Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Media Your Rights Online

Why the US Govt Should Be Happy About Wikileaks 232

Posted by samzenpus
from the how-I-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-leaks dept.
angry tapir writes "WikiLeaks' leaking of classified information should be considered a blessing for the US government, and other governments should take heed of the lessons when it comes to information sharing, according to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) research associate, Professor Mike Nelson, who spent four years as Senator Al Gore's science adviser and served as the White House director for technology policy on IT, and was also a member of Barack Obama presidential campaign."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why the US Govt Should Be Happy About Wikileaks

Comments Filter:
  • If You Are Right (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TexVex (669445)
    If you are right, then you have nothing to hide.
    • by bughunter (10093)

      If you are right, then you have nothing to hide.

      Hmm, let's see how accurate that statement is by using a little political gedankenexperiment.

      • Wife: "Does this dress make me look fat?"

        Husband: "I'm sorry... that information is classified."
        Wife: "If you are right, then you have nothing to hide."
        Husband: "OK, since you put it that way, that dress reveals exactly how overweight you are."

      Do you think the outcome of this scenario will make the Husband happy that he was open and honest?

      • If his wife is that stupid that she wants people to lie to her rather than just eating better, he shouldn't have married her..

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by SilentStaid (1474575)

          If his wife is that stupid that she wants people to lie to her rather than just eating better, he shouldn't have married her..

          Since I can see that you're clearly still single, would you mind if I live vicariously through you?

        • by that IT girl (864406) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @10:23AM (#36387768) Journal
          Exactly. Argh. 99% of women give the rest of us a bad name!
          • My thoughts exactly, sane female. Do you happen to be available for a procreation simulation anytime soon?

            • Haha, "procreation simulation"--I love it.

              Sadly, as a sane female, I will have to politely decline the prospect. I'd be crazy if I took up every offer from internet strangers ;)
      • by digitig (1056110) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @05:33AM (#36385432)

        If you are right, then you have nothing to hide.

        Hmm, let's see how accurate that statement is by using a little political gedankenexperiment.

        • Wife: "Does this dress make me look fat?"

          Husband: "I'm sorry... that information is classified." Wife: "If you are right, then you have nothing to hide." Husband: "OK, since you put it that way, that dress reveals exactly how overweight you are."

        The husband can safely and honestly answer "no" to "Does this dress make me look fat." He might not choose to add "It's not the dress, it's all those burgers and fries."

        • by Gryle (933382)
          While I understand the joke, the husband is being honest, but not open, which is what people seem to want out of the government these days.
          • Really? I think people would settle just for the honesty at this point. Currently they aren't getting either one of those things.

      • by mcvos (645701)

        It works well enough for me.

    • by AlecC (512609)

      In a negotiation, it seems perfectly reasonable to hide your ultimate fallback position. If there is space between your ultimate fallback and the other guys ultimate fallback (i.e. the negotiations have a chance of succeeding), you want to capture as much of that space as possible. Revealing your stopping point allows the other guy to claim all the space by demanding that.

      • Speaking idealistically, if your ultimate fallback position in all negotiations represents the boundaries with which you would be content, then does it really matter whether somebody else has gobbled up all of the grey area? I appreciate that some aspects of human nature drive us to acquire more than we really need. On the other hand, that drive is responsible for a lot of conflict and can't really be considered a trustworthy guideline for long-term peace. If we want to promote stable, consensual peace,

        • by ToadMan8 (521480)
          You only control your own decisions and motivations, not others'. So, unless you want to be taken advantage of, attempting to get the biggest savings and make the biggest profits is the best we can do. Furtively wishing that contract negotiation looks like the market scene opening Disney's Beauty and the Beast is not realistic.

          Note that I am describing people negotiating on price. I do not suggest that people lie, cover up flaws, collude, or participate in other similar immoral activities to achieve thi
          • by GospelHead821 (466923) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @12:15PM (#36389438)

            Okay, we can consider price as the example. If I'm willing to pay as $3 for a loaf of bread and the seller is willing to accept as little as $2.50 for it, then there's 50 cents of grey area in there for us to negotiate over. If I were being REALLY idealistic, I'd say that we both reveal that information and then agree on $2.75 as the final price because we want to be fair to one another. Alternately, I offer $2.50 at first; the seller requests $3.00 at first, and we negotiate toward $2.75.

