WikiLeaks: OK, this is going too far

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Well, they were already going to far, but it seems clear they just want to hurt the U.S. as a country:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

[Radtgaeb]

I'm very conflicted over this WikiLeaks ordeal. On the one hand; I'm all for freedom of information and transparent government. On the other; it gets to a point where information can be harmful to the well-being of Americans abroad.

This, however, isn't such a big deal in my eyes. I think that if someone REALLY wanted to hurt the US, they'd be able/willing to sit down and do the research into each installation and make their own inferences as to what targets would do us the desired damage.

I'm not going to sift through the entire cable, but are any of these installations secret? Are their locations supposed to be hush-hush? In that case, this could carry negative implications. However, terrorists can strike obvious, public places and still cause major harm.

[SteamWake]

So now he is going to far... I get it...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40397

[mookiemookie]

Well I guess the positive is that security at these places will most likely be improved.

[Radtgaeb]

So now he is going to far... I get it...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40397



That article is....a little militant to be taken seriously. Sorry. :-\

I understand that the dude is on a power trip, but I don't think they need to stake out his residence and bring hell down around him.

[The Third Man]

In the mean time PFC Bradley Manning (the alleged origin of the leaks) sits in detention awaiting trial. If executed for treason, which is within US law, many of these types of incidents would end.

Manning has been held at the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Brig,_Quantico) since July 29, 2010.

[onelifecrisis]

While some are looking through the cables in an attempt to find news, others are looking through them in an attempt to smear Assange. He's released 250,000 cables. I doubt he hand-picked them.

1 of them is a list of locations that, according to the linked article, terrorists might decide to use as targets? So was the location of the twin towers similarly leaked or did Al Qaeda figure out where those were all by themselves? Seriously, terrorists don't need a list to figure out places to hit.

[Ducimus]

Well, they were already going to far, but it seems clear they just want to hurt the U.S. as a country:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

That was evident from the very beginning if you ask me. Now, they're handing militants a veritable a shopping list on where to attack.

[The Third Man]

1 of them is a list of locations that, according to the linked article, terrorists might decide to use as targets? So was the location of the twin towers similarly leaked or did Al Qaeda figure out where those were all by themselves? Seriously, terrorists don't need a list to figure out places to hit.

You are missing the point. Perhaps terrorists don't need a list of targets, but they do need a strategic knowledge of targets which are deemed to be of importance. Now they have it. Many of those locations are in lands outside the US. How many of your countrymen are now at risk, or does that not matter?

[Oberon]

Some of them are rather interesting choices, a facility in Australia that produces Midazolam? :06:

[Skybird]

I rate this documnent as one of those that must not have been leaked, but I also wonder if it really reveals info that somebody doing some internet research cannot find out about himself when looking for a tasty target.

But one can also ask if really so many people, especially in America, are really aware of how much interlonked and thus: mutually dependent the US are. Comments in this forum often give the impression that this understanding is not too far spread. So if the leaking of this document helps to bring it to people'S mind how fragile the balance of the seat is they are sitting in, then this leak even will do something good, although I doubt that Wikileaks had this on mind when releasing this document.

I really would wish that Wikileaks learns to become more discriminatory in what it releases and what not. They would serve their reputation better if they focus more on the really important stuff.

Interesting that a Swiss bank cancels his personal bank account oine day after he announces the release of revelations about some banks. No matter whether he meant Swiss banks, or American ones - I assume birds of same feather flock together. In the end, Swiss banks and Wall Street as well both have the same interest not to get looked at too closely.

I think Assange is a classical anarchist with a paramount mistrust into states and their authority in principal. In principle the same mistrust that has enlighted the American constitution, too, just being pushed one step further. I conclude that by his biography and the way he was educated by his mother. He seems to have been a rebel since his early years on. I think this is where you have to look for his motivation. An explicit antipathy for the US before any other nation I don't think to be his drive. And that many leaked materiuals are from and about USA affairs is that for the most that is what is available to Wikileaks. Other nations have been exposed by them in the past months, too, but that were more national, minor issues that the global public and the American audience simply dores not care for and does not even take note of.

In principle I am pro Wikileaks, since quality journalism is failing and governments in the West have erstablished camouflaged tyrannies and oligarchies that have nothing to do with democracies anymore. But Wikileaks must learn to find better decision filters what to publish and what not.

[Radtgaeb]

Not sure if they're in this cable, but I'd be most concerned about the Moli-99 processing plants that enrich uranium to weapons-grade status in order to produce the radiological agent, not that terrorists wouldn't know the locations of such before, but still...I'm concerned about them. XD

[The Third Man]

Some of them are rather interesting choices, a facility in Australia that produces Midazolam? :06:

Without it you will remember major surgery. It is a humanitaian drug. To be against preserving it is to be in-humane.

[onelifecrisis]

You are missing the point. Perhaps terrorists don't need a list of targets, but they do need a strategic knowledge of targets which are deemed to be of importance. Now they have it. Many of those locations are in lands outside the US. How many of your countrymen are now at risk, or does that not matter?

I think you are missing the point, but I'll answer your question anyway: assuming the "terrorists" switch to these new targets then the number of my countrymen now at risk is lower than it was, since these are infrastructure targets that would be struck to cause financial/material damages, not targets that one would choose to inflict maximum distress and loss of life on the public.

[The Third Man]

I rate this documnent as one of those that must not have been leaked, but I also wonder if it really reveals info that somebody doing some internet research cannot find out about himself when looking for a tasty target.

One must have knowledge over many disciplines to compile this kind of list.


In principle I am pro Wikileaks, since quality journalism is failing and governments in the West have erstablished camouflaged tyrannies and oligarchies that have nothing to do with democracies anymore. But Wikileaks must learn to find better decision filters what to publish and what not.

How will you feel when the leak originator is executed for treason?

[The Third Man]

I think you are missing the point, but I'll answer your question anyway: assuming the "terrorists" switch to these new targets then the number of my countrymen now at risk is lower than it was, since these are infrastructure targets that would be struck to cause financial/material damages, not targets that one would choose to inflict maximum distress and loss of life on the public.

As a citizen of a small island nation I can understand your fear.

[Oberon]

Without it you will remember major surgery. It is a humanitaian drug. To be against preserving it is to be in-humane.

Well, I understand that, but surely it is not the only facility in the world to produce it? Furthermore, surely there are other drugs that can be used instead of Midazolam? What is exactly strategic about this one facility?
Or is it a case that it is chaff amongst the wheat? Dummy targets just in case this kind of thing happened?

We have one target listed in my neck of the woods, the BT center at Martlesham, which is understandable because in the two top or three floors they do a lot of programming for the military, including missile guidance and so forth.

[Oberon]

As a citizen of a small island nation I can understand your fear.

Fear? :hmmm:

[onelifecrisis]

As a citizen of a small island nation I can understand your fear.

I don't think you're understanding me at all. I'm not afraid of the "terrorists".

[Radtgaeb]

Fear? :hmmm:

Seconded, don't see the relevance/importance/meaning of this statement.

[antikristuseke]

He is just up to his usual trolling. Either that or he does not understand the concept of not fearing something/someone less likely to cause damage to you or your loved ones than a bloody car crash.

[The Third Man]

Wow. Struck a nerve, so sorry, Brits are not afraid.

[Oberon]

We've had a lot worse thrown at us before now. :yep:

[the_tyrant]

Where is the KGB, CIA, MI6 when you need them?
why can't there be an "accident" that somehow destroyed the wikileaks servers?:hmmm:

[Dowly]

Where is the KGB, CIA, MI6 when you need them?
why can't there be an "accident" that somehow destroyed the wikileaks servers?:hmmm:

"WikiLeaks now hosted at 507 locations, planet wide"

Good luck. :DL

[heartc]

This is not about "open government". Government was never "open" to the public when it comes to intelligence assessments (and of course, the impressions, gatherings and contacts of diplomats is a form of "HUMINT", with or without "special" orders from Hillary Clinton), especially on possibly enemy nations. And by God, why should it be? No government can act efficiently - neither for the good or bad - when the enemy or hostile nations can read the latest intelligence estimates about them in the newspaper. A government has every right to engage in internal communications and estimates without a foreign power listening to every word. Diplomatic cables and intelligence on foreign powers is NOT for the Joe on the street to get involved in. One must be very childish and short sighted to demand anything like it.

This is not about "Open Government". This is - at the very least -
counter-intelligence. And Assange is the perpetrator, by making this information available to *everybody*, including enemies of the US. Now, if you hate the US, you might welcome that. But don't give me that "Open Government" BS.

