Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So, it really surprised me that we don't have a formal Wikileaks discussion thread. I don't know about you guys, but the Afghanistan and Iraq war diaries had me hooked!

So, while the main theme for this thread is the currently ongoing revelation of over 250 000 state department documents, there is room to discuss Wikileaks in general, or its somewhat interesting owner, Julian Assange.

As the information is breaking as we speak, there will no doubt be "newer and better" assemblies of what has been found, but I thought this BBC one was good:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858990

Most interesting so far, imho at least, is the spying on the UN and other nations.

Here are the NY Times and Guardian stories on the issue (NYT and the Guardian got copies of the cables prior to their release).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29spy.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

So ya, go wikileaks.

Likely related, Assange was arrested on an international rape charge warrent:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8166421/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-could-face-grave-consequences.html

He could be guilty, idk, I'm not sure of the facts of the case, it just does add another level of intrigue to the story. At this point, though, I'm sure Wikileaks as a phenomenon probably could exist without Assanage as a "figurehead". If the US did really press the Sweeds to arrest Assanage, in-order-to-discredit-wikileaks, I'd say that is a plan doomed to failure.

The DNS attacks the site is facing? probably a better start:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8166204/WikiLeaks-under-cyber-attack.html

The Rape issue:

http://www.webcitation.org/getfile.php?fileid=a75edcaf34e52a31535731098002fa847220ebc2

so, assange was not "arrested" when Sweeden issued the warrant. However, it also almost immediatly dropped the charges:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/08/2010821153010551757.html

Only to immediatly bring them up again under different wording:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/arrest-warrant-for-wikileaks-founder-assange-is-upheld-by-swedish-court.html

not to make this the issue of the thread, Its just that I'm finding updates to the issue as fast as I can edit the thread. The real point is to discuss the embassy leaks or Wikileaks as an institution, though I do think the charges add a level of "mystery" to the whole affair.

SLy2UOaA0CU

- Sweeden's prosecutor seems to fluster under the interviewer's questioning... Its like a John Grisham novel

EDIT: woooooooooooooooo /spooky

QzaDtt5VGuw

lol, anyways, to get us back on track, aside from the Spying on UN diplomats, here we see evidence of Isreal preparing to unilaterally attack Iranian nuclear facilities, and possible US support in terms of Bunker buster missiles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/israel-primed-attack-nuclear-iran

Originally posted by inimalist
Most interesting so far, imho at least, is the spying on the UN and other nations.

That's probably the least interesting bit but potentially the most damaging. Every country that is relevant on the international stage is spying on everyone else. But stuff about your spies gets leaked it's a loss of face and a clear sign that your intelligence agency is weak.

Originally posted by inimalist
Likely related, Assange was arrested on an international rape charge warrent:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8166421/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-could-face-grave-consequences.html

He could be guilty, idk, I'm not sure of the facts of the case, it just does add another level of intrigue to the story. At this point, though, I'm sure Wikileaks as a phenomenon probably could exist without Assanage as a "figurehead". If the US did really press the Sweeds to arrest Assanage, in-order-to-discredit-wikileaks, I'd say that is a plan doomed to failure.

I don't know about his guilt or if he was framed. What I do know is that people are stupidly easy to influence with this sort of stuff, the whole US political machine is built around finding naughty but irrelevant things candidates have done to stop them from getting elected. The accusation can't help but damage wikileaks.

Originally posted by inimalist
The DNS attacks the site is facing? probably a better start:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8166204/WikiLeaks-under-cyber-attack.html

Or maybe not. I just read something about wikileaks sending out encrypted copies of what are apparently their files via twitter.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's probably the least interesting bit but potentially the most damaging. Every country that is relevant on the international stage is spying on everyone else. But stuff about your spies gets leaked it's a loss of face and a clear sign that your intelligence agency is weak.

less interesting compared to "pakistan's nukes might fall into terrorist hands" or "China is hacking"?