            I am, however, willing to pay $3 for the bread. I don't think it's being "taken advantage of" if I offer $3 and end up paying it. So what if the guy selling the bread makes 50 cents that he didn't really expect to make? So what if I could have had a share of that 50 cents? If I have set my boundaries such that paying $3 for a loaf of bread allows me to be content with my purchase, then I have no reason for complaint. In my opinion, this is a fundamental flaw in what I consider to be the typical free market. People allow their utility, wellbeing, happiness, etc. to be predicated on their ability to capture that grey area.

            Put another way, I don't think it's reasonable to choose to be happy because I saved a quarter on a loaf of bread and merely indifferent about getting a loaf of bread at my threshold price. I think it's more reasonable to choose to be happy about enjoying my bread that I paid a fair price for rather than fretting over how much less I could have paid for that bread.

    • If you are right, then you have nothing to hide.

      It has little to do with hiding information because of being 'right.' It has to do with hiding the information from those who would use it to harm others or the interests of said country. To keep in line with your thought process, why do so many companies keep their IR&D facilities on such tight lock down? They are protecting their own interests. And if you think that not hiding all information will make you safer, I think there is a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy.

      • by dpilot (134227)

        > And if you think that not hiding all information will make you safer,
        > I think there is a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy.

        I take exception to the "all" in that sentence. I certainly believe that some information should be hidden, as someone else mentioned, the location of my submarines, the nuclear launch codes, etc. But there's also other information that makes us safer by helping others understand our intent, and that information MUST be open. To coin a new term, the "bear analogy". I think we

  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:04PM (#36383360) Homepage Journal
    Like I am going to take advice from a dude who spent years trapped on a satellite while being forced to watch bad movies.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ShakaUVM (157947)

      Lol, as soon as I read "Professor Mike Nelson, who spent four years as Senator Al Gore's science advise" all the credibility the article had vanished.

      An Inconvenient Truth had so many anti-scientific mistakes with it (the Drowning Polar Bear Myth, the Global-warming-caused-Katrina Myth, and so forth), that even RealClimate.org's apologetic review of the movie had to admit them (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/).

      There's all sorts of good sources of information about AGW o

      • by Zed Pobre (160035)

        Right. The scientists at RealClimate hated the film's science, as noted by the following quotes:

        How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research.

        They were especially critical of its handling of Katrina:

        As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn’t highlight the connection any more than is appropriate

        After do

    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      Besides, if you want good advice, everyone knows you go to Joel Hodgson. He was the one who figured out how to escape.

  • Yeah, so bad (Score:5, Informative)

    by afidel (530433) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:08PM (#36383392)
    Yeah, be embarrassed is so much worse than having ~4,000 of your citizens killed and entering a trillion dollars worth of wars. Remember that one of the primary findings by the 9/11 commission was that a primary cause of us not catching the cell was lack of information sharing.
    • Re:Yeah, so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:28PM (#36383514)

      Remember that one of the primary findings by the 9/11 commission was that a primary cause of us not catching the cell was lack of information sharing.

      What did you expect an official commission to say? That privacy and freedom are more precious than safety and that the terrorists win if we turn into a police state because of their actions?

      Duh. I tell you what else they won't say. They won't say that maybe we wouldn't have these problems if we didn't keep meddling in the Middle East's affairs, often brutally. Nah, there is no connection between repeatedly provoking them and finally getting attacked by them. Clearly information sharing now that they already want to attack us, yeah that's the real issue.

      Government lies to you. It lies to you routinely, naturally, and without remorse. Why you fucks can't bring yourselves to accept it is the only mystery.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        What makes you think you deserve to be told the truth? That's a huge assumption in itself.

        • by metacell (523607)

          What makes you think you deserve to be told the truth? That's a huge assumption in itself.

          Because the government works for me, and is paid for by my money?

        • by metacell (523607)

          What makes you think you deserve to be told the truth? That's a huge assumption in itself.

          Because the government works for me, and is paid for by my money.

      • by dargaud (518470)

        Government lies to you. It lies to you routinely, naturally, and without remorse. Why you fucks can't bring yourselves to accept it is the only mystery.

        Maybe because we shouldn't ?!?

