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.

124.188.171.7 (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.

139.18.198.29 (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.

188.62.34.214 (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.

67.142.172.21 (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.

64.234.39.169 (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.

85.127.138.208 (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.

98.148.55.144 (talk)22:02, 28 November 2010