Obviously people spy, but like, iris and DNA information on UN diplomats, on orders signed by members of the president's immediate cabinet? Handled by the state department and not the intelligence agencies?

there are so many weird twists to this, though to be perfectly frank, I'm most interested in the 2000 documents sent from Canadian embassies.

whatever, I just like spy stuff...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know about his guilt or if he was framed. What I do know is that people are stupidly easy to influence with this sort of stuff, the whole US political machine is built around finding naughty but irrelevant things candidates have done to stop them from getting elected. The accusation can't help but damage wikileaks.

damage their public appeal in the American media. But, already, every time Wikileaks releases information, the American brass say, essentially unchallanged, that it is putting American's in harms way. I don't think the section of the public that gets its news straight from the American mainstream media is ever going to fall behind an organization dedicated to the release of confidential information.

But, as an entity that proveds an avenue to release this information, I don't think taking asange off the stage would do much to shut it down. Even if the servers were destroyed, the concept exists like an idea, at least I would think at this point.

Like, the same way shutting down Napster didn't kill piracy, but in fact, spawned hundreds of new "Napsters"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or maybe not. I just read something about wikileaks sending out encrypted copies of what are apparently their files via twitter.

/love

looks like both women pressed charges toghether weeks after each of the supposed offenses. it seems rather fishy

Originally posted by inimalist
less interesting compared to "pakistan's nukes might fall into terrorist hands" or "China is hacking"?

Obviously people spy, but like, iris and DNA information on UN diplomats, on orders signed by members of the president's immediate cabinet? Handled by the state department and not the intelligence agencies?

there are so many weird twists to this, though to be perfectly frank, I'm most interested in the 2000 documents sent from Canadian embassies.

whatever, I just like spy stuff...

Just generally not "news", to me. As far as I know international spy wars are not just constant but expected and even somewhat accepted by national governments.

Originally posted by inimalist
damage their public appeal in the American media. But, already, every time Wikileaks releases information, the American brass say, essentially unchallanged, that it is putting American's in harms way.

And, honestly, they're probably right that leaked information put American soldiers and interests in harms way. The most obvious consequences are for soldiers and spies but also keep in mind that widespread leaks make it hard for diplomats to be honest when they make their reports.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't send out leaks. It just means that, at the very least, they should be aware that there are factors other than the nasty secretive government and the truth loving journalist.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think the section of the public that gets its news straight from the American mainstream media is ever going to fall behind an organization dedicated to the release of confidential information.

Yeah, that's probably true.

Originally posted by inimalist
But, as an entity that proveds an avenue to release this information, I don't think taking asange off the stage would do much to shut it down. Even if the servers were destroyed, the concept exists like an idea, at least I would think at this point.

Like, the same way shutting down Napster didn't kill piracy, but in fact, spawned hundreds of new "Napsters"

Also true, but there is a key difference. Pirate sites don't need a reputation to operate, muckrakers do (or at least should). Once they

Originally posted by inimalist
/love

If you want to participate:
https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5723136/WikiLeaks_insurance

A truly noble use of filesharing.

It's simple i'm trying to stop two world wars.....

I even have shit on this site, Raz really repairs computers in the Northwest of the UK and his Girlfriend sells diamonte cases for mobile phones etc. Oh, and Whirly is really more important than anyone here.

Perhaps the funniest thing is the US rape honeytrap attempt on me, the whole world sees what they are doing.

I will have full disclosure on every world issue....

Including area 51, We ****ing know the yanks had aliens.

Damn Julian u da man!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And, honestly, they're probably right that leaked information put American soldiers and interests in harms way. The most obvious consequences are for soldiers and spies but also keep in mind that widespread leaks make it hard for diplomats to be honest when they make their reports.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't send out leaks. It just means that, at the very least, they should be aware that there are factors other than the nasty secretive government and the truth loving journalist.


The Pentagon released a report saying no Americans had been hurt due to the war logs being released.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/10/ap-limited-damage-from-leak-of-afghan-war-logs/

Though, I think I did catch a headline somewhere that the Taliban was going after informants. Wikileaks does try to do what they can to minimize this, but ultimately you are right, it doesn't pose zero risk. Given that the US state department did such a publicity blitz with its allies prior to the embassy cables being released, we can probably assume this one is much less about people getting hurt, and more about saving face.