[the_tyrant]

This is not about "open government". Government was never "open" to the public when it comes to intelligence assessments (and of course, the impressions, gatherings and contacts of diplomats is a form of "HUMINT", with or without "special" orders from Hillary Clinton), especially on possibly enemy nations. And by God, why should it be? No government can act efficiently - neither for the good or bad - when the enemy can read the latest intelligence estimates about him in the newspaper. A government has every right to engage in internal communications and estimates without a foreign power listening to every word. Diplomatic cables and intelligence on foreign powers is NOT for the Joe on the street to get involved in. One must be very childish and short sighted to demand anything like it.

This is not about "Open Government". This is - at the very least -
counter-intelligence. And Assange is the perpetrator, by making this information available to *everybody*, including enemies of the US. Now, if you hate the US, you might welcome that. But don't give me that "Open Government" BS.

agreed :up:

[The Third Man]

Assange will never be brought before any court of law, but he will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. Beyond that the fallout will assume greater restrictions on all internet activity.

[jumpy]

Conflicted thoughts over this.

example: had the daily telegraph not squealed on MP's expenses, nothing would have been done to change anything, despite many mp's being fully aware of the problems and abuse of the expenses system, they would have carried on as before.

Example: had such a transparent and open discussion of information been available when the UK decided to follow america in to war in iraq, the british people would have seen the lies and deceit of the labour party and more specifically tony blair, and would have said no to the war - same goes for afghanistan. We might still have gone to war, but we're used to being ignored by our governments here, they do it all the time.

What does this tell us? People in power are generally not to be trusted when it comes to stuff like this; on all levels, with no oversight, they will always follow their goals, which are most assuredly not your goals, or mine either. When it comes to making a political name for yourself, truth and integrity evaporate.

So, on general principal, I'm in favour of our leaders having their dealings behind closed doors exposed to the light every once in a while.
Can this be detrimental to 'our boys fighting'? Possibly, but on balance most likely no more dangerous than what they are already doing for their political masters, who only stop to think about body bags when it starts to look like there's less to be gained - they're quite happy to send young men and women to die and be maimed in the name of some obscure 'war on terror' (even the language is vague), using certified and definitive evidence of the highest trustworthy calibre, which turns out to be a bunch of outright lies or speculation viewed with blinkers.

Again I find it all rather amusing that sovereign states don't really like each other, or have less than complimentary things to say about their various leaders and diplomats - who among us though this did not happen already? Not much of a revelation.

What I find all the more disturbing is the us policy of declaring an individual in breach of us law, when they are not a us citizen, nor do they reside on us soil, and pursue the intent to 'bring a terrorist to justice' (I can't quote you the rhetoric, but it's what was roughly reported over here). Like somehow american law supersedes the law of other nations.
Now that an arrest warrant has been received/issued here in the UK for the sexual assault charges (which were not acted upon when this guy was actually residing in sweden - or at least that's the inference I have from what I've read about it in the press), how long will it be once he's arrested until the us tries to extradite him and send him to prison for a million years amongst calls by some to kill him?

Not long, is my estimation.


I think it's a valid point to assert that any nutjob who is serious about causing terror and destruction of any nations overseas assets, is not really going to find anything particularly revealing in these leaks - after all 'asymmetric warfare' is all about chaos and fear. How is this leak going to give them what they don't already know or have access to information, held publicly, anyway? Also worth remembering - why bother with some obscure dod contractor in huddersfield or wherever, when you can just fly airplanes into the world trade centre? As we have seen, the shock and publicity of actions like that are of much greater value in causing chaos and fear.

On the other hand I think I agree with Skybird and his assessment of there being a little discrimination in what is 'leaked' - it doesn't seem to me that these leaks are some how solely intended to hurt american interests, which is in direct contradiction of some of the statements issued by us officials. Other nations have seen fit to dismiss the leaks as nonsense from an attention whore... as usual some americans show how up tight they really are about the world and their fellow man/nations. Not that you guys over there have a monopoly on this attitude, but the public rhetoric is certainly overtly posturing... you can almost see the eyes and veins bulging :O:

Before everyone jumps off at the deep end again, we need to step back a little and see things for what they really are, and not view them through a veil of national interest and deception, coupled with righteous nationalism and fear. We'll be having a 'war on leaks' next if we don't and grocery shopping will never be the same again hehe.

[krashkart]

"WikiLeaks now hosted at 507 locations, planet wide"

Good luck. :DL

We'll nuke them from orbit... :88)

[heartc]

What does this tell us? People in power are generally not to be trusted when it comes to stuff like this; on all levels, with no oversight, they will always follow their goals, which are most assuredly not your goals, or mine either. When it comes to making a political name for yourself, truth and integrity evaporate.

Disregarding whether you're right in that black/white estimation of yours, what would you propose? Anarchy? There will always be politics. There were politics in the stone age. They just didn't have a name for it.


What I find all the more disturbing is the us policy of declaring an individual in breach of us law, when they are not a us citizen, nor do they reside on us soil, and pursue the intent to 'bring a terrorist to justice' (I can't quote you the rhetoric, but it's what was roughly reported over here). Like somehow american law supersedes the law of other nations.
When someone recieves classified information and makes this information available to another nation, he is engaging in espionage against the nation the information was gathered from. Of course he could be tried under US law. Every nation has laws regarding espionage conducted against it. It doesn't matter where Assange stems from.

[The Third Man]

What we are talking about here is treason against the United States. Trial, convict and execute the leaker for treason. PFC Bradley Manning. It will send a message.

[onelifecrisis]

When someone recieves classified information and makes this information available to another nation, he is engaging in espionage against the nation the information was gathered from.

It's not that simple.

[The Third Man]

It's not that simple.

Of course it is. Grow up. Betraying your country is no less agregious than betraying your most close friend. The consequences are more severe of course.

[TarJak]

One must have knowledge over many disciplines to compile this kind of list.Why? And don't people like that exist? Who says it has to be one person? Why not a group with mulitple disciplines? Your comment is naiive at best.



How will you feel when the leak originator is executed for treason?Sad. State sponsored killing, regardless of the crime rarely has any outcome other than the death of one of the states citizens.

OK other than hosting a website on which numerous embarrassing (to the organisations FROM WHICH THE DOCUMENTS ORIGINATED), documents have bee published, what has Assange done wrong? If he's committed a crime, then why hasn't he been arrested in Britain and deported to the States? I'd say there's not enough evidence of wrongdoing to do so, otherwise they would have already done something.

Get over it. Someone inside leaked something someone else wanted kept secret. Who cares?:88)

[Ducimus]

This whole wikileaks subject has made me realize, just how many idealists and utopians there are. Sorry charlie, that's just not how the world works.

[GoldenRivet]

let me put it in a way i think everyone here can relate to:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/hes_watching_you/images_html/images/someone_talked.jpg

http://www.usmm.org/p/someonetalked.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jX9QklC3G4E/Si_clt9a6uI/AAAAAAAABfA/ArdmS9YrE3c/s400/careless+talk.jpg

http://www.usmm.org/p/stetson-crosshair.jpg

http://www.usmm.org/p/blabbed.jpg

http://www.usmm.org/p/needlessloss.jpg

Its the same message for a different time.

these people that leak these bits of information have the potential to cause things no different from any of these posters we are all so familiar with.

[TarJak]

Yup got it in one GR. If you want to keep a secret, don't share it with anyone.:yep:

[The Third Man]

Yup got it in one GR. If you want to keep a secret, don't share it with anyone.:yep:

Sounds good, but what are, should be the consequences for sharing what are by classification national secrets?

[Krauter]

As GoldenRivet just demonstrated, the whole reason I, myself I can't exactly give the reason for the Government.., dislike Assange and this Wikileaks farce is that it endangers people.

Please take note I'm Canadian and so the whole National Security thing doesn't really faze me as it's not MY National Security.

But what I'm getting at is, YES Freedom of Information is a wonderful thing when used properly and not to the extreme. Yes releasing documents pertinent to the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and anything up until the 80s is GREAT. BUT, things that shouldn't see the light of day for another 10-20 years for fear of sparking more conflict or causing more death should not be released.

To me, Wikileaks represents cyber terrorism used correctly. As for the demands that the entire U.S Chiefs of Staff should resign as well as all this B.S about a doomsday cable being released. What the hell is this!? Freedom of Information is just that. You cannot claim you are pursuing Freedom of Information and consequentially threaten someone by withholding/threatening to release information! It goes against your own principle! Just says to me he's another asshat who's looking for attention and who's (yes state killings are bad, but by god if you're as dumb as this guy why not..) going to get popped.

Krauter.

[TarJak]

Sounds good, but what are, should be the consequences for sharing what are by classification national secrets?
My point exactly. Under international law there currently are none. As to what they should be, I'll leave that up to the international courts to decide.

[onelifecrisis]

Of course it is. Grow up. Betraying your country is no less agregious than betraying your most close friend. The consequences are more severe of course.

