# Wikileaks



## Blake Bowden (Nov 30, 2010)

Good or bad?


----------



## JTM (Nov 30, 2010)

good.  was it someone around these forums that said "this is what happens when the government goes through a full body scanner"  ?


----------



## Bro.BruceBenjamin (Nov 30, 2010)

I say bad. I cant use flash drives at work because of it. It also caused a policy of limited cell phone use on post.


----------



## Wesbarr (Nov 30, 2010)

Not good! I believe that alot of what is on the new is to much info. To remain the best and most dominant country in the world we need to tighten up and quit worrying so much about being politically correct


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter (Nov 30, 2010)

Bad.  I understand the need for secrecy.  It is a necessary thing and not evil.  The government is us and I don't want us exposed.  How can we respect secrecy as Masons and despise it when we use it to protect our well being?

I think cowans are cowans...anti-Masonic ones and anti-Americans ones as well


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Nov 30, 2010)

Bad. It is a clear and present danger to our national security.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Nov 30, 2010)

You can't make a blanket "good" or "bad" pronouncement like that. Much of the traffic is harmless, but much of it is sensitive and it's exposure will, at best, undo things that are in our national interest. Still other "leaks" desperately needed to be made. Hiding criminal misconduct behind "national security" is shameful and un-American. 
The soldier responsible for this betrayed a trust and should be punished for his crime, but so should every one of the criminals he has exposed.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Nov 30, 2010)

So where do you draw the line, National Security? How much is too much & who should be responsible for the information published? In order to protect NS, that means that the government has to govern the information. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

The government can't rule the media, it is unconstitutional under freedom of speech.


----------



## JTM (Nov 30, 2010)

Bro. Stewart said:


> So where do you draw the line, National Security? How much is too much & who should be responsible for the information published? In order to protect NS, that means that the government has to govern the information. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?
> 
> The government can't rule the media, it is unconstitutional under freedom of speech.



any time you find a piece of information you think is important to share to the world because it violates some rule or right (or international law in this case), it's your right to do so.  i couldn't imagine finding out about some government atrocity and not being able to share it because of "national security."


----------



## Benton (Dec 1, 2010)

Good. Sometimes government needs it dirty laundry to be aired, just like any other institution. No, there is nothing inherently wrong with secrecy, but secrecy can often hide corruption and lack of moral judgment, as I think has so clearly happened in our society at large.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Dec 1, 2010)

Benton said:


> Good. Sometimes government needs it dirty laundry to be aired, just like any other institution. No, there is nothing inherently wrong with secrecy, but secrecy can often hide corruption and lack of moral judgment, as I think has so clearly happened in our society at large.


 
Agreed.


----------



## mark! (Dec 1, 2010)

I think the release is two fold.  It's bad because yes, some relationships have been tensioned because of it, perhaps national security(Probably not near as bad as some say) will be threatened, and other information that shouldn't otherwise be out there will surface.  I do however believe it is a good thing because it lets our "government" know that whatever you do, we're watching.  I was talking with my wife the other day about more and more politicians get on board with this "give the country back to it's people" stance, and making a stand for our constitution.  In due time, there will be plenty of candidates out there that will run for office that hold these values, and we will start getting back on track, becoming the country we once used to be.


----------



## Dave in Waco (Dec 1, 2010)

In this day and time of cutthroat media, I have to say it's bad.  Think about the whole Clinton Sex Scandal.  It was a media blitz that garnered more attention then the conflict in Bosina.  Now think back 30 years before that.  Kennedy had so many mistresses, one would need a program to tell who was who, but there was very little ever published about them until after his death. 

So leaks can be a good thing, but when news media is irresponsable with that information, it puts the nation at risk.  Another example straight out of my area.  I'm sure most have heard of the Branch Davidians and the botched ATF Raid.  The ATF kept the raid so secret, not even the local authorities who are supposed to be notified knew about it.  Who did know about was a local news station.  In their zeal to get the story, they showed up before the raid to set up to film.  They filmed the whole raid.  The ATF, had no idea that their news camera set to film their raid, which was their way of showing the Clinton Administration that was about to slash their budget that there was still a big need for them, had tipped off the Branch Davidians who were already on the phone to 911 when the raid took place.  So their raid was botched because of a leak and irresponsible media.

So media has to be responsible with what they report.  There are things the government needs to keep secret for our own safety.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Dec 1, 2010)

I have about had my fill of partisan political pandering now, thank you.


----------



## owls84 (Dec 1, 2010)

I guess in a way MoTx could be the Wikileaks of Masonry.


----------



## Traveling Man (Dec 1, 2010)

Both; From Benjamin Franklin... 





> Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.



This being said after these three wisemen opened mail for intel purposes during the American Revolution...


