)19:53, 28 November 2010

World War II was an entirely different situation. The government was actually doing something good back then. All these documents release is diplomatic crap about governments doing bad and embarrassing things, which the public deserves to know about. The only people in danger from this are corrupt politicians, but they deserve to be in danger. (talk)22:02, 28 November 2010

Comments from feedback form - "I think this a great release,b..."

I think this a great release,but I hope the young man that released this great info will not be made as an example to anyone else brave enough to show the true corruption shady deals and people around the world.we need more people like this young man to step forward with the truth. (talk)23:39, 29 November 2010

Absolutely! El pueblo unido jamás será vencido! (talk)01:30, 30 November 2010

Comments from feedback form - "Thank God for freedom of the p..."

Thank God for freedom of the press. (talk)05:47, 28 November 2010

something most of these "embarrassed" governments would like to get rid of! Long live WIkileaks! (talk)01:28, 30 November 2010

Comments from feedback form - "Good Work"

Good Work (talk)01:03, 30 November 2010

Comments from feedback form - "this site is a good thing"

this site is a good thing (talk)00:03, 30 November 2010

Comments from feedback form - "well done"

well done (talk)14:06, 29 November 2010

Comments from feedback form - "good"

good (talk)05:17, 29 November 2010

Anything that embarrasses and exposes governments is a good thing. Also, they say this endangers lives. Well, good. I hope those corrupt politicians' lives get endangered.

Furthermore, I only see one minor thing at which would embarrass the U.S. government. I see countries aren't afraid to attack Iran, which is good. Comparing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler is accurate.

  • "Grave fears in Washington and London over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme." — That's reasonable.
  • "Hamid Karzai being 'driven by paranoia' " — Well, most dictators are driven by paranoia.
  • "Saudi donors remain chief financiers of militant groups like Al Qaida." — Well, duh. Most Saudis are brainwashed Islamic radicals. The only reason we're their ally is because of their oil. Personally, I think we should just conquer them and forcibly take their oil rather than paying them for it and making those terrorist bastards richer.
  • "Iran alledgedy is in possession of missile derived from a Russian design and obtained from North Korea that are more powerful than any weapon publicly admitted to be in Iran's possession. These missiles, designated the BM-25, have a range of up to 2,000 miles (3,200 km)." — Why would the U.S. government even want to keep this secret? Iran and North Korea are our enemies, and the more the public knows about them, the better. It's also well known that Russia is selling its technology to unstable governments.
  • "A Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing that the Chinese government was responsible for instigating the January 2010 Google hacking incident. Chinese government operatives have waged a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage targeting the United States and its allies." — More information about our enemies' misdeeds.
  • "Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime." — Yes, we all know the Russian government is highly corrupt. Nothing to get all excited about.
  • "Claims of inappropriate behaviour by a member of the British Royal Family." — Who cares? The British royalty are just celebrites and figureheads in government.
  • "The United States apparently used bargaining to move prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to other countries. In one case, if Slovenia did not take one of the prisoners, President Obama would not agree to meet with Slovenian officials. Other offers include economic incentives or even a visit from President Obama." — I can see why the government would want to keep this secret, but it only endangers the Obama administration's credibility, not the public. We deserve to know our government's lies and misdeeds. (talk)21:55, 28 November 2010