We were talking about Assange. He's not from the US.
Also, you might want to read this article from July: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/30/could_julian_assange_be_prosecuted_for_the_afghan_ war_logs

[TarJak]

As for the demands that the entire U.S Chiefs of Staff should resign as well as all this B.S about a doomsday cable being released. What the hell is this!? Freedom of Information is just that. You cannot claim you are pursuing Freedom of Information and consequentially threaten someone by withholding/threatening to release information! It goes against your own principle!Krauter.That would depend on what's in the withheld documents. If it is stuff that they intend to release anyway then the only difference really is timing.

[Krauter]

So now he is going to far... I get it...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40397

From what I took from the article, he is withholding this particular piece of information as an incentive to keep him free and roaming.

[The Third Man]

My point exactly. Under international law there currently are none. As to what they should be, I'll leave that up to the international courts to decide.

international law the faux/progressive law which has no force. funny, thanks for the laugh.

[The Third Man]

We were talking about Assange. He's not from the US.
Also, you might want to read this article from July: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/30/could_julian_assange_be_prosecuted_for_the_afghan_ war_logs

I am talking about the original leaker, PFC Bradley Manning. If one man is willing to make himself a martyr to protect his country by his own judgement, by al means let him do so. Execute him via firing squad...which is the military way.

[heartc]

To me, Wikileaks represents cyber terrorism used correctly. As for the demands that the entire U.S Chiefs of Staff should resign as well as all this B.S about a doomsday cable being released. What the hell is this!? Freedom of Information is just that. You cannot claim you are pursuing Freedom of Information and consequentially threaten someone by withholding/threatening to release information! It goes against your own principle!

Exactly. He is doing nothing else than the governments do. He's just another player. A one man show, if you will. Besides the legal / political implications, this guy is not half the "good guy" he claims to be. Also, consider this: Wikileaks - in general, not just with this one file - is *choosing* which information they are forwarding. They are first checking it for authenticity...and whether it is of "public interest". Now there is some megalomania for you.

I wonder how they can even determine if information is authentic or not. Most or all of it up to now might be, but if this goes on, it is only a matter of time until they recieve false information they will forward as facts.
Hell, they could even fabricate information themselves and sell it as fact. Don't worry, the Great Assange "verified" it. Right. And what if they recieve actual information, but chose to withhold it because they don't like it? Remember, one of their guide lines is that the information must be of "public interest". What if the Great Assange decides it is not, because it might not fit his agenda? It's not like the whistleblower will protest in public if his information was witheld.

People are constantly after conspiracy theories, and right in their face is a man who OWNS and plays with classified information and national secrets as he sees fit.

[the_tyrant]

Why do people leak stuff to wikileaks?
is it because of money?
is it because that they have a big ego?
or is because that they believe that leaking stuff to wikileaks somehow "benefits the people"

they should screen government employees more. and also punish those who leak to wikileaks severely

[the_tyrant]

Exactly. Besides the legal / political implications, this guy is not half the "good guy" he claims to be. Also, consider this: Wikileaks is *choosing* which information they are forwarding. They are first checking it for authenticity...and whether it is of "public interest". Now there is some megalomania for you.

I wonder how they can even determine if information is authentic or not. Most or all of it up to now might be, but if this goes on, it is only a matter of time until they recieve false information they will forward as facts.
Hell, they could even fabricate information themselves and sell it as fact. Don't worry, the Great Assange "verified" it. Right. And what if they recieve actual information, but chose to withhold it because they don't like it? Remember, one of their guide lines is that the information must be of "public interest". What if the Great Assange decides it is not, because it might not fit his agenda? It's not like the whistleblower will protest in public if his information was witheld.

People are constantly after conspiracy theories, and right in their face is a man who OWNS and plays with classified information and national secrets as he sees fit.


how do we know that this stuff is authentic?
we can't see the originals, so maybe these files were altered

[onelifecrisis]

To the anti-Assange people: why do you think he is doing this?

I've seen articles claiming he's doing it for personal wealth. I find that hard to believe. He has no permanent address, and several governments trying to arrest him... or worse. I doubt he pictured himself sitting on a beach drinking pina coladas after all this is done. If it was money he wanted he could have gone about making it in many other less dangerous ways.

Some have suggested he just wants attention. Maybe. Seems to me to be an extreme way of getting it, but we are clearly not talking about a "normal" person here so who knows.

Some, including Assange, say he's doing this for the greater good. Do you believe that he believes that? That he's delusional?

Or do you think he has other reasons? I'm just curious.

[jumpy]

Disregarding whether you're right in that black/white estimation of yours, what would you propose? Anarchy? There will always be politics. There were politics in the stone age. They just didn't have a name for it.


When someone recieves classified information and makes this information available to another nation, he is engaging in espionage against the nation the information was gathered from. Of course he could be tried under US law. Every nation has laws regarding espionage conducted against it. It doesn't matter where Assange stems from.

I wouldn't propose anarchy, but I don't think it's a good idea to allow our leaders to become too comfortable with their power. Some things have to be black and white in their highest ideal, irrespective of what the reality becomes - you have to keep trying to better the reality to be as close to the ideal as you can reasonably get, and I think blowing the whistle occasionally is a required part of that. Would you prefer state terror and secret police working to further the arbitrary goals of an elite few? That's the result of unregulated leadership... unless you have an exceptional man or woman or men or women who can resist the drive to preserve the state at the expense of the citizens.

I think it matters very much where they guy comes from and where he resides - would you violate the sovereignty of another nation to further your own ends, be they legitimate under your country's laws but not another's? If he's so much trouble, why not just assassinate him and be done with all of the tedious middle man stuff?
But you need courts and laws to kill people if you're going to do it in public, it looks way more respectable then.

This whole wikileaks subject has made me realize, just how many idealists and utopians there are. Sorry charlie, that's just not how the world works.

Speaking only for myself, I'd say there's nothing inherently wrong with that (being idealistic). The world may not work like that, but it shouldn't stop people from trying to make it better. After all, it was a certain kind of idealism that decided to invade iraq and afghanistan... for many and contradictory motives.
The world is full of tossers - theirs and ours. Just because we have our own tossers, doesn't preclude them from being as contemptible as the rest.

[Krauter]

I propose he's full of sh!t and naive about the workings of Information and how "free" it should be.

Obviously in a perfect world we wouldn't need to keep secrets from our own people. But in a perfect world we wouldn't have war (one thing that generates a whole ton of secrets needing to be kept..) nor would we have politicians because everyone would be their own master.

In my estimation, he is merely another crackpot anarchist just out to see how much damage he can do and to see how long people will let him get away with it only to end up as a one line reference in a history book.

[the_tyrant]

To the anti-Assange people: why do you think he is doing this?

I've seen articles claiming he's doing it for personal wealth. I find that hard to believe. He has no permanent address, and several governments trying to arrest him... or worse. I doubt he pictured himself sitting on a beach drinking pina coladas after all this is done. If it was money he wanted he could have gone about making it in many other less dangerous ways.

Some have suggested he just wants attention. Maybe. Seems to me to be an extreme way of getting it, but we are clearly not talking about a "normal" person here so who knows.

Some, including Assange, say he's doing this for the greater good. Do you believe that he believes that? That he's delusional?

Or do you think he has other reasons? I'm just curious.

I think its his ego
and to get into the history books

[heartc]

I wouldn't propose anarchy, but I don't think it's a good idea to allow our leaders to become too comfortable with their power. Some things have to be black and white in their highest ideal, irrespective of what the reality becomes - you have to keep trying to better the reality to be as close to the ideal as you can reasonably get, and I think blowing the whistle occasionally is a required part of that. Would you prefer state terror and secret police working to further the arbitrary goals of an elite few? That's the result of unregulated leadership... unless you have an exceptional man or woman or men or women who can resist the drive to preserve the state at the expense of the citizens.

Last time I checked, we were not living under unregulated leadership. Look at North Korea for some of that. I actually agree with your general approach, but alas, last time I checked, leaking classified information / forwarding it to other nations was not part of the democratic process.


I think it matters very much where they guy comes from and where he resides - would you violate the sovereignty of another nation to further your own ends, be they legitimate under your country's laws but not another's? Oh, but it does not matter where he resides or comes from when a case of espionage is filed against him.
There is no provision against espionage in international law, but - as I said - each nation state has its own laws concerning espionage conducted against it. So if he's stepping foot on US soil or is extradited to the US by whatever country, he could well be tried under US law, if a case of espionage is filed against him.

If he's so much trouble, why not just assassinate him and be done with all of the tedious middle man stuff?Maybe because the US is not so much that evil Darth Vader force some people like it to see as? Also, he's in the world's spotlight right now. If anything happened to him, the US Gov. would be blaimed and the fallout in public opinion would be devastating. And they would be blaimed regardless of who did it. So, they would always fail: Even if they pulled of a perfectly clandestine hit, it would still be a failure, cause everybody would know even though he can't. Funny, isn't it. So, until he's about to forward information on Obamas Birth Certificate (sorry, just joking, couldn't resist! :D), don't expect anything soon.