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      The lack of information sharing may very well have been a factor - though there surely at the time were plenty of ways for such agencies to share information. Why they didn't, or didn't do so successfully, that's a whole different matter. When you have the solution to the puzzle it's always much easier to put the pieces together. When you don't have that solution - some pieces may appear to be unrelated, while they belong to the same puzzle. On top of that, effective information sharing between thousands of

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Secondly, - slipping into conspiracy theory mode - how do we know that the public report of the commission is really the complete report? Were there parts kept under wraps, that could have embarrassed certain people in powerful positions? That there was more to blame for the attacks?

        Because it wasn't in Wikileaks.

      • by INT_QRK (1043164)
        You touch on a logical flaw in the whole information sharing debate. The flaw is that information and data ubiquitously available throughout a system facilitates an information advantage. This is nonsense. "Intelligence failures" are far more often the result of misinterpretation or insufficient understanding than lack of information. One almost always finds in hindsight that the information was there all the time. Anyone who has actually tried to manage a complex operation will tell you that it's more impo
  • by identity0 (77976) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:13PM (#36383424) Journal

    "was also a member of Barack Obama presidential campaign."

    Too bad the Obama administration hasn't done anything to increase openness - in fact, they've done just the opposite.

    If only this guy had actually been appointed to a position of power - or maybe this kind of opinion is why he wasn't.

    • by Capsaicin (412918) *

      If only this guy had actually been appointed to a position of power ...

      ... then he too may have changed his tune.

  • More to the point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sparx139 (1460489) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:15PM (#36383440)
    The US Government should be relieved that Wikileaks 'cablegate' portrayed them in a relatively positive light, meaning that the backlash will be minimal from a domestic standpoint.

    95 per cent of those leaked memos were incredibly well written and well reasoned, with one paragraph that might be sensitive

    And the other 5% are the ones that cause a scandal. And while they may help garner domestic support (which is unlikely, because the media only covers that 5%), diplomacy could get a lot trickier when you have to explain your conversations with others.

    Before I get modded into oblivion for this, all I'm not passing judgement on Wikileaks in either direction. Leaking can be argued as being necessary depending on the situation, but saying that the US government should be happy about it is just ridiculous.

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout [wikipedia.org] and the people who crafted the incredibly well written and well reasoned paragraphs are very happy.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Chuck Chunder (21021)

      diplomacy could get a lot trickier when you have to explain your conversations with others.

      Perhaps. OTOH it might actually be easier in the long run if you deal with people openly and honestly. Too often when people start talking about Wikileaks effect on diplomacy people (though not specifically the person whose post I'm replying to) end up making diplomacy sound like some sort of game played be old men who get a kick out of pulling levers and trying mould the world to their will rather than the art of ar

      • by couchslug (175151)

        Open and honest behavior is only valued in specific cultures and is considered highly arrogant and insulting in others.

        The world is a bad place full of vicious people, so as there are no good guys one must deal with governments and people as they are, not as we would have them.

      • by jandrese (485)
        I think the point is that politics often forces people to act against their self interest on the diplomatic stage, just because doing the right thing would get them kicked out of office (and the right thing overturned). This is the case with a lot of middle eastern regimes that secretly want to help the US kick the insurgents out of their country, but can't because the insurgents are way more politically popular than the US.

        Also, like it or not, a lot of diplomacy is playing the game. The other guy lies
    • Ya, what bothers me more than anything else about the leaks is how much of it is stuff that is of no public benefit but that some of it is things that hurts diplomacy.

      A working diplomatic process is a really important thing in the world if we want any kind of peace and stability. That is the reason for things like diplomatic immunity. Countries recognize that it is so important to have unhindered diplomacy.

      Well another side of that is that diplomats and their staff and advisers need to be free to talk among

      • Unfortunately the line between important shady stuff which the pubic should know and what would hurt them to know is very blurry.
        You're also not only talking about one country.

        For example: meetings with politicians in other states where they give US intelligence staff regular updates may be dull and uninteresting to US citizens.
        Recently some cables hit the news: they were about politicians in my country meeting with US embassy staff and quite clearly show them saying one thing in private while at the same

    • by metacell (523607)

      The government should be happy about leaks which expose corruption and lawbreaking - it means the leaker is basically doing the job the police would have done if they could. And for free!

    • by T.E.D. (34228)

      Actually, no. Most of the ones that caused "scandals" did so because they told uncomfortable truths. Like that our Packastani "allies" were actually in cahoots with the terrorists, or that Israel wasn't even trying for peace.