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101128/us-wikileaks-appeal-101128/20101128/?hub=OttawaHome

it will be intersting to see if this has even the impact that outing Valerie Plaime would have.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also true, but there is a key difference. Pirate sites don't need a reputation to operate, muckrakers do (or at least should). Once they

hmmm, that is true. To be fair though, that might just be a matter of time. If Demonoid started hosting files with known viruses all the time, they would lose their user base. Similarily, "good" sources of information would eventually be identifed. knowing what is "good" in this case would be infinitely harder, and might pose no better than having numerous news cites on the internet, each with their own version of the truth (not that I think wikileaks is neutral by any measure)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you want to participate:
https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5723136/WikiLeaks_insurance

A truly noble use of filesharing.

hmmm, might have to try out this "Twitter" thing that is all the rage, because the file is encrypted, and the people at TPB seem to think it will be posted in the Wikileaks Twitter

The encryption key is around, if you know where to look.

Originally posted by inimalist
Wikileak stuff

I hope you realise your going into the terrorist black book for posting this

I could use the street cred

ha, fine, if there isn't a lot of discussion to be had, I'll keep my own little blog here until a mod shuts it down, seriously, I can't get enough of this wikileaks stuff, it is almost like "gossip" to me at this point. I spent a couple of hours going through some "haxors" talking about how the "insurance" file was encrypted, and whether it contained anything real, stuff I wouldn't normally care about at all. Its like, taken over my mind....

anyways, apparently the only government not going apeshit trying to explain why Wikileaks is a terrorist organization out to undermine democracy are.... The Israelis?




http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

this Guardian blog also has some quotes from Hillary Clinton's statements on wikileaks today, but I want to see the whole thing before I talk about the sort of global response to this, especially in light of a point Sym made yesterday, namely, that anyone who follows these issues closely is probably not hugely surprised by the content of the cables.

Do you think the leaks were leaked purposely or as it would appear were stolen documents.

Because this would be a good reason create a new enemy, "cyber terrorism" by which they could pass law to rob people of even more freedoms.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Because this would be a good reason create a new enemy, "cyber terrorism" by which they could pass law to rob people of even more freedoms.

Cyber terrorism is a very legitimate concern when so much of a nation and society require the internet. Besides it's not like the tools for it don't exist, in fact they get used all the time, just not on governments. I'm honesty surprised it took until 2009 for an actual Cyberwarfare Division to be created in the US.

not really

what is seen (at least in the couple hundred released so far, and in the dozens I've read myself) is not so much what is done diplomatically, but how. So, while we all know Western powers get together to control weaker nations, but in this cable:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175722

we see it in action. We not only see people playing the "great game" in central asia, but members of the British Royal Family call it such, and express their intent to "win".

The cable is discussed here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-rude-prince-andrew

but they seem to go for the easy headline, "one of the Princes is rude to foreigners". However, if you read through the cable, you get an understanding for how business is really done in Kyrgistan, at all levels, and how the economic and political arms of a nation essentially work as one to enforce policy.

I tend to think this is the type of information that the government wouldn't want to release as misinformation. The type of stuff, as John McCain might put it, "that you don't say out loud".

Considering the COICA, and that American congressmen are already calling wikileaks, no kidding, a terrorist organization, I don't think they would need to make it seem more "anti-american" to enact legislation against it (technically, wikileaks already violates american law).

From the perspective that this might be "fake" or "counter-intelligence", 1) thats why I like the filter of the Guardian or NYT, acutally, I'll let the NYT answer:



basically, there is some degree of confirmation there, from a source that has questioned wikileaks in the past and at least doesn't always sing their praises, and 2) if we believe there are over 250 000 documents with as specific information as what is contained in these cables, we would be talking about a counter-intelligence operation that would have taken years and hundreds, if not thousands, of people to accomplish. Again from the NYT:



I think occam's razor still errs on the leak being real.

(sort of) 3: also, while constantly referring to the cables as "alleged", Clinton does point out that they confirm much of what America has said about Iran (they do), meaning that she probably dosn't think they are "alleged", at least when America looks good.