But you need courts and laws to kill people if you're going to do it in public, it looks way more respectable then.I very much doubt there would be capital punishment dished out against Assange, even if he were tried in the US. Even members of foreign intelligence services are not being shot these days anymore, but exchanged etc., so I doubt they would shoot down a private individual. Neither do I think that the PFC who leaked the info will get sentenced to death. After all, the US is not in an actual war for immediate survival, and the severity of the information leaked is probably not high enough.
Personally, for what it's worth, I'm against the death penalty in general. And the PFC strikes me as just some young dumbass who probably watched Michael Moore once too often.

Speaking only for myself, I'd say there's nothing inherently wrong with that (being idealistic). The world may not work like that, but it shouldn't stop people from trying to make it better. After all, it was a certain kind of idealism that decided to invade iraq and afghanistan... for many and contradictory motives.
The world is full of tossers - theirs and ours. Just because we have our own tossers, doesn't preclude them from being as contemptible as the rest.As I said above, I generally share your opinion that one must be critical about one's own government etc. But you also didn't get what I meant with black/white. In this case, I meant that you are painting a pretty grim and unrealisticly simple picture with that "Them Politicians" only having dark agendas for "us people" on the streets. Our systems are build on checks and balances. Sometimes they work better than other times. But someone spilling classified information around, including to hostile nations and terrorist networks, is NOT part of the democratic system.

[Skybird]

............state............................citiz en............citizen............................. state..........
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/6643/24177247.jpg (http://img638.imageshack.us/i/24177247.jpg/)

....................before Wikileaks................................ after Wikileaks..........................


Der Tagesspiegel

[TarJak]

international law the faux/progressive law which has no force. funny, thanks for the laugh.

Laugh you may but you asked and that's the only answer that applies.

Dont forget that these documents are also being published by mainstream US news outlets as well. What Assange is doing is no different to what Bernstein and Woodward did in 1972. Wikileaks is a media organisation. Just because you don't like what they do doesn't mean they should stop doing it.

[Takeda Shingen]

............state............................citiz en............citizen............................. state..........
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/6643/24177247.jpg (http://img638.imageshack.us/i/24177247.jpg/)

....................before Wikileaks................................ after Wikileaks..........................


Der Tagesspiegel

There's a lot of truth to that cartoon. Those in power are all over what you are doing, but you have no right to know what those in power are up to.

[Tchocky]

Well, I suppose an argument for not leaking the cables is that I'd really prefer not to have learned a lot of this stuff :/


I'll take the calls for diplomatic privacy seriously when stuff like this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un) is not being revealed. Seriously, some people have no sense of irony.

Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives"

Maybe I'd sleep easier not knowing this stuff, but I can't accept the argument that we're better off.

[jumpy]

@ heartc
See? That's what I like about this place; differences and common ground :cool:

I think you understand some of my points are rhetorical in nature to illustrate the outcome of what could happen at the end of one line of reasoning. These things happen bit by bit, not all at once. But if some of the new laws in the uk are anything to go by, they are wide open to abuse in the name of security however unlikely it may be.

As for the politicians... well they're not stalins or mugabes for the most part, but there's enough of them who require someone looking over their shoulder constantly to keep their attention where it should be. Politicians lie, well... ours certainly do :DL about everything from going to war, to shooting dead brazilian electricians (the police lied abut that one too, several times - probably because they were intent on delivering the goods when not in possession of all the facts, but they did release altered pictures to make the guy they shot look more like the terrorist suspect they were supposed to be watching) to student fees.

It might be appreciable that the general consensus in the uk is of discontent and suspicion towards government, I think you can understand how that will come across in regard to viewing others who have similar systems of rule.

Perhaps better for the us would be to forget wikileaks and focus on how such information came to be in the public domain in the first place - no matter what they do next, the damage is already done, cat out of bag etc etc.
I've heard a lot about assange and wikileaks, but not a whole deal about pfc manning. Most likely this is due to the press grasping a scoop and having a great time interviewing each other about the ramifications of everything so far, and military justice being closed mouthed.

The democratic system is not perfect. I think it is tested for its integrity when cases like this arise and it's success or failure is judged accordingly on its outcome. Imo, a success here would be the continuation of or betterment of law and 'transparency' not a retrograde step in either of these terms. In some ways these test have to come from outside of the current system in order for it to respond as we are seeing now. Being regarded with intense scrutiny and mistrust are just two of the burdens of being a politician or head of state: if you don't want to have everyone watching you don't take public office. Much of this goes hand in hand - public oversight and the privilege to represent the people.

[Tribesman]

international law the faux/progressive law which has no force. funny, thanks for the laugh.
Its funny how many dumb arse dictators have got caught out thinking the same way

[Platapus]

Why do people leak stuff to wikileaks?
is it because of money?
is it because that they have a big ego?
or is because that they believe that leaking stuff to wikileaks somehow "benefits the people"


Yes and a few more reasons.

Who ever leaked the information may feel that the information is not all that sensitive.

Myriad reasons. All leading to the same end: The decision to betray your country and break an oath of honour.

[Platapus]

How is Wikileaks different from the old GRU and the like?

Back in the day, the GRU, and their ilk, sent agents into the US to recruit people with access to classified information and enticed them to betray their country. The GRU then took that information and give it to people who were not authorized access (the Soviet government)

What is Wikileaks doing?

They are sending agents into the US, and other locations, to recruit people with access to classified information and entice them to betray their country. Wikileaks then takes that information and gives it to people who were not authorized access (everyone in the Internets Tubes).

The difference?

The GRU had the military power of the Soviet Union to protect it. As much as we wanted to shut down the GRU, we would have risked a war with a very large and powerful military. Baring war, we would have risked a serious diplomatic incident. The risks of taking the GRU down did not outweigh the risks of them operating.

Wikileaks does not have an military to protect it nor does Wikileaks have any diplomatic presence.

Wikileaks is alone in a big, cold, unfriendly world. Very big, very cold, very unfriendly. :yep:

As I posted before. He is a child playing in a very dangerous game. :nope:

There may come a time when the risk of having wikileaks operate outweigh the risks of shutting it down sufficiently to make it worth someone's time and effort.

And who would object? Public Opinion? :har:

[Tchocky]

They are sending agents into the US, and other locations, to recruit people with access to classified information and entice them to betray their country. Wikileaks then takes that information and gives it to people who were not authorized access (everyone in the Internets Tubes).

I haven't seen anything that says WL have agents or enticements in place. The website is a dead-letter-box, not a talent agency.

I can sympathise with the outrage over leaking secret information, but the kind of activities that would have otherwise have remained sub rosa have not exactly made the world a wonderful place of late.

[Platapus]

I haven't seen anything that says WL have agents or enticements in place.

And that means there are no agents? :DL

The GRU did not exactly advertise their agents either. :yep:

[the_tyrant]

How is Wikileaks different from the old GRU and the like?

Back in the day, the GRU, and their ilk, sent agents into the US to recruit people with access to classified information and enticed them to betray their country. The GRU then took that information and give it to people who were not authorized access (the Soviet government)

What is Wikileaks doing?

They are sending agents into the US, and other locations, to recruit people with access to classified information and entice them to betray their country. Wikileaks then takes that information and gives it to people who were not authorized access (everyone in the Internets Tubes).

The difference?

The GRU had the military power of the Soviet Union to protect it. As much as we wanted to shut down the GRU, we would have risked a war with a very large and powerful military. Baring war, we would have risked a serious diplomatic incident. The risks of taking the GRU down did not outweigh the risks of them operating.

Wikileaks does not have an military to protect it nor does Wikileaks have any diplomatic presence.

Wikileaks is alone in a big, cold, unfriendly world. Very big, very cold, very unfriendly. :yep:

As I posted before. He is a child playing in a very dangerous game. :nope:

There may come a time when the risk of having wikileaks operate outweigh the risks of shutting it down sufficiently to make it worth someone's time and effort.

And who would object? Public Opinion? :har:

I think wikileaks is trying to play public opinion
they are just releasing stuff to prove that the US government is "evil"
and if the US government does take them down, that would simply prove their point

[Ducimus]

but the kind of activities that would have otherwise have remained sub rosa have not exactly made the world a wonderful place of late.

And when has the world EVER been a wonderful place? Regardless if it makes the news or not, there's always some famine, war, genocide, etc, going on somewhere in the world.

[Wolfehunter]

Well, they were already going to far, but it seems clear they just want to hurt the U.S. as a country:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766This isn't about targeting a nation. Its about targeting crooked individuals or institutions that abuse there power... Through corruptions, Blackmail, Murder. so-on... all for the greater good bull crap...

I'm glade this info gets out.. About time someone has the balls to show each nations true colours.. :rock:

Maybe its time that people wake up and remove there criminals from power and put people who are responsible..

But these snakes won't go so easily will they... :hmmm:

[August]

How is Wikileaks different from the old GRU and the like?