      My personal favorite was the one that revealed [about.com] that the US was actually not all that close to, or fond of, Tunisian strongman Ben-Ali, and that his government was a laughable cesspool of corruption. He'd held onto power in part by convincing his people that he unreservedly had the US'

  • by steelfood (895457) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:20PM (#36383480)

    He's right if the U.S. government's objective is to promote freedom and democracy. The cables certainly show the rampant corruption in the world, the injustices everywhere, and that the United States government recognizes and responds to them.

    However, Obama is actually more interested in stability in the region, and will do everything to maintain that regardless of what it takes to achieve that stability. There's a reason one of the most repressive governments in the world is considered a close ally, while a democratically-elected president is constantly being vilified.

    The leaked cables has actually caused the opposite effect. And because of the instability of the middle east region, oil and thus gas prices are higher than they otherwise should be. High gas prices are detrimental to an economy trying to dig itself out of a recessionary hole. Which the egg-on-his-face notwithstanding, is why Obama is generally against such whistleblowing.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:36PM (#36383562)

      However, Obama is actually more interested in stability in the region, and will do everything to maintain that regardless of what it takes to achieve that stability.

      As Noam Chomsky points out, in US foreignpolicyspeak "stability" means "obedience to US corporate demands".

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You say that like it's a bad thing. Bad for US industry, energy supplies, etc., is bad for our unemployment rate, CPI, etc.

        That doesn't mean that corporate greed should run the show, but Chomsky is so cynical about stuff like this he stumbles onto the truth like a blind squirrel finding a nut in a grove of trees that it can't see.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Maybe the Noam-Chomsky-quoting-AC has the radical idea that the people in those foreign countries should be allowed to make up their own minds and have their own government that does what is good for *them*, not necessarily good for the USA.

      • by CodeBuster (516420) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @03:47AM (#36384830)

        As Noam Chomsky points out, in US foreignpolicyspeak "stability" means "obedience to US corporate demands".

        Well, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The United States offers a host of pretty compelling benefits, not among the least of which is the protection of our vast military, to our allies and friends. It's only natural that we should ask for certain things in return for these benefits. That's the way the world works after all.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          As Noam Chomsky points out, in US foreignpolicyspeak "stability" means "obedience to US corporate demands".

          Well, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The United States offers a host of pretty compelling benefits, not among the least of which is the protection racket of our vast military, to our allies and friends. It's only natural that we should ask for certain things in return for these benefits. That's the way the world works after all.

          There, corrected it for you.

          "Prosperous little democracy you have there going. It would be such a shame if something happened to it."

      • by elrous0 (869638) *

        In all fairness, we expect obedience to our political demands as well.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      To clarify:
      'Stability' does not mean 'peace' or 'happiness of the local people' or whatever else in the context of the post above.
      'Stability' means things are calm and thus, easy for politicians and governments to deal with. The local population could be forced into working like slaves for their nation's leaders, women could be raped daily, kids taken from their parents to be brainwashed into becoming soldiers, as long as the people don't rebel against their government it's considered 'stable'.

    • by Livius (318358)

      Obama is interested in *short-term* stability.

      Actual democracy would be the key to long-term stability.

      • by Sarten-X (1102295)

        Oh, yes... let's turn all government functions directly over to the people, such as those currently running amok at 4chan. The point of TFA is that the leaked cables show that international policymaking is hard, and the US government should be "looking on the bright side" and pointing out the tough situations the diplomats work in on a daily basis. Do you really think that high-school dropout down the street will be better at diplomacy than the appointed diplomat we have now?

        Short-term stability makes a muc

      • by siglercm (6059)

        I note sadly that your idealistic view blatantly ignores a moral and political conundrum. Stated simply:

        What do the US and her allies do when a couple of these newly minted democracies follow the path of Iran? Do we do nothing, save applauding them from the sidelines for their democratically free and fair election of a hard-line government which immediately threatens us and our allies in the region with extinction? Do we decry their militaristic threats while filing protests, motions for censure and impo

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by XManticore (2128426)

          This is the hypocrisy that the world hates the US for.