EDIT: basically, I don't think the Americans would be capable of faking a leak of this nature without someone smelling a rat (other than Ahmadeenijad), and I think they already have the tools to fight cyberterrorism, or subsequently abuse people with anti-cyberterrorism, without needing to legislate against wikileaks, which is already a criminal organization in terms of American law.

EDIT2: that NYT link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29askthetimes.html?pagewanted=1

I wonder what unintended crops will rise from these leaks sprung.

they can scream and legislate all they want, there'll be no stopping this. just like napster as you acurately pointed out. And despite the us and other governments formidable propaganda machines, whistleblowers are much harder to label terrorist than a random armed militant or direct action activist. This will eventually erode the credibility of the use of the terrorist label - as it has already been eroded to a point - until it loses effect, which will actually be good against the criminalization of dissent, of course, it'll weaken criticisms of actual terrorism.

Originally posted by 753
they can scream and legislate all they want, there'll be no stopping this. just like napster as you acurately pointed out. And despite the us and other governments formidable propaganda machines, whistleblowers are much harder to label terrorist than a random armed militant or direct action activist. This will eventually erode the credibility of the use of the terrorist label - as it has already been eroded to a point - until it loses effect, which will actually be good against the criminalization of dissent, of course, it'll weaken criticisms of actual terrorism.

I guess that is good if you are a terrorist.

Originally posted by 753
they can scream and legislate all they want, there'll be no stopping this. just like napster as you acurately pointed out. And despite the us and other governments formidable propaganda machines, whistleblowers are much harder to label terrorist than a random armed militant or direct action activist. This will eventually erode the credibility of the use of the terrorist label - as it has already been eroded to a point - until it loses effect, which will actually be good against the criminalization of dissent, of course, it'll weaken criticisms of actual terrorism.

but that sort of "labeling" of terrorist is just part and parcel of the Republican propoganda machine, this is what Palin said of Assange on her facebook:



remember, this is the same Palin who refused to call those who bomb abortion clinics terrorists.

frankly, I half expect the next republican "tweet" to claim that Assange attended a madrass as a child.

(for the record, I do want to do a bigger post addressing the "more than 100 Afghan sources" claim)

Haven't had a chance to look these over yet, it comes as no surprise though. These politicians are all two-faced rats so the shock factor isn't really there.

The rape charges did crack me up a bit though. Desperate to get the guy locked up.

Wiki leaks is a welcome addition to the internet

Originally posted by Liberator
The rape charges did crack me up a bit though. Desperate to get the guy locked up.

see, its just as likely hes using the limelight to make it seem like he didn't do it, or waiting for US politicians to say dumb things, like they already are, to make it look like he really might be the target of some huge spy conspiracy.

idk, its a tough one. Its one of those conspiracy situations that I can't simply "logic" out of

Originally posted by inimalist
see, its just as likely hes using the limelight to make it seem like he didn't do it, or waiting for US politicians to say dumb things, like they already are, to make it look like he really might be the target of some huge spy conspiracy.

idk, its a tough one. Its one of those conspiracy situations that I can't simply "logic" out of

Aye, it gets very iffy when its blown up to this proportion.

I've read through some of the documents, I don't think I'm reading the right ones but I haven't really found anything of much interest yet. Anyone find anything neat?

Originally posted by Liberator
Aye, it gets very iffy when its blown up to this proportion.

I've read through some of the documents, I don't think I'm reading the right ones but I haven't really found anything of much interest yet. Anyone find anything neat?

as the Washington post put it, in an otherwise terrible article, most of what we have seen so far is US State department employees doing their job well.

But ya, if you troll the Guardian and NYT daily blogs they have going, you can find good summaries of what has been released.

Wikileaks started releasing cables that hadn't been by the newspapers yet, afaik, but they are down again.