Back in the day, the GRU, and their ilk, sent agents into the US to recruit people with access to classified information and enticed them to betray their country. The GRU then took that information and give it to people who were not authorized access (the Soviet government)

What is Wikileaks doing?

They are sending agents into the US, and other locations, to recruit people with access to classified information and entice them to betray their country. Wikileaks then takes that information and gives it to people who were not authorized access (everyone in the Internets Tubes).

The difference?

The GRU had the military power of the Soviet Union to protect it. As much as we wanted to shut down the GRU, we would have risked a war with a very large and powerful military. Baring war, we would have risked a serious diplomatic incident. The risks of taking the GRU down did not outweigh the risks of them operating.

Wikileaks does not have an military to protect it nor does Wikileaks have any diplomatic presence.

Wikileaks is alone in a big, cold, unfriendly world. Very big, very cold, very unfriendly. :yep:

As I posted before. He is a child playing in a very dangerous game. :nope:

There may come a time when the risk of having wikileaks operate outweigh the risks of shutting it down sufficiently to make it worth someone's time and effort.

And who would object? Public Opinion? :har:

Well put.

Also it's not just the US Government he's embarrassing. He's making enemies that have far less compunctions against violence.

[TarJak]

And that means there are no agents? :DL

The GRU did not exactly advertise their agents either. :yep:
So where is your evidence to support your statement that they do exist?

Woodward & Bernstein and the NY Times didn't entice Deep Throat to provide the Watergate leaks did they?

Wikileaks is a media organisation with a specific purpose of uncovering some of the less nice parts of government and business dealings. They publish what gets leaked. Seal the leaks or better still stop doing and saying things that are going to get leaked. ;)

Just don't shoot the messenger, regardless of how annoying he may be.

[Krauter]

So where is your evidence to support your statement that they do exist?

Woodward & Bernstein and the NY Times didn't entice Deep Throat to provide the Watergate leaks did they?

Wikileaks is a media organisation with a specific purpose of uncovering some of the less nice parts of government and business dealings. They publish what gets leaked. Seal the leaks or better still stop doing and saying things that are going to get leaked. ;)

Just don't shoot the messenger, regardless of how annoying he may be.

Actually they don't release all that gets leaked. As it's been shown earlier in the thread, Assange leaks only what he deems will make the biggest splash in the pool. If he were in fact a true media organisation, he would be objective in the sense that he wouldn't release one tidbit of information, and withhold others (for the sake of blackmail or simply because HE deems it's not important).

Edit: And I still think he's a jackass no matter how noble he thinks his mission is.

[antikristuseke]

Actually they don't release all that gets leaked. As it's been shown earlier in the thread, Assange leaks only what he deems will make the biggest splash in the pool. If he were in fact a true media organisation, he would be objective in the sense that he wouldn't release one tidbit of information, and withhold others (for the sake of blackmail or simply because HE deems it's not important).

Edit: And I still think he's a jackass no matter how noble he thinks his mission is.

Yeah, media organizations do not manipulate data and report objectively, right. I am going to go play with my herd of invisible pink unicorns now.

[Krauter]

Yeah, media organizations do not manipulate data and report objectively, right. I am going to go play with my herd of invisible pink unicorns now.

Ahaha I never said that they realistically report things objectively. To me that's impossible as any story you write about is from the information YOU get. Thus, you cannot possibly have access to ALL information available on the subject.

The "mission statement" if you will for media organizations is to report objectively, whether they do or not is a different matter. What I meant by that post was that by not being objective in their distribution they are not a "media source" to me.

Cheers

Krauter

*And have fun with the pink unicorns! :yeah: :03:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Actually they don't release all that gets leaked. As it's been shown earlier in the thread, Assange leaks only what he deems will make the biggest splash in the pool.

I'll actually call it the one adult part of him, to hold something back as long as he can as a deterrent. Forgive him for recognizing, if perhaps in an incomplete way, that he has enemies. Dangerous ones.

Platapus calls him a child. I almost agree, I'll call him a teenager, and not in a bad way.

A child still doesn't know what is right. Later he knows what is right, but not yet the reality of the world.

A teenager actually knows and believes in what is right. He starts to see the blackness of the real world, but still believes in doing the right thing. He still believes good will win, and that good is popular. He still cannot lie to himself though he may be able to spout lies to others.

When he starts selling out his deontological principles to realism or survival, even rationalizing what is right and wrong in your own mind, that's when he become an adult. That's when he learns to lie to himself.

[TarJak]

Actually they don't release all that gets leaked. As it's been shown earlier in the thread, Assange leaks only what he deems will make the biggest splash in the pool. If he were in fact a true media organisation, he would be objective in the sense that he wouldn't release one tidbit of information, and withhold others (for the sake of blackmail or simply because HE deems it's not important).And I never said they published all they get. If you read this (http://213.251.145.96/about.html)you'll find that just like any other media organisation they publish what they want to. What I said was he's not making up the stuff they are leaking and therefore is not the source to which blame should be attached. His is merely the outlet by which the rest of the world is gaining access.

The leak has already happened and may not have only been to wikileaks. Other organisations, media or otherwise may also be in possession of the information. That matters less once wikileaks makes it public.

Edit: And I still think he's a jackass no matter how noble he thinks his mission is.My personal opinion of they guy is that he's an attention seeking media whore, but I defend his right to do what he is doing, regardless of what I think of him.

Yeah, media organizations do not manipulate data and report objectively, right. I am going to go play with my herd of invisible pink unicorns now.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:V4p8RTbJ9TPpNM:http://images.clipartof.com/small/39227-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Pink-Unicorn-With-Golden-Hooves-And-Horn-And-Sparkly-Purple-Hair.jpg&t=1

Ahaha I never said that they realistically report things objectively. To me that's impossible as any story you write about is from the information YOU get. Thus, you cannot possibly have access to ALL information available on the subject.

The "mission statement" if you will for media organizations is to report objectively, whether they do or not is a different matter. What I meant by that post was that by not being objective in their distribution they are not a "media source" to me.
Well regardless of what you think millions of people, inlcuding many of the worlds media see wikileaks as just that. A media organisation that is objectively publishing what they are given.

Before making rash statements do some basic research. Funnily enough that is exactly what wikileaks does to verify its stories: http://213.251.145.96/about.html

[Capt. Morgan]

Doesn't anyone find it amazing that a Buck Private - in time of war no less - could walk out of the office with enough info on a USB key to turn the diplomatic world upside down?

You have to assume that this information wasn't valued very highly by whoever was holding it before Assange, or there'd be some other heads rolling along with PFC Manning's ...wouldn't there?

Fortunately, none of the released material is classified above confidential. For the most part It's an embarrassment to the U.S. - not a threat - the names of almost all defense contractors are already publicly known, as are their addresses.

The real debate should be over what these cables reveal (like why exactly are we propping up a government riddled top to bottom with corrupt officials - and fueled by opium sales), and not about the character of the messenger.

If you have to blame someone, blame the fools who let this information get out. Maybe if they're really concerned about security, they could move those full-body scanners from the airports to The Pentagon, and a number of other government offices.

[McBeck]

Like many others Im conflicted in this issue.

I dont like to see people lives at risk because of it, but on the other hand some of the things that have been revealed about the Danish goverment have showed that they performing illegal things.

[Skybird]

Those who now are complaining about Wikileak's assumed "anti-Americanism", should remember one thing: many revelations about American misbehaviour and intrigues would not be revealed now, if they would not have taken place in the first.

I also would encourage, urgently, to read the international media reports about the Wikileaking. I notice that American media are extremely selective and tunnel-viewed in their handling of this affair, and commenting it. Each nation seems to set different points of interest here, but the American media are by far the most fixiated and limited this time, it seems to me. This seems to be especially true for the TV platforms running an internet presence as well, CNN, FOX, CBS etc.

The leakage at WL reveals much more than what American media seem to reflect upon.

[Skybird]

And this very moment German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports that Assange has been arrested in England on basis of the Swedish warrant. I wonder if he will ever set free again.

If you have slowdown in your internet cables now, that is just American diplomacy running hot over pressuring the Europeans not to release him again. :D

[Dowly]

Aye, finnish news are reporting the same thingy.

[onelifecrisis]

I also would encourage, urgently, to read the international media reports about the Wikileaking. I notice that American media are extremely selective and tunnel-viewed in their handling of this affair, and commenting it. Each nation seems to set different points of interest here, but the American media are by far the most fixiated and limited this time, it seems to me. This seems to be especially true for the TV platforms running an internet presence as well, CNN, FOX, CBS etc.

The leakage at WL reveals much more than what American media seem to reflect upon.

Surely you're not surprised by this?

[Hakahura]

For what it's worth, has anyone read anything that has shocked them?

Have you learnt anything that was not available elsewhere in the public domain?

