The Danger of WikiLeaks: Why the organization could be doing more harm than good

There has been much talk about Wikileaks and the level of danger that such an organization presents. However, that danger is only seen from a certain angle, one that does little to underscore the magnitude of the situation. There are multiple angles in which such an organization, not just WL, is a very bad idea and in which it probably does much more harm than good.

Sure, I think we all understand, myself included, that releasing classified information to the public can be harmful to our national security. I'm not trying to downplay that threat at all, as it is very real. We all also ponder on the validity or sincerity of WL and wonder if much, most or any of the released data is disinformation, either intentional or unintentional. This too is a valid concern over the organization, at least in my opinion. However, there is another danger that isn't so apparent or obvious on first thought, though it is either just as dangerous or even much more dangerous than getting our military heroes into a pickle or gumming up the freedom of information with disinformation, which I hope to lay out in a logically and reasonably concise manner below. In this thread, I hope to clearly point out this danger that is all too often over-looked, along with the dangers that are often discussed and debated.

Over the past year or so, I have pretty much deduced that Wikileaks is much more of a burden to the good of society, than it does to benefit the same and after the information, reasoning and logic contained within this thread, I hope to dispel the myth that Wikileaks is something all truth-seekers should embrace. I want to leave it up to the reader to decide the value and worth of such an organization, and take the information and reasoning contained herein, to make an informed opinion when weighing the value of WL.

Over the last year or so that I have been a member here on ATS, I know that I have gained the trust of many of you, as you have told me in various posts, U2U's and comments left on my profile. I am already foreseeing the accusations that I myself may be spreading disinformation about Wikileaks, in an off-hand effort to discredit the organization, which might actually cause people to turn their minds off from or dismiss the reasoning that will be presented here in this thread. I hope that such ignorance will be minimal and all I ask is that the reader keep his/her mind open to the logic and information presented here, then come to a conclusion based upon said presentation, as opposed to any pre-conceived notion that the reader may or may not have. I would hope that the reader would take the time to check my posting history, if s/he isn't familiar with it already, in order to see my dedication to the truth.

This thread will be divided into three parts (separated by a pair of lines) for easy reading and reference. For reference, please feel free to skip to the section of your interest, though I do however urge everyone to read this thread OP in its entirety.

The three parts are as follows:

1: National Security
The first part will be the obvious danger that Wikileaks presents to our national security and military by releasing information that probably should be secret for matters concerning our physical and martial well-being.

2: Disinformation
The second part will be the obvious scenario that Wikileaks is a disinformation campaign (intentional) or a disinformation outlet (unintentional). In this section of the thread, I'll point out the red flags that have me concerned about the sincerity of such an organization, but I won't stop there, as I'll also point out the obvious and easy ways in which the government could clog the information coming through WikiLeaks with disinformation, regardless of whether Julian Assange is sincere in his attempts to expose government secrets "for the betterment of man-kind".

3: Scope
The third part will focus on the not-so-obvious or the issue of people having a false sense of hope, regarding the information that is leaked. Such information that makes people falsely secure in their feeling that WL is effective at penetrating the government wall of secrecy. If WL can only skim the top layer of secrecy within government, it may just give the public a false sense of hope that whatever WL releases, is the whole scope of what is being kept secret.

Each of these three dangers or scenarios are not mutually exclusive and in their own little ways, they can either feed into each other or displace one another. They could all three exist at the same time and if I was a betting man (which I am), then I would bet that all three are true to at least some degree.

 

 

National Security

The danger to national security by releasing classified information is dangerous, as we all know. If information is released on foreign colluders with our government, then they may be rooted out and killed or jailed. If information is made public on troop movements, technological secrets, military sites/specifications and defense capabilities, then the danger there is obvious and I don't believe that I need to elaborate.

This is the most conventional and obvious danger that Wikileaks presents to our society. It is also the only danger that the media seems to focus on (which will be labeled as a red flag in section two, "disinformation"). The danger to our national security is obvious so I won't go into too much detail, as it is painfully obvious to all. Instead, I will give my opinion on it. The following is my opinion only and shouldn't reflect the information contained within this thread.