Wikipedia (whose founder is actually against the release) actually has the best collection I've seen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Contents_by_r
egion

Isn't it interesting how as soon as Wikileaks announced the next leak to be an expose of the banking industry, Mike Huckabee and Marc Thiessen start calling for executions and an invasion of Sweden while Obama suddenly calls for arrests? They're probably afraid that people will get upset enough to organize a general strike or will start clipping the rich and powerful in the streets. What can I say? If you're gonna do a rerun of the 1890's and the 1920's, you're gonna have to deal with pissed off populists (the real ones, not the teabagging social darwinist fascists who taint the word) angry enough to grind the system to a halt and anarchists who are gonna want to play Robespierre. Duh.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Isn't it interesting how as soon as Wikileaks announced the next leak to be an expose of the banking industry, Mike Huckabee and Marc Thiessen start calling for executions and an invasion of Sweden while Obama suddenly calls for arrests? They're probably afraid that people will get upset enough to organize a general strike or will start clipping the rich and powerful in the streets. What can I say? If you're gonna do a rerun of the 1890's and the 1920's, you're gonna have to deal with pissed off populists (the real ones, not the teabagging social darwinist fascists who taint the word) angry enough to grind the system to a halt and anarchists who are gonna want to play Robespierre. Duh.

the same calls were coming out before that Forbes interview went up, congressmen were musing about "snatch and grab" teams and what have you.

What is more interesting, imho, is that Bank of America's stock has fallen significantly, as it is assumed the files are about them.

What a coincidence wikileaks boss Julian Assange has got a warrent out for his arrest, apparently for sexual harrasment and rape. Is it just me or is the timing a bit suspicious??

Are you serious?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
What a coincidence wikileaks boss Julian Assange has got a warrent out for his arrest, apparently for sexual harrasment and rape. Is it just me or is the timing a bit suspicious??

I agree, it does seem suspicious. I would think, if the US really wanted to get him, he would just have an accident.

that would raise a lot more suspicion and woul possibly martirize him, while a demoralization atempt aimed at destroying his reputation and credibility to silence him and wikileaks through ad homine fallacies could actually succeed.

the whole timeline for the events seems off, he would have molested 2 different women on separate ocasions a few days apart and then a couple of weeks later they'd both show up toghether to press charges against him

Wikileaks released a DOD document earlier in 2010 about its plan to neturalize the site.

One of the plans was to discredit him. There is a HUGE conspiracy side to this, when you get into the relationship between Bradley Manning (likely leaker) and Adrian Lamo (who reported Manning to the gvt).

One of the swiss prosceutors tried to defend the warrant on AJE (I posted before) and does a terrible job, making the entire operation seem very unorganized and directionless

The problem is, at the time it happened, Asange was a huge media figure. With his obvious ego, it isn't hard to imagine that he might have gotten in to some trouble with a girl or two. There is nothing extremely suspiscious about how the girls have behaved, and even the angle that these are the accusations of "lovers scorned" is a real possibility. However, if it really is a type of smear campaign lobbied by the US, why is Asange hiding? Obviously he shouldn't give interviews on the matter, but why not face it directly in court?

Guilty or not, he is riding this underdog heroism for all it is worth. And with the way the US government is reacting, especially on the right, the idea that he might be targeted for such a campaign seems increasingly believable, even if Asange is a rapist.

Ultimately though, I don't think it matters. Wikileaks is bigger than asange at this point, and I agree with 753, if something dramatic were to happen, it would embolden people more than it would damage the ability to leak.

Originally posted by 753
the whole timeline for the events seems off, he would have molested 2 different women on separate ocasions a few days apart and then a couple of weeks later they'd both show up toghether to press charges against him

I can't remember where, but I read that the women had discovered each other, and after that, they decided to press charges. Makes me think the jilted lover angle has some legs

It's not actually suspicious at all considering when and where the alleged incidents took place. If it was a sudden resurfacing of a ten year old issue then you might have something, but as it is... don't give the guy a free ride just because you like what he has done elsewhere.

Spreading misinformation does not help, 753. The accusations were both made within a few days of the incident. It could all be nonsense, of course, as he is a celebrity figure and these things happen (real or not), but the instant jump to conspiracy is an unseemly conclusion- especially from a country like Sweden (hardly evil central), and even more especially when one of the accusers is from a party that supports his efforts. He's admitted having sex with them; he is hardly a monk.