Apart from some government embarrassment the world is still turning.

WW3 is not about to break out.

Governments need a good kick in the balls and on a regular basis.

Sorts out the dead wood and the men from the boys.

Lessons will be learnt.

Nothing to see here.

[Penguin]

Does anyone really believe that the material which wikileaks provided to the public is not already in the hands of other intelligence agencies?
Let me do the math. According to Der Spiegel there are 2.5 million people who have access to the medium-security material, and 850.000 with acess to the top secret stuff – to which the alleged thief had no acess.
The guy who gave away the material did it for idealistic reasons. So who can say that nobody leaked stuff for a materialistic reason? As we have seen it takes only 2 people working in a SCIF to get the material: one person with the purpose to steal it and another one who has a lax approach to security (or is bribed).
The approach to prevent the leaking of sensitive information should be clear, and this is what the US and other nations can learn from it.

The papers who published material did black out the names of informers who could be endangered/compromised btw, but I don't know if that is also the case with the stuff that you can download diretly from wikileaks.

To the whole thing I can only say that it wasn't the smartest move to leak all the stuff now, a better concept would be to have the material realeased in 10,20 years. It would still show the people how it works behind the official fassades and the PR of wikileaks would be much better. And yes, I agree, there are some secret procedures which the governmenmt has to obtain in the interest of security. Hell, the whole diplomacy thingy wouldn't work if everybody stated their honest opinion. However this only works if the government is cheked by its citizens. It should serve its people and though be controlled by them.This doen't mean everyody should have access to secert material, I am talking about mechanisms of control.

Oh yes and to the people who demand that the whistleblowers should just vanish I can only tell: Move to ****ing China or another dictatorship of your choice! In democracies there is this tiny little concept of the judiciary. If these people did anything against the law, they can be sentenced after a court case. I am sick of these chickenhawks, if real **** hits the fan you would be the first to suck the balls of any authoritarian leaders and gladly give up any freedom. You are no better than the people who you claim to fight.

[TarJak]

Doesn't anyone find it amazing that a Buck Private - in time of war no less - could walk out of the office with enough info on a USB key to turn the diplomatic world upside down?

You have to assume that this information wasn't valued very highly by whoever was holding it before Assange, or there'd be some other heads rolling along with PFC Manning's ...wouldn't there?

Fortunately, none of the released material is classified above confidential. For the most part It's an embarrassment to the U.S. - not a threat - the names of almost all defense contractors are already publicly known, as are their addresses.

The real debate should be over what these cables reveal (like why exactly are we propping up a government riddled top to bottom with corrupt officials - and fueled by opium sales), and not about the character of the messenger.
And therein lies the value of wikileaks. It is highlighting a policy which is unsustainable and based on poor decision making and a lack of strategy.

[Blood_splat]

I hope they release the documents on UFO's.

[Tribesman]

Have you learnt anything that was not available elsewhere in the public domain?


Only so far the two big stories about Diego Garcia, the dropping of shannon prosecutions to help some idiots in an election, the promise to cover up in the public inquiry on Iraq, that the US is rejecting the same intelligence again and again, civil servants promising foriegn governments to lie to their own governments....

Much of the rest was available elsewhere but was of doubtful provenance, this way the same old crap everyone suspects thay get up to all the time is confirmed by the people themselves.

[Oberon]

This one is new to me:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-cables-nato-russia-baltics

Particularly:

Earlier this year the US started rotating US army Patriot missiles into Poland in a move that Warsaw celebrates publicly as boosting Polish air defences and demonstrating American commitment to Poland's security.
But the secret cables expose the Patriots' value as purely symbolic. The Patriot battery, deployed on a rotating basis at Morag in north-eastern Poland, 40 miles from the border with Russia's Kaliningrad exclave, is purely for training purposes, and is neither operational nor armed with missiles.
At one point Poland's then deputy defence minister privately complained bitterly that the Americans may as well supply "potted plants'.

[onelifecrisis]

Only so far the two big stories about Diego Garcia, the dropping of shannon prosecutions to help some idiots in an election, the promise to cover up in the public inquiry on Iraq, that the US is rejecting the same intelligence again and again, civil servants promising foriegn governments to lie to their own governments....

I assume that isn't an exhaustive list?

[Tribesman]

I assume that isn't an exhaustive list?
Thats the ....in it:up:
Its just a sample of what even the most partisan "patriot" couldn't be able to justify.

[onelifecrisis]

Thats the ....in it:up:

Thought so, but wanted to make sure :up:

[Radtgaeb]

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/07/131870384/british-judge-denies-bail-for-wikileaks-founder

Looks like Assange turned himself in...don't see how much of a difference it'll make.

[onelifecrisis]

Looks like Assange turned himself in...don't see how much of a difference it'll make.

Evidently it didn't impress the judge, who denied him bail because he has the "means and ability" to disappear before the next hearing.

[Radtgaeb]

Oh, as an individual working the criminology world, I understand that he is a definite flight risk. But this won't shut down WikiLeaks.

[onelifecrisis]

The latest update on The Guardian's live feed is a classic!

4.14pm: Charles Arthur, the Guardian's technology editor, points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are "white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God."

[goldorak]

Those who now are complaining about Wikileak's assumed "anti-Americanism", should remember one thing: many revelations about American misbehaviour and intrigues would not be revealed now, if they would not have taken place in the first.

I also would encourage, urgently, to read the international media reports about the Wikileaking. I notice that American media are extremely selective and tunnel-viewed in their handling of this affair, and commenting it. Each nation seems to set different points of interest here, but the American media are by far the most fixiated and limited this time, it seems to me. This seems to be especially true for the TV platforms running an internet presence as well, CNN, FOX, CBS etc.

The leakage at WL reveals much more than what American media seem to reflect upon.


Mon cher Skybird,

Why are you so surprised ? American investigative journalism has died. It has been in decline for well over a decade, and definitely died post 9/11. Reporters don't care anymore to tell the truth, lest they be labeled as anti-patriotic, or terrorists since thats the new american definition. Those that don't agree with your policies are enemy of the state. And hearing politicians of all levels asking for a political assassination is just incomprehensibile.
Many years ago I told you that the 9/11 terrorist attacks would forever change the US. And the reason is that the US has never known how to deal with terrorism, whether foreign or domestic. The fact that they treat this problem (as many other problems) as a "war on ..." denotes their basic incomprehension of this problem.
Spain, West Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom these are for all intents and purposes liberal democracies. And we have had to deal with domestic terrorism for decades. And notheless our societies still thrive, and are still open and liberal.
We have thrived because we knew how to treat terrorism, as a criminal act motivated by a political agenda. This is how you deal with terrorism, domestic or foreign its the same thing.
The US under this idea of "protecting its citizens" at 100% has declared war on an intangibile idea. It has used tactics that are classified as war crimes in any civil society. Where was the civil outrage ? America is being consumed from its core, little by little its becoming a fascist state or a corporate "sponsored" state. America in the early 21st century has much more in common with 1920 Italy and thats not a nice comparison.
Really if you want news, America is the last place to get them. Thats the reality in the 21st century. And nothing will change until journalists, the civil society and a good portion of politicians start to look at how near they are to the brink and take steps backward.

[Skybird]

Why are you so surprised ?

I am not.

American investigative journalism has died.

Not just American. In America they may abuse the war on terror phrase and national security laws to gag criticial journalism, but in the EU the same purpose is served by motives of party-politicians interferring with media key-post, and thinking being mutilated by PCM (political correctness madness). So the means may differ, the result is the same.

That's why I am still in defence of Wikileaks, even when I do not agrere with every decision of theirs regarding their publishings. Sites like them are a needed, correcive surrogate for the failure of journalism. You need that form of monitoring in a democratic state order - which the US and the European nations still are supposed to be - on paper.

If no shameful things would have been done, certain actors could not be humiliated by Wikileaks today. That is the moral of the story - not the punishing of a publisher in the most draconic way possible.


http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7479/cartoonh.png (http://img819.imageshack.us/i/cartoonh.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[Skybird]

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article11454349/Vergewaltigung-auf-Schwedisch-Der-Fall-Assange.html

It seems that they have some quite absurd laws in Sweden, regarding rape. The arfticle claims that it already is rape if some time after the act the women complains to feel not well. One of the two women in Sweden is a known radsical feminist, and in combination with a hypermotivated law like this it is easy to imagine that what is called "rape", indeed may be caused by the milk in the breakfast coffee not having been fresh anymore. I hreaed aboiut therse Swedish rape laws before, and I just shook my head already back then. It is also assumed that the female state attorney is using Assange for getting more attention for the still ongoing emancipatory anti-rape campaign.

The article claims, quoting a lawyer, that in Sweden a man can be sentenced for rape even without any evidence at all. Wowh. Seen that way, a warning from a Swedish friend of my father givenm in a conversation some time ago, now makes sense toi me, he said: "If you ever travel to Sweden, think twice and three times before starting something with a women there, no matter how inviting the signals are she is giving. It's easy that giving in to her brings you into trouble if later she wants to harm you, for whatever her reason is."