          Your government plays the democracy tune when they wish a people to overthrow a tyranny that doesn't suit their agenda. And when a peaceful, fair election [wikipedia.org] such as the one in Palestine happens, and somebody who you don't like gets elected, the West get their panties in a twist and starts their pathetic economic bullying [nytimes.com].

          • by siglercm (6059)

            [Two axioms: A moral absolute and the value of life.]

            I maintain clearly that there is an absolute good and moral right (as in right and wrong). The hard part is living up to this absolute good and moral right. All governments face this incredible difficulty from time to time, it seems to me.

            But to call for the extermination of a nation or a people (a la Iran in present times) is wrong. It is evil. A democratically elected government whose stated aim, from their initiation, is to kill or destroy others i

      • by Sir_Sri (199544) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:46AM (#36384240)

        Let us not forget that democracy gives the people the ability to choose things contrary to what other people choose. It is much easier (and cheaper) to sway a politician than to sway the masses. Germany and france didn't come around to their current borders until about 1956/57 when the french gave up on taking over the Saar. That is, after 900 years of stabbing, shooting and occupying each other, the recent total occupation of cosmopolitan france, and all of a (a newly defined) germany, the killing of millions of people - they were still squabbling over who gets to keep what for themselves for a decade.

        People, as a whole, can, and will choose what benefits them, even if it as at the expense of someone else. If we give people democracy a hell of a lot of them aren't going to go the nelson mandella truth and reconciliation route, they are going to demand territories which cannot be given voluntarily. And who do you side with? How do you even define what is a legitimate democratic outcome or not, is a majority of people in the middle east a legitimate democratic outcome, or does it need to be done country by country? If the world votes against the US existing and decides to carve it up and redistrict it back to mexico, spain the UK and various native inhabitants, is that democracy we want to support?

        Democracy is a dangerous, and deeply flawed idea. It is suitable in conjunction with other systems but by itself it is a path to a very dark place, albeit rarely, but those places are very dark. The challenge the world faces is building systems which both represent the best interests of the people, including taking their opinion into account, and resolving when those two things (best interests and desires) do not align. But if people will vote for less taxes, more spending, conquest at the expense of others and so on, then democracy is unsustainable, and must be balanced by control from people who actually have some sense. The people who are in control, are, in turn, hopefully balanced against being nuts and can be removed if they fail that test. But democracy has a tendency to form a feedback loop of corruption and incompetence. I'm sure there's ways to deal with that, but not in a /. post.

        • by siglercm (6059)

          "Democracy is a dangerous, and deeply flawed idea. It is suitable in conjunction with other systems...." In conjunction with what other systems? How are they formed? How do they operate? How can they prevent a people or a nation from going down "a path to a very dark place?" I see many deep and deeply principled assertions here, but with nothing of substance to support them, only wishes and dreams :(

          This is precisely why "[m]any forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of si

          • by jackbird (721605)

            Oh, come on. Constitutions, representative government rather than direct referenda on day-to-day issues, an apolitical judiciary and civil service, an apolitical military, supernational organizations like NATO and the UN, international law, worldwide treaties on issues of global import, and international human rights tribunals all serve to prevent the darkest excesses of democracy. In themselves they are all anti-democratic, but they make possible an environment in which democracies can thrive.

        • by dkleinsc (563838)

          Democracy is a dangerous, and deeply flawed idea. It is suitable in conjunction with other systems but by itself it is a path to a very dark place, albeit rarely, but those places are very dark. The challenge the world faces is building systems which both represent the best interests of the people, including taking their opinion into account, and resolving when those two things (best interests and desires) do not align. But if people will vote for less taxes, more spending, conquest at the expense of others and so on, then democracy is unsustainable, and must be balanced by control from people who actually have some sense. The people who are in control, are, in turn, hopefully balanced against being nuts and can be removed if they fail that test. But democracy has a tendency to form a feedback loop of corruption and incompetence. I'm sure there's ways to deal with that, but not in a /. post.

          The short version appears to be: Sir_Sri believes the majority of people at large are too stupid to be trusted to manage the government, but there's the possibility of some enlightened despots who are less stupid than the masses. That's been the excuse of every not-so-enlightened despot in history.

        • by olau (314197)

          That sounds mostly like nonsense coming from someone who don't know his history. The truth is that most people are relatively reasonable if you make sure they cannot make rash decisions. That's why democracy works pretty well, much better than previous and contemporary competing systems. It's not infallible, and of course, people need to have access to accurate information. But overall it does work.

