I would just like to know if I am the only person who is unable to believe a damn thing posted on Wikileaks.
Has anything really come of these leaks to justify the major media allusion that the Government is in pursuit of Assange, under the guise of other charges, but it’s really because of Wikileaks?
A U.S. official allegedly states, what was leaked is embarrassing, but it will only modestly hurt foreign relations? Since when does the U.S. Government admit things posted on a website are true?
:smack:
I see people in media taking it for gospel, people online taking it for gospel… and a search of TSD message board and nobody seems to question Wikileaks authenticity.
What am I missing that validates what the website passes around? Is it evidence-based, or a case of “it has to be true to go through all the trouble?”
Because people in government with various levels of clearance have been told by their higher ups not to come anywhere close to browsing the contents of wikileaks, pretty much gives way to the conclusion that the material is genuine; as the material is still classified, if gummint employees access documents they expressly swore an oath not to access, then they would sign up for a world of hurt.
Unable? No, I’m sure there are others that are unable, but the way governments have reacted makes most people think it is legitimate. Also, it would be quite easy to disprove, I would think.
It would take some serious effort to hand create tens of thousands of documents, each of which provides information which can probably be double-checked for plausibility (like that the place names are real and addresses correct, for example). Minus the KGB, I’m not sure who would have the resources or motive to pull the stunt off.
If they’re legit, then only people who are allowed to see them could go look to see if they’re legit. Since they’re not properly filed away, there’s no knowing which document is which, so you can’t point someone who is allowed to view a document at the right one unless someone has already looked through first. No one can be that first person.
Not at all. There are thousands of memos, all of which were written by actual people, and many of their names appear on the documents. It is quite easy for the government to verify that many of the documents are real – they just ask the people who wrote them. And of course, all those individual writers know, if they happen to see a document attributed to them.
Except people given permission by the president to verify it’s authenticity. An it probably wouldnt be all that hard to verify, since Spc. Manning was able to gather the quarter million documents and burn them to a cd in a session or so. Verifying the authenticity would be as simple as running a program that matches the text to likely candidates contained in relevant servers, probably all in one folder too.
Also, it’s less of a concern of government people seeing stuff they’re not cleared for, but rather that of using systems that aren’t cleared for it. My computer at work is only cleared for Unclassified material, and my computer at home strictly speaking isn’t cleared for any kind of classification (given that it’s a private computer, they wouldn’t bother one way or the other). So if I go to Wikileaks trying to find out who the Stig is and stumble across a classified government doccument, I’ve just violated comsec by putting classified materials onto an unsecured system. Sure, the documents are already out in the wild, but that doesn’t make them less classified and we have rules we have to follow concerning that sort of thing.
Just a random for-fun thought though: If the stuff supposedly leaked from our secure network was fake, an intel organization could have fun by claiming it’s authentic just to blow smoke up everyone else’s asses. Given how much face we lose in the process though, I’d say that’s doubtful here.
OK, so there are reasonable arguments why some Wikileaks documents can be true.
Who has the tenacity and resources aside from KGB to generate a media whirl of tens of thousands of maybe-real and maybe-fake documents? I am not sure, but I don’t rule the possibility out so quickly.
The Government itself giving a whistle-blower website authenticity seems disingenuous to me, the media attention on Wikileaks and Assange is quite odd if there was in fact any fear of important documentation being outed.
Between the CIA, NSA, and FBI, I find it hard to swallow nobody has delivered a “weather balloon” to reason away any credibility any of it has to the teeming millions. The few scrupulous skeptics may always look deeper, but refusing to acknowledge the cables seems like the most logical step. Maybe next arranging for respected defense and/or anchors to disrepute them.
I can’t peel the smell of trout off the whole affair. Thanks for your input.
Why? If you think the press would ignore these documents if they thought they were legit, you’re wrong. And the consensus is that the documents are mostly not that significant.