Hot Blondes from Sweden? I think I will prefer a cold shower - always.

[The Third Man]

Assange isn't engaging in anything like journalism. He is just posting what are classified documents. If he was posting an individual's private correspondance many would think it a-moral.

[goldorak]

I am not.

Then you're a realist. :up:



Not just American. In America they may abuse the war on terror phrase and national security laws to gag criticial journalism, but in the EU the same purpose is served by motives of party-politicians interferring with media key-post, and thinking being mutilated by PCM (political correctness madness). So the means may differ, the result is the same.


Yes and no. Yes americans by abusing the words, terror, terrorism, war on terrorism are basically devoiding them of any meaning. And this is a bad thing because if you can't define the problem, there are going to be excesses. You've read about how the CIA kidnapped inocent european citizens, locked them up for several years and then basically imposed that european governments not pursue the matter ? And then we have to hear how the US takes the high moral ground on the rest of the world.
Its utterly ridiculous. There is no american expectionalism. They are as cynical, petty, and don't respect basic human rights as the countries they say thet are fighting against. Ask yourself Skybird what would happen if european secret services kidnapped american citizens (deemed to be terrorists against european countries) on american soil and locked them up away without any legal representaton for several years in a god forskan place.

As for free press in europe. We still have investigative journalism although there is a long standing tradition of major newpapers to not rock the boat.
But it doesn't mean that the government is given a free pass on everything.
I think the reason comes down to how newpapers are financed in most european countries. Even the way pubic tv is financed is a guard against the derive you see in american tv channels. So I'm not very preoccupied on this ground. As for politically correctness I'm with you its a real tragedy. Most often political correctness is taken as an excuse to not say the truth lest it inconvenience someone. But thank god for the like of the Canard Enchaine and other newspapers like it throughout europe.



That's why I am still in defence of Wikileaks, even when I do not agrere with every decision of theirs regarding their publishings. Sites like them are a needed, correcive surrogate for the failure of journalism. You need that form of monitoring in a democratic state order - which the US and the European nations still are supposed to be - on paper.


I'm also 100% behind wikileaks. The health of a free liberal society has some costs. If it means people or governments are going to be imbarassed because of some so called secrets (that were privy to over 3 milion people....!!!!!) then so be it. Its not a tragedy.


If no shameful things would have been done, certain actors could not be humiliated by Wikileaks today. That is the moral of the story - not the punishing of a publisher in the most draconic way possible.
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7479/cartoonh.png (http://img819.imageshack.us/i/cartoonh.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Yes :yep:
Governments have to accountable to the public. By classfying everything including the kitchen sink as secret they are doing a big disservice to democracy and they should justly be called out on that.
In one way or the other.

[Oberon]

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host Unesco's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from 1-3 May in Washington, DC.

The theme for next year's commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and
innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals' right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

:hmmm:

[goldorak]

Assange isn't engaging in anything like journalism. He is just posting what are classified documents. If he was posting an individual's private correspondance many would think it a-moral.

The New York Times is publishing what are classified documents, the exact same redacted documents that wikileaks is publishing.
Whats the difference ? How come I don't hear Sarah Palin declaring that the NYT is to closed down and its reporters executed ?

[onelifecrisis]

:hmmm:

I assume you're looking at the same page as me. I loved this comment:
Shameless. You really could not make it up.
Haha. Gotta love the Guardian sometimes.

[Oberon]

I assume you're looking at the same page as me. I loved this comment:

Haha. Gotta love the Guardian sometimes.

:yep: :haha:

This is all rather amusing, really, because even if Assange is shot, disappeared or sent to Mars, it will not stop Wikileaks, if anything it will make it stronger. Heck, even if the US man who released this info was shot, there will be another, there has been for years, it's just that now there's the organisation to receive and publish this information globally.

[Skybird]

I didn'T say Assange is a journalist, I said Wikileaks serves as a needed surrogate for failing journalism. Journalists have become to obedient to poltical demands and opportunism, or laws are threatening the security of their sources. Without such sources, there cannot be investigative journalism. That's why the attempts to intimidate sources, currently are very intense, especially in the US where everything seems to be in danger to become suborndiate to the omnipotent overkill-argument of "national security". I assume it is just by random chance that the poltical selfdeclared elites, thje lobbies, and the networks of poltiics and businessmen, benefit massively from such gagging of informants journalists can base on?

The simple truth is, Assange has run increasing efforts with every leaking to cooperate with the press, to compensate for the lack of jpournalistic potency of his organisation. Der Spiegel alone for example says that ujst for the current cablegate documents they had ordered 50 "Redakteure" of theirs to check the material for over 5 months. Wikileaks this time cooperates nwith 5 international newspapers, wheres during the last major leak it were 3.

If you want to discuss the legal battle, then you have to focus on the informants who may or may not break laws when hadning over sensitive material. Usually they do that while trusting that the journalist or Wikileaks protects their identity and does nto reveal it, no matter what. Without that trust, you cannot have working journalism - only state-directed propaganda. And that is why espoecially American laws are so massively aiming at undermining that trust. The American power elites want anything but a free press. Regarding Assange and Wikileaks, they just do what any journalist would do in their place - and do you want to arrest any journalists now who do their work and run investigative researches and publish revealing information by the informants? That is a tyranny then.

Wikileaks' datasets are mirrored on almost 800 servers now. Assange is being turned into a martyr by running this with-hunt against him. The fame will be even greater for him. And plenty of Wikileaks-like web projects are already in their starting blocks. The smear campaign being run against Assange, and trying to simply prohibit members of the armed forces to read wikileaks, and to intimidate students by threatening their job perspectives if they read wikileaks, not only has the taste of Soviet and Chinese methods on it - it also is probably the most stupid, unclever thing the political establishment could have tried. It shows a great lack of sovereignity, it shows fear - and a total lack of consciousness of guilt.


........................... In war, the truth dies first.......................................
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/249/wikileaks930175.jpg (http://img821.imageshack.us/i/wikileaks930175.jpg/)
...................................resurrection... ..............................................

[The Third Man]

The New York Times is publishing what are classified documents, the exact same redacted documents that wikileaks is publishing.
Whats the difference ? How come I don't hear Sarah Palin declaring that the NYT is to closed down and its reporters executed ?

So are the NYT journalists? Interesting how your argument shows the NYT for what it isn't.

[mookiemookie]

The New York Times is publishing what are classified documents, the exact same redacted documents that wikileaks is publishing.
Whats the difference ? How come I don't hear Sarah Palin declaring that the NYT is to closed down and its reporters executed ?

Funny how she didn't call for executions when Wikileaks released the Climate-gate emails. She was all over those.

[The Third Man]

Funny how she didn't call for executions when Wikileaks released the Climate-gate emails. She was all over those.

Perhaps it is because she doesn't want to "act stupidly" like our current resident of the White House often does. Just a thought you won't like I'm afraid.

[AVGWarhawk]

How come I don't hear Sarah Palin


She is too busy wrestling bears in AK for her new reality TV show. What does she care?

[goldorak]

So are the NYT journalists? Interesting how your argument shows the NYT for what it isn't.

What I mean is that Wikileaks is doing the exact same thing as Le Monde, The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel etc...
So why do we have 2 weights and 2 measures ?
In either case the person that "stole" the documents didn't work for wikileaks or the newspapers. Wikileaks and the newspapers are simply publishing what was stolen from the US diplomatic network by an american soldier. And that said american soldier passed the documents to others to have it published, wether on print or on the internet. If there is any "criminal" responsability it starts and ends with Manning (the american soldier) that burned those cables onto his cds and that later gave them to wikileaks.

[Oberon]

Perhaps it is because she doesn't want to "act stupidly" like our current resident of the White House often does. Just a thought you won't like I'm afraid.

So, it's alright to call for executions when one set of information is released but not when another set is? Where does one draw the line?

[Takeda Shingen]

She is too busy wrestling bears in AK for her new reality TV show. What does she care?

:haha:

I was going to type something similar, but thought, 'meh, too easy'.

[Blood_splat]

Basically it's kill the messenger mentality.

[Oberon]

Meanwhile Anonymous launch a counter-attack:

The website of the Swedish prosecution authority appears to be under attack by the group on online activists understood to be targetting all anti-WikiLeaks companies or departments.
Each of the six companies, including Amazon and eBay, that have severed ties with Assange and WikiLeaks in past weeks following political pressure have quickly become the subject of sustained online assaults from the group known only as Anonymous. It took just hours for the Swiss bank, Post Finance, to be brought offline after announcing that it was closing Assange's account on Monday.
The distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS) overload a website's servers with requests to load. Depending on how much demand the servers can withstand – a beneficial facet of larger companies such as Amazon – the site will either take longer than usual to load or be brought completely offline for a period. Anonymous has gained notoriety for attacks on copyright-enforcement agencies and some of the world's largest record labels.