It would be absolutely crazy for anyone to think that there should be no secrets in government. I do however believe that the public is entitled to know everything about government, as the government is supposed to be by, for and of the people. However and with that being said, such a notion isn't very practical in our current socio-political climate, as there is a very real danger that some people, both domestic and foreign, would want to do harm to not only our country, but also our way of life.

However, in a Democratic republic (which is what we have), the government should be completely dependent upon the will of the people. We don't simply elect our politicians to make decisions for us, so much as we elect our politicians to make decisions by us. A monarchy, aristocracy or despotic dictatorship, is one in which a governing body or governor makes decisions for the people, in spite of and independent of the public will. Instead, we elect our leaders to make our decisions or to represent our will. However, any adult with an intelligence level worth its weight in salt, knows that people have to be well informed to make good decisions, thus we have to severely limit what is and what isn't kept secret, lest we not make good decisions.

We also have the problem of certain interests, entities and people who will use this secrecy to hide their corrupt deeds. Because we, the public, allow these people to have some secrecy, this basically gives these corrupt entities the ability to hijack our country and keep their deeds under wraps, essentially hiding under the cloak that we have given them..

This gives us a dilemma or paradox because secrecy is important to preserve our way of life, though at the same time it is the biggest danger to our way of life. What good is the idea of freedom if we can't achieve or maintain it? What good is having a brand new car, if you can't use or appreciate a car at all? What's worse, is that you now believe you have a car and create expectations that can not be realized. You are then completely ignorant of your own handicap, making that ignorance a handicap in of itself.

"Whoever shall trade a little liberty for a little security, deserves neither and will lose both" --Ben Franklin

The question then becomes, how can we create a balance in a practical manner, one where we can achieve secrecy while limiting the exploitation of secrecy for corrupt endeavors? There are many ways in which we could do that, though due to the scope of this thread, I'll refrain from listing them here. It's just important to note that you can't have both absolute freedom and absolute security, as the two are mutually exclusive and each one displaces the other. Freedom will always displace security and vice-versa. Which one is more important to you?

"Give me liberty and give me death." --Patrick Henry

However, we should all take note that it is possible to strike a balance between the two, so long as vigilance and a strict adherence to accountability is maintained.

 

 

Disinformation

disinformation definition:
dis·in·for·ma·tion | [ dìssinfər máysh'n ]
NOUN
1. false information: false or deliberately misleading information, often put out as propaganda

In this section, I will go into the possibility of WikiLeaks being either a disinformation campaign, meaning that it is intentionally spreading disinformation, or a disinformation outlet, meaning that they are unintentionally spreading disinformation. I will also list the reasons that I believe it could be a very real possibility, or the red-flags that I have observed.

Disinformation Campaign:

With any organization such as this that seemingly comes out of the wood-work, it needs to be looked at with a level of scrutiny or suspicion. Disinformation is one of the best tactics for keeping people off your trail, so naturally anyone with secrets would want to spread disinformation, our government included. We know for a fact that the government has, at the very least, used such a tactic in the past, whether it be something as mundane as tricking Japan in WWII or something more damning, such as the CIA population exploits of MKULTRA.

If we know that at least some corruption exists in our government, it would then be foolish of us to think that the influences or entities behind this corruption, wouldn't at least consider spreading disinformation. The question then becomes, have they and if they have, what or where is this disinformation?

List of red flags that I have observed concerning WikiLeaks, in no particular order (and which is not inclusive):

The media seems to be paying a lot of attention to WikiLeaks and not just to ridicule the organization.

I find this particularly odd, especially seeing how the media seems to be the propaganda wing of government (for whatever reason). If the media won't report on the findings of a conesus of scientists whose research has found thermitic materials in the WTC dust, then produced in a peer-reviewed publication (regardless of whether you agree with their findings), then why would they report on some Australian guy who is threatening our government's secrets?

The media seems to be only focused on the danger that this might hurt troops or national security.

By doing this, the media is essentially implying that the information is valid. They aren't questioning the authenticity of this information, as would be expected. In effect, they are indirectly vouching for the information.

The government isn't denying any of this information.

Something you would also expect, seeing how there is no way that WL can vouch for it's authenticity. This is the case with at least a lot of it. If the government didn't want some of this information known or to leave some ambiguity, they could simply deny the authenticity, which might also hurt WL's credibility.