          As you say, democracy needs to be checked against the masses trampling over some people. But democracies reali

      • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @02:28AM (#36384448)
        What makes democracy so stable? One charismatic leader comes along and gets elected, and you've got World War Two to deal with.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by m50d (797211)
          Democracy means he has to burn down parliament first, which puts a bit more of a barrier to entry in place.
        • by olau (314197)

          If you're talking about Hitler, that's not really what happened. He got some power, then abused that massively to suppress the democratic institutions, which by the way were relatively young in Germany at that point (the Weimar Republic was established in 1918). Those institutions were also under pressure from other groups, including conservatives. Keep in mind that Germany had enormous problems in the aftermath of the first World War and the conditions that were imposed upon the country.

          I was looking for s

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      However, Obama is actually more interested in stability in the region

      As has every president since at least WW II. Can't have Pax Americana if the barbarians are running amok, can we?

      And because of the instability of the middle east region, oil and thus gas prices are higher than they otherwise should be. High gas prices are detrimental to an economy trying to dig itself out of a recessionary hole. Which the egg-on-his-face notwithstanding, is why Obama is generally against such whistleblowing.

      No, he's against it because he's a politician - and they absolutely fucking hate it when peasants like Assange get all fucking uppity.

      Gas prices? The economy? Fuck me. For the cost of one of our wargasms in the Middle East, our government could subsidize gas to 1980's levels without adding anything more to the national debt.

  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:48PM (#36383628)

    Leaks are almost inevitable in a relatively free society - as long as the information is in a usable state, and it is used by people, it pretty much will be leaked eventually if people care to leak it.

    As far as distributors of sunshine (breaks in secrecy, disinfecting stagnant air) go, Wikileaks is rather benign - they exercise considerable restraint and editorial control considering their size and content they process.

    The problem isn't their arguable responsibility though, it is the relative difficulty in getting rational people to dismiss their evidence, the difficulty in painting them as a poisoned source of valid information. Certainly it is tried - all the logical fallacies that exist are thrown against them at a fairly constant rate, but they are still viewed as a valid source of important information.

    Since they don't delve purely in talking point - just releasing information from sources known as valid, their points are fairly solid - whatever you think of their practices.

    Ask Newt Gingrich - claiming a problem exists because you were quoted accurately and directly doesn't get you very far.

    Ryan Fenton

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      Ask Newt Gingrich - claiming a problem exists because you were quoted accurately and directly doesn't get you very far.

      I think you understimate the ability for partisans to accept doublethink and cognitive dissonance when it suits their purposes.

  • Yeah, the US govt is as happy as pigs in pig shit over wikileaks
  • Arab Brothers? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by larsl (30423) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:01AM (#36383970) Homepage

    Iranians are not Arabs.

    • by Sun (104778)

      Yes. He probably meant "Muslim". It's a common mistake.

      To be fair, his exact words are not contradictory to knowing all of that:

      ... because he thought he was well-loved by his Arab brothers.

      The statement is that his brothers (in Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia) are Arab (which they are), not that he, himself, is. I'm for giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

      Shachar

    • by inviolet (797804)

      Iranians are not Arabs.

      Iran's native population is indeed Persian, but the current ruling party and its enforcers is mostly Arab. Arabs have a tight grip on Islam on account of its history, and when the Persians fell for the religion, it gave the Arabs ideological power over them. From ideological power eventually comes political and then physical power.

      This is one of the motivators for the recent uprising: Persians who are fed up with their mostly-Arab government and its Arab goon squads.

    • by T.E.D. (34228)
      You are misreading this. He (Ahmadinejad) is using "Arab brothers" in almost exactly the same paternalistic way an oldest child might use "little brothers." This is a term he has used in the past.
    • by PitaBred (632671)

      Arabs, Persians... they're all the same because they have the same skin color, right? I mean, Germans and the French may as well be the same, too... they're both the same skin color and from a geographically close area...

  • This is coming from someone at CSC? A company that eats up corporations IT in outsourcing operations then way understaffs the companies need for IT? These guys are pretty disorganized when it comes to delivering on a solution in my experience like just about every other outsourcing group. Whole thing smells of FUD so data-breaches due to not keeping on their toes can be just written off in the future.

Debug is human, de-fix divine.

Working...