----------



## JTM (Dec 1, 2010)

Dave in Waco said:


> In this day and time of cutthroat media, I have to say it's bad.  Think about the whole Clinton Sex Scandal.  It was a media blitz that garnered more attention then the conflict in Bosina.  Now think back 30 years before that.  Kennedy had so many mistresses, one would need a program to tell who was who, but there was very little ever published about them until after his death.
> 
> So leaks can be a good thing, but when news media is irresponsable with that information, it puts the nation at risk.  Another example straight out of my area.  I'm sure most have heard of the Branch Davidians and the botched ATF Raid.  The ATF kept the raid so secret, not even the local authorities who are supposed to be notified knew about it.  Who did know about was a local news station.  In their zeal to get the story, they showed up before the raid to set up to film.  They filmed the whole raid.  The ATF, had no idea that their news camera set to film their raid, which was their way of showing the Clinton Administration that was about to slash their budget that there was still a big need for them, had tipped off the Branch Davidians who were already on the phone to 911 when the raid took place.  So their raid was botched because of a leak and irresponsible media.
> 
> So media has to be responsible with what they report.  There are things the government needs to keep secret for our own safety.


 



Traveling Man said:


> Both; From Benjamin Franklin...
> 
> This being said after these three wisemen opened mail for intel purposes during the American Revolution...



Bingo.  I think it's a balance between leaders in government trying to keep a secret and the people trying to figure out information and spread it around.  I see nothing wrong with having a constant struggle over this and think a solution either way would be a bad thing.  It's nothing new, it's been around since time began, and it's the way it should be.  



owls84 said:


> I guess in a way MoTx could be the Wikileaks of Masonry.


 
 Awesome correlation there.  I like it.


----------



## Preston DuBose (Dec 3, 2010)

Bad, in that it was a very indiscriminate leak. The majority of the leak thus far doesn't expose wrongdoing. What it does expose are private US diplomatic conversations between and about other nations. The leaks certainly won't improve our country's diplomatic relations with those nations, and in many cases it will reduce trust and discourage candor. We have a right to expect our government to be accountable, but the wikileaks are damaging our diplomatic credibility with very little to show for it.


----------



## Preston DuBose (Dec 5, 2010)

I saw this article and was reminded of this thread.

http://www.theeagle.com/local/Dean-weighs-in-on-leaks/



> "Unlike leaks in the past, like the Pentagon Papers, for example, to uncover governmental wrongdoing," Crocker said, "this is leaking for the sake of leaking. There are no smoking guns, and it makes me think of WikiLeaks as an anarchist organization."


----------



## Botex (Dec 10, 2010)

That link is broken (missing a hyphen it seems). Here is the working link: http://www.theeagle.com/local/Dean-weighs-in-on-leaks-

On the subject of Wikileaks, my observation is that the leaks already occurred at their source, rather than when they were divested by Assange. IF there is any liability, it must fall on the leaker - I don't believe that to be Wikileaks (read Assange) as he never swore an oath to protect the so-called secrets. He merely created the apparatus to collect and eventually disperse the contents. My point is that the leakage had already occurred at the source, because the intent/expectation of the conveyor(s) of the information to Wikileaks was that their submissions eventually would be made widely known.

As to the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the source leakers, I cannot make that judgement because I do not know their mind. Their decision to leak could be evidence of an inability to reconcile duty with conscience. Or perhaps they had made multiple oaths and came to the conclusion that two or more of these were in contradiction to one another. I could speculate further but I don't see the fruit in doing so.


----------



## blackbeard (Dec 11, 2010)

the fact there are leaks is BAD.  but let's not lose sight of the big picture.  the man is being held on charges of RAPE.  is it or isn't it espionage in the case of the leaks?...who knows?  but he is being held on RAPE charges, that alone raises more than one red flag for me as far as his credibility/worth goes.


----------



## jonesvilletexas (Dec 11, 2010)

I cannot believe the question would even come up, good or bad. IF, and it could cause even one of our men or woman to fall into harmâ€™s way, then dam the oneâ€™s that would stand up for him. If you think that he has the right, let it be your son or daughter they bring home in a box, I pray that it will not be mine.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Dec 11, 2010)

I place blame on the intelligence officer who leaked the information, not wikileaks.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Dec 11, 2010)

Blake Bowden said:


> I place blame on the intelligence officer who leaked the information, not wikileaks.



Agreed, though until yesterday, I was waffling on the "rightness" of Wikileaks involvement. Yesterday, I learned that Daniel Ellsberg had weighed in with the observation that the alarmist bleating about Asange is the exact same alarmist bleating that was leveled at him, some forty-two years ago. Q.E.D.

It is the right, nay, the responsibility of the media to _report_. Anything that abridges their ability to carry out that responsibility is a threat to our liberty. _Anything. _

Does it suck that our country's international relations were hurt by this? Sure, but that is not the fault of Wikileaks. They are _not_ responsible for the leak. They certainly aren't responsible for the behavior of those who conduct foreign relations on our behalf and who have done things that would "embarass" us.

Has anyone actually been harmed by the leaks? As it turns out, just as it did in the case of "The Pentagon Papers", the answer is no, alarmist bleating notwithstanding.  Indeed, Ellsberg's revelations showed that the American people *had been lied to, *and that the liars knew full well that the Vietnam War could not be won and that continued operations there would result in* needless casualties*. Now many lives could have been saved and injuries prevented if the American people had, years earlier, come to the realization that the war was a bad idea?


----------