There has been no real effort to discredit the organization.

So far, we have only seen ineffective attempts to discredit Assange, nothing near the capabilities of the government, who presumably has unlimited resources to frame or discredit anyone they like. Prof Stephen Jones has a much more intensive discrediting campaign against him and he is a much more credible source and doesn't pose nearly the potential threat of Assange. It is kind of apparent that certain influences don't want Jones' work exposed, though these same influences seem to not care too much about WikiLeaks, which makes me wonder. Furthermore, it would be easy for the government to discredit the organization by leaking false information and then later debunking it, thereby calling all of their leaks into questions.

Julian Assange is still walking around.

He hasn't been accused of child-porn or any viable charge really, nor has he committed suicide or died in a plain wreck. Instead, he has been accused of the extremely weak charge of rape, that is as expected, going nowhere. In order to make their attempts semi-credible, there has to be at least a little discrediting.

The information is apparently making it out to the public.

If the government really didn't want this information out, it wouldn't be too far fetched to believe that it wouldn't make it out, whether it be by restricting the media or by declaring a national threat through the courts.

The DoD was apparently "hunting" Assange, yet couldn't seem to find him, in spite of the fact that he was moving in and out of certain countries, even giving an interview here in America to an MSM outlet.

Assange wasn't hiding in the caves of Afghanistan or Pakistan. Instead, he was moving about through various countrys' customs offices, which means he was being tracked. In fact, I believe that at the time he was being "hunted", he apparently appeared on one of the major networks, doing an in-studio interview. If the Pentagon was really hunting for Assange, they needed only to detain him at the customs checkpoint of whatever country he was entering at that time, especially our own.

The information leaked through WL is a far cry from causing change or any kind of backlash against government.

Nothing that they have released thus far, has been important enough to effectively incriminate the government or certain officials within government. Sure, some of it is eye-raising, but that's about it and this is in spite of the fact that it is all purported to be so damning that it will expose the corruption of government. These claims have yet to be made good on.

Disinformation Outlet:

We also have to consider the very real possibility that WikiLeaks is intentionally leaking disinformation, but that the government is feeding them disinformation, unbeknownst to Assange. In fact, if that isn't happening, then we have to ask, "why not?" It would be extremely easily for the government to easily feed false information, then debunk that information, thereby calling the validity of all leaked information to WL into question.

So, even if WL itself isn't intentionally spreading disinformation, it would be very easy for the government to use the organization to spread disinformation, unbeknownst to WikiLeaks. They could then either do that to use Wikileaks as a covert disinformation outlet, or they could do that to completely discredit the organization. Either way, you have to question the information coming out of Wikileaks, because it could just as easily be disinformation.

Take this scenario for instance (which is completely hypothetical):

What if Bin Laden is living it up on a Caribbean Island, sipping Mai Thai's, eating Maine Lobsters and getting a nice tan, all thanks to the American tax-payer via the American government. The government could then slip (leak) a document to WL, basically stating their search efforts in the Mountains of Afghanistan, with a report of how it is going and just to gain credibility, slip a small but ineffective piece of information that may just make a certain agency blush.

For this reason, you can't really trust any of the information coming out of Wikileaks. If you want to expose government corruption, then you don't do in a manner such as Wikileaks, where you are basically a whistle-blower dump-site, as it just isn't effective that way. You then set yourself up as a tool to be used for disinformation.

Either Wikileaks is a disinformation campaign, or it will be used as a disinformation outlet, that's just common-sense, unless of course our government isn't trying to hide anything, which I think we all know better than that.

 

 

Scope:

This is the danger that isn't so obvious and very often overlooked. This particular danger is just as real as the others and just as dangerous. It also goes hand and hand with the disinformation danger.

I can't tell you how many times I hear people yelp about 9/11 and WikiLeaks. It often goes something like this: "If the government is implicated in 9/11, then WL would have been able to leak something about it and the reason that they haven't, is telling that there probably isn't anything to leak".

In other words, people falsely believe in or dishonestly propagate the scope of what WikiLeaks has access too. By believing that the government isn't capable of keeping things secret, due to organizations like WL, one underestimates the capability of government to keep secrets and WL is only defining that underestimation.