[The Third Man]

What I mean is that Wikileaks is doing the exact same thing as Le Monde, The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel etc...
So why do we have 2 weights and 2 measures ?
In either case the person that "stole" the documents didn't work for wikileaks or the newspapers. Wikileaks and the newspapers are simply publishing what was stolen from the US diplomatic network by an american soldier. And that said american soldier passed the documents to others to have it published, wether on print or on the internet. If there is any "criminal" responsability it starts and ends with Manning (the american soldier) that burned those cables onto his cds and that later gave them to wikileaks.

I know where you stand on the issue, and respect your position, although I think it wrong.

If I stole a plate of silver and ran to a guy and said take this and use it to the best of your ability would anyone think that a legitimate request or use of stolen property?

Your turn.

[goldorak]

I know where you stand on the issue, and respect your position, although I think it wrong.

If I stole a plate of silver and ran to a guy and said take this and use it to the best of your ability would anyone think that a legitimate request or use of stolen property?

Your turn.

If the american soldier instead of going to wikileaks went directly to the NYT and told them : here take these 250,000 US diplomatic cables and publish them and the NYT said yes because they consider it in the interest of the nation. What would you say ?

Beware that a free press is so because they cannot be held responsable for publishing stolen documents. Unless they have directly participated in the heist.
Even your Supreme Court agrees on this issue. And thats the reason why newpapers were not closed down when the Watergate scandal was for all to see (and it had a very nasty effect that of impeaching the president). Its the reason why newspapers were not silenced when they published the "pentagon papers".
Its the reason why you live in a free liberal democracy (at least for the time being). Enact laws that make journalists responsabile for their informants deeds and you're on the fast track to totalitarism. Don't think for a moment that somehow freedom, liberty and the free press are "codified" in the american dna.

[onelifecrisis]

Assange has been sent to HMP Wandsworth.
This from Wikipedia:
In December 1999, an inspection report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons severely criticised the regime at Wandsworth Prison. The report stated that there was "a pervasive culture of fear" at the jail, and that staff were "callous and uncaring" and guilty of intimidation, racism and sexism.[4]
A further inspection report in June 2003 called for some inmates to be removed from Wandsworth prison to ease overcrowding. The report also stated that the prison's record on basic standards was "indefensible". However, the report praised the prison in several areas, notably its work with foreign nationals, improvements in healthcare, and measures to prevent suicide and self harm.[5]
In September 2004 the Chief Inspector claimed that conditions at Wandsworth Prison had deteriorated, and that the jail had been rated poorly on all four of the Prison Inspectorate's "healthy prison" tests. The tests included assessing safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement at the prison.[6]
In October 2009, gross misconduct charges were brought against managers of Wandsworth Prison, after an investigation found that inmates had been temporarily transferred to HMP Pentonville before inspections. The transfers, which included vulnerable prisoners, were in order to manipulate prison population figures.[7]

[Capt. Morgan]

... If he was posting an individual's private correspondance many would think it a-moral.

And it would be, because unlike diplomatic cables, Individual peoples private correspondence does not reflect or effect the policies of publicly elected officials.

Funny how [Palin] didn't call for executions when Wikileaks released the Climate-gate emails. She was all over those.

Exactly. I'm sure that if PFC Manning had been Russian, Chinese, or Iranian, Wikileakes would have taken the same action. They release what they are given, they have no agenda other than embarrassing the powerful, and shedding light on their actions - whoever they may be.

[The Third Man]

Individual peoples private correspondence does not reflect or effect the policies of publicly elected officials.



Really? Was Andrew Stern, the former head of the SEIU, not on a public policy board?

naivete, or

[Capt. Morgan]

Really? Was Andrew Stern, the former head of the SEIU, not on a public policy board?
naivete, or

I don't know. I'm a Canuk, should I know? I googled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Stern) him but still can't see the connection. Given that I am a Canuk, could you please clairify your point?

P.S. The Third Man, They don't make many films like that one! That's got to be one of the greatest movies ever made. I have a personally autographed photo of Vali on my desk (true!).

[onelifecrisis]

I don't know. I'm a Canuk, should I know? I googled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Stern) him but still can't see the connection. Given that I am a Canuk, could you please clairify your point?

P.S. The Third Man, They don't make many films like that one! I have a personally autographed photo of Vali on my desk.

Dude, he's gone bye bye.

Bye bye TTM.

Bye bye.

[Capt. Morgan]

Dude, he's gone bye bye.

Bye bye TTM.

Bye bye.

R.I.P.

Ah well, The Third Man is still a cinima masterpiece, and Valli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alida_Valli)

is still one hot babe.

[yubba]

:hmmm:Gee for an open society we sure got a lot secrets, what happen to transparency and no closed doors. One of my favorite sayings is, don't say or do things that you can't possibly take back. You go wiki leaks.

[Platapus]

Why are you assuming that an "open society" can't have "secrets"?

An open society is not a binary state - everything exposed where a closed society is everything hidden.

As a society, the United States is pretty open. Some would say too open and that can be debated. But there should be no logical expectation that any society as large and as complex as the United States would have everything exposed. :nope:

That simply does not make sense.

I don't think any country anywhere near the size of the United States could operate completely open :nope:

In the history of our civilization, I don't think any nation/state has ever operated under the concept of complete openness. There is always a need to protect sensitive information.

[Tribesman]

Gee for an open society we sure got a lot secrets
Like that secret telescope looking at the looming planet deathstar from the south pole?
If the world government cannot even keep an alien army of reptilian penguins secret it shows that we must be in an open society as they obviously cannot have any secrets.
One of my favorite sayings is, don't say or do things that you can't possibly take back

[Letum]

Peoples reaction to wiki leaks is interesting.

It appears to come down to whether or not you think your and your governments interests are similar.

[VonHesse]

Wow, talk about unbridled hypocricy - Amazon.com, who booted Wikileaks off their servers for "illegal activities", is now SELLING copies of the cablegate documents on their U.K. website.

That's right, posting the information for general consumption - free of charge - is illegal, violates their terms of use, and borders on treason.

If, however, you are willing to shell-out the tidy capitalist sum of just under $12.00 (U.S.), you too can purchase your very own Kindle-ready and Amazon-approved copy.


Amazon Inc. is again coming under fire for an e-book published via its self-publishing Kindle book service.

The awkwardly titled WikiLeaks Documents Expose US Foreign Policy Conspiracies: All Cables with Tags From 1- 5000, by Heinz Duthel, is retailing for the equivalent of about $11.79 on amazon.co.uk. It is currently unavailable to Canadian Kindle users.

The book reprints the first 5,000 cables recently released by WikiLeaks — the same documents that are available for free on the WikiLeaks website.
In the description of the e-book, it says that Duthel will “analyze the articles more thoroughly in a subsequent article.”

The book is No. 1 for sales in Japan, No. 2 in the politics and current affairs section, and No. 3 in the non-fiction section of the site.

Amazon has sparked online outrage for allowing the sale of the book in light of the company’s actions last week, when it removed the WikiLeaks site from its U.S. servers.


http://www.thestar.com/business/article/904277--users-outraged-that-amazon-is-selling-wikileaks-ebook

[jumpy]

^^

hahahaha, now I'm convinced we're all beyond redemption - say one thing and do another, double-think and new-speak cannot be all that far away. We already have the vague and open ended terms like 'war on terror' - not to mention drugs, poverty, corruption and more besides, some of which may sound well and good - The motivation may be slightly more realistic in comparison to 1984, who's dark and ultimately futile story of resistance against the state is terminal, but who can say that we do not already have a self serving authoritarian apparatus running the UK?
We have a government that says one thing then does another, accuses others of what it is secretly guilty of itself, that lies to cover its intentions and cock-ups, that coupled with a sensationalist tabloid media, stirred up enough emotion to take us to a un-winnable war on two fronts based almost exclusively on a barefaced lie to further the name of a leader who believed 'god' told him what he was doing was right.

Doomed, I tell ya, ...doomed.

[TarJak]

The whole issue of the actions of organisations like Amazon, Visa and Mastercard and Pay-Pal, that have reneged on their commercial contracts at the behest of the US government brings up some serious questions for corporate law.

I won't be surprised to see wikileaks sue them for breach of contract and succeed.

The hypocrisy is delisious though.

[August]

The whole issue of the actions of organisations like Amazon, Visa and Mastercard and Pay-Pal, that have reneged on their commercial contracts at the behest of the US government brings up some serious questions for corporate law.

I won't be surprised to see wikileaks sue them for breach of contract and succeed.

The hypocrisy is delisious though.


Every EULA i've ever read gives the company the right to terminate such accounts for any reason. What grounds would there be for a lawsuit?