As we all know, there are varying levels of secrecy within the government. The "Collateral Murder" video for instance, wouldn't be classified to a level that say the Manhattan project was. While WL may be able to access some mundane classified information, it would be foolish to assume that the organization could get access to anything below the top layer of secrecy in the government. There is no effort on behalf of Wikileaks to distinguish these layers, therefore giving the general public a false scope of its capabilities.

So, even if not one single piece of disinformation is coming through WL, in a way WL itself is acting like disinformation and it is doing so by giving people false hope that some deep, dark secrets would or could be leaked through the organization.

Many people believe that WL itself is exposing all of the government's secrets. This is also drawing attention away from the things that we should be focusing on, as opposed to the relatively mundane issues like the bad behaviors of a few soldiers, which by the way have no real consequence for the government. It is basically acting like a huge distraction, drawing focus away from the important matters and sometimes even hiding those important matters all together.

 

It has become painfully clear to me that WikiLeaks is more of a burden than it is a benefit and just the method of operation should be called into question. Again, if you want to expose government secrets or corruption, this is not how it should be done, as you are basically setting yourself up for failure and creating conditions that are less favorable to your stated outcome, yet along goes Assange on his mission that is just driving us deeper into the rabbit hole, all the while possibly endangering our national security along the way.

I would hope that each member reading this, consider carefully these scenarios and then ponder on any benefits or burdens that this organization presents. Also, look at the enormous red-flags concerning Wikileaks and Assange, before deducing sincerity or motive behind the operation.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and I urge everyone to keep an open mind by weighing this information and reason objectively. Let's leave any pre-conceived notions or biases at the door and then look at the fundamentals of this subject matter, or lets just see it for what it is. Many people will simply think that this is absurd because WL at first seemed to be answering a lot of prayers and on the face of it, it seems like the very thing that we need. However, I caution these pre-conceived notions, as they often tend to influence the accuracy of the data, ultimately tainting the results. I'm afraid that this is simply a case of being too good to be true.




--airspoon

edit on 28-11-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)

nice post..

thats whats the question in my head all these days...

but my english isnt good enough to make such a fine thread

thanks for that.. star and flag

I am very wary of my government (U.S.), but I have to say that, the more of these releases I read, the more I think WL is misguided.

Also, ironically, the more I read the more I am feeling that I should be more on board with my government. The honest view of events brings more of a human touch to what is usually very a dry representation given in the press or alternatively a very biased and confusing mess presented by my fellow Americans, or foreigners that have alternate view points and motives.

I do not like a lot of things that U.S. has done, especially in the last decade, but opening these windows into the human relationships going on behind the scenes and letting some of the secret info out of the bag has made me realize that I can not know all the details and that being the case, i can only offer a partially valid opinion.

I have actually become more of a friend to my government and less of a fan of WL. Not the reaction they are looking for me thinks. Unless it's a CIA operation of course. If it is, they are freaking geniuses.

reply to post by Fiberx


I think that's the point, they are incredibly genius. In fact, they are arguably the most genius organization on the planet, seeing how they attract only the brightest people with an unlimited amount of resources. Why You may be sales clerk, police officer or mail-carrier (thus know your job perfectly), they are intelligence professionals and do this kind of thing for a living. It is their job!

--airspoon

Airspoon, I would give you a double flag and double star if possible.

These are the thoughts that I have been having. I just couldn't get them this organized. I believe you ask a lot of valid questions and that we must address them. We must also think of whether or not complete disclosure is a good thing.

What ever happened to the Afghanis and others that had their names released? What happened when it was told that they were translating for us or gave up Al-Qaeda operatives?

Air, great post.

reply to post by Fiberx


Yeah, with these most recent cables, a lot of it shows a government functioning as I would expect a government to.
The war docs were upsetting and showed the dirty side, this stuff hasn't shown me anything that I feel is wrong. Some may say that maybe that is the intention of WL and they were intentionally fed these docs, BUT you have to consider that WL stated that a lot of what they were fighting was the over classification of government documents. And that is exactly what I'm seeing here.

As for damage it might cause? I've thought about that, but honestly I don't care. It's always darkest before dawn. My concern is actually the opposite, I'm worried the government will alter the way the document and access information and just become better at classification and hiding things from the public than they already are. They could flood the highest classifications with meaningless information (ie ghadafi's botox) to bog it down until finding a real Secret/Top Secret doc is finding a needle in a haystack.


Oh Important to note, this is just what I've seen here. I mean, like everyone else, I've seen like less than 1% of these docs. I will have a real opinion when they are all out.

reply to post by Fiberx


Another inexplicable double post.

Good thread as usual Airspoon.

For the record, I believe I was wrong about Wikileaks. I used to believe they were legit and stated as much here, but I no longer believe that for various reasons, some of which you touched on in this thread.
The media has the power to "kill" a story by simply ignoring it, and they choose NOT to with Wikileaks.
Like Osama Bin Laden, we have a very public "enemy" that upon closer observation seems to be serving a purpose. Granted, it will be entertaining to read between the "leaks" to ascertain the motive, but you have to reach the conclusion that they are leaking disinformation (whether by design or not doesn't matter to me) before you can move to that next step. And, I believe that will be the general consensus here at some point, that it is a conduit for disinfo.
In any case, a site like Wikileaks has no prayer of being of any useful service in the long run. As soon as it is "below top secret" it is worthless if you know what I mean.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


It really doesn't matter what's contained within documents or leaks, as there isn't really a way to validate most of it anyway. We wouldn't be able to tell if it's disinformation or not. Furthermore, it doesn't account for the many red flags listed in the OP (as well as the red flags not listed), or the situational aspects of WL itself.


--airspoon

Very thoughtful and intelligent post.

Leads up to --- why? Why do this?

And also, a question I asked in a different thread that got lost in
all the hysteria...

What about all the Americans that have to go overseas for
their jobs in the upcoming week or so?

To me, this "release" will only further hatred toward all
Americans, deserved or not.

This compromises the ones who are traveling abroad and have
no culpability at all, but will be targeted by hate, in my opinion.

reply to post by airspoon


It's an interesting and well put together read. Well worthy of the Star and Flag I gave it.

I haven't really followed the Wikileaks story over the last year, in large part because I don't believe they have gotten their hands on anything all that important.

The fact that U.S. Diplomats sneer at other foreign leaders, from the avantage of having the best gunboat diplomacy in the world is hardly a surprise.

That what the public is told about the Wars in Afghanistan an Iraq is different than how it's being communicated back and forth from Washington and Commanders in the field, is no surprise either.

I think the most critical thing Americans really need to know is details regarding our national debt, who all it is owed to, and precisely for what, and from when is what's really going to have a possitive impact on the nation.

My understanding is that Assange was a teenage computer hacker, who all typically end up recruited by the Secret Service, FBI, or Intelligence Agencies after they are caught.

For all we know the whole wikileaks enterprise is a Intelligence Community/Law Enforcement front to ensnare Goverment and Military Employees leaking low level information and what gets put out from Wikilinks are things the government wants revealed in some larger waging of asymmetrical warfare, both domestically and abroad.

Anything is worth reading and considering, yet without the actual whole context in which things were written you might not be reaching the proper real conclusions.

I think the whole national security argument is just to make people think this stuff is the end all be all of dirty laundry or secrets.

I largely agree getting caught up in wikileaksmaia is maybe not the wisest or most productive thing.

Divide and conquer, divide and conquer.

Bravo Wiki-Creeps!
Job well done.

I have to give them credit,those tools played their role very well.
But in the end,they are just rag dolls with strings,puppets if you will,dancing on the world stage.

Wiki is a threat to people who try to think.
They have presented themselves as a hero,fighting against those evil villians.
They must be fighting for "us",afterall they have the MSM bashing them,and our polliticians speaking out against them...oooooh scary.

TPTB have finally figured it out,after much trial and error that is.
They found their way into the world of the angry "awake" internet user.
I guess Alex Jones wasnt working out to well for them.

So,heres..........................Wiki...............Yay!


How people fell for the easiest trick to do,is beyond me.
I guess its the not being able to see the forrest through the trees kinda thing.

They have created their own opposition,and they control it.
They release what they are told to,or allowed to,whichever you perfer.

And they will continue to release these things,showing that they are fighting hard to get the "truth" out.
Slowly but surely a picture will come into light.
Through enough leaks and spinning,you can get people to support wiki's perspective of the world.
And through such actions,slowly bring people to "trust" you.
And when the time comes,all wiki has done and will do,will be used for wars,new presidents,removal of other countries regimes.
They are even the perfect group to cause the internet to finally be regulated.

All hail wiki!
^Nah,I think i'll pass.

reply to post by airspoon


Yeah, I agree that it would be hard to substantiate without the corresponding cables from other governments or seeing results of the information taking effecting the real world. Not really much we can do about it except watch and try to use our minds to get to the bottom of it.

Are you suggesting that the cables are completely fiction? Created by our government right? If they are disinfo there will have to be at least one government or some people speak out on it. Why the info that would hurt U.S. relations if they are?

Also great post btw. I'm not in opposition to any of your suggestions I just don't really know what to think, it's pretty complex stuff and I'm still figuring out what I think on it.

reply to post by Black_Fox


Hmm.. why would they waste their time working their way to the "awake" internet users? How do you think they have gotten to them? What will this info accomplish? It does nothing to effect our beliefs really, it's directed at other governments. Sure you can say it's to impose new laws, but I really don't think they will have much luck with internet laws.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Waste you say?
I dont believe they would ever "waste" their time doing anything.
Theres a reason for all of this.

Its just a part of a bigger picture,hang in there.

reply to post by Black_Fox


I say waste, because it would be. That's the hypocrisy of a lot of the NWO and puppetmaster theories. They are all powerful yet have to used the most veiled, subversive, long term route to get anything done.

I don't think the entire government is putting on a show. I think it's possible that WL were fed some files. I think they are probably what they appear to be. Organizations like that have huge potential to be manipulated due to the natural and given anonymous condition of leakers.

I can't say what will happen with the further leaks, but If they are simply more like these I don't think much will come from it, except us knowing more than we did before, the government getting better at keeping their laundry, and us having a better idea of how our government works.

Until it's all out though, I can't really say much.

reply to post by airspoon


Excellent post, airspoon.

Although I should mention that

A) We must consider the spin that news agencies put on these leaks, as the majority of people will not look at the actual leaks themselves, only what gets reported.

B) Not all of the leaks are out just yet, particularly with this 2.8 million batch

One more thing, more personal than anything, but without an organization such as this, how are we to ever know what truly is going on in the world? It is mighty depressing to think we will be kept int he dark forever...

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


"They are all powerful yet have to used the most veiled, subversive, long term route to get anything done."

Exactly.

Look at it like this...

Theres 2 Bulls sitting on a hillside,an older one and a younger one.
They are over looking a heard of cows.

The young cow says "Hey lets run down there and "F" one of those cows!"
The Older bull then looks at the younger one and says,"Why? When we can just walk down there and "F" them all."

reply to post by Black_Fox


Still, I understand why you don't just take by force, but it wouldn't be nearly as hard as what they are doing as proposed by some. Keep in mind Occam's razor.

I don't like convenient coincidences either, but when you release a bunch of information it is going to be about something, and that something is going to be relevant (so Iran should have been somewhat expected). Just because it appears to serve a purpose we have to consider that because these topics are popular inside our government they would likely be discussed. (Not that this is what you are talking about I'm just addressing a lot of people's concerns)

A lot of people won't think so because it would be too easy, but it is equally possible that the leaks are just legit.

You know, it wasn't that long ago when I laughed at someone for mentioning the infamous "NWO", thinking to myself how that person sounded like a paranoid nut. However, I'm not so sure anymore that he was nut and just because your paranoid, doesn't mean that they really aren't after you. The more I look into things and stay observant, it becomes more apparent that someone is calling the shots somewhere.

Of course I don't think it's all encompassing or for some far-fetched reason, but I do think that there is an influence in control of this country, which isn't our elected officials. This has become almost crystal clear to me over the past decade with everything going on from 9/11 to the bank bailouts to the bank itself (Federal Reserve). If you keep your eyes and ears open, the signs and clues are everywhere, even if you try to close your mind to it.


--airspoon