Anyway, these revelations are pretty bland. 'Diplomats say bad things about political figures shock horror'. Kind of like 'sun rises in morning'. The stuff was barely even classified- it was openly viewable by millions. The biggest revelation- that the Saudis wanted the US to attack Iran and the US refused- does more credit to the US than anything else, happily blowing some of the more ludicrous comments on the US out of the water.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's not actually suspicious at all considering when and where the alleged incidents took place. If it was a sudden resurfacing of a ten year old issue then you might have something, but as it is... don't give the guy a free ride just because you like what he has done elsewhere.

Spreading misinformation does not help, 753. The accusations were both made within a few days of the incident. It could all be nonsense, of course, as he is a celebrity figure and these things happen, but the instant jump to conspiracy is an unseemly conclusion- especially from a country like Sweden, and even more especially when one of the accusers is from a party that supports his efforts.

Anyway, these revelations are pretty bland. 'Diplomats say nad things about political figures shock horror'. Kind of like 'sun rises in morning'. The biggest revelation- that the Saudis wanted the US to attack Iran and the US refused- does more credit to the US than anything else, happily blowing some of the more ludicrous comments on the US out of the water. I posted what I read. The events were days apart and they pressed charges a week later. But it was a week total, not two weeks as I initially recalled it.

The length of time between the first alleged event happening and the investigation being opened was merely six days. The second event was two days later. Either may well have been reported before that, as they'd need to interview the women concerned etc. before deciding to open an investigation. Regardless, these are entirely appropriate and normal times. There is nothing suspicious.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The length of time between the first alleged event happening and the investigation being opened was merely six days. The second event was two days later. Either may well have been reported before that, as they'd need to interview the women concerned etc. before deciding to open an investigation. Regardless, these are entirely appropriate and normal times. There is nothing suspicious.

at least if only about the actions of the women

Indeed.

Apparently some 'patriotic' hacker shut down wikileaks.

He's making some ridiculous claim he is working for the good of the people.

Can this actually be happening?

EDIT:
What I mean is, this is absolutely unbelievable. Things are more out of hand than I previously imagined, some strange hacker comes out of the blue acting like some sort of patriot hero?

I can't help but wonder if theres more than meets than eye here.

Originally posted by Liberator
Apparently some 'patriotic' hacker shut down wikileaks.

He's making some ridiculous claim he is working for the good of the people.

Can this actually be happening?

EDIT:
What I mean is, this is absolutely unbelievable. Things are more out of hand than I previously imagined, some strange hacker comes out of the blue acting like some sort of patriot hero?

I can't help but wonder if theres more than meets than eye here.

This is often very common in hacker communities. It is why Russian hacking is so hard to pin down, it is often impossible to tell if an Eastern European nation or city is facing an attack from a small group of patriotic russian hackers, or the force of the Russian cyber military, as things like DDOS attacks are incredibly easy to do.

The Chinese have, allegedy, just begun integrating these patriotic groups into their military establishment, and if you follow the connections between Lamo (the guy who reported Manning) and a Chet Uber, enough murkyness is there to insinuate that similar things are potentially being done by the American government.

Originally posted by inimalist
This is often very common in hacker communities. It is why Russian hacking is so hard to pin down, it is often impossible to tell if an Eastern European nation or city is facing an attack from a small group of patriotic russian hackers, or the force of the Russian cyber military, as things like DDOS attacks are incredibly easy to do.

The Chinese have, allegedy, just begun integrating these patriotic groups into their military establishment, and if you follow the connections between Lamo (the guy who reported Manning) and a Chet Uber, enough murkyness is there to insinuate that similar things are potentially being done by the American government.

This is what worries me.

The American government was very stern in saying to Wikileaks not to go ahead and release the documents, and then suddenly the site goes down via hacker.

I don't mean to get all Conspiracy like, I'll have to read up on Lamo and Chet Uber.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,732212,00.html#ref=rss

Former members of Wikileaks starting a "different format" leaks site. Disgruntled with Asange's apparent dictatorial leadership, they broke off to start a site that was less ingrained in the corporate media structure and less fixated on confrontation with the American government.

Hopefully the "Inside Wikileaks" book is published in English.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B00F020101201?pageNumber=1

Of the possible legal options America has against Asange, none are an easy sell.

Information on some of the Canadian files have been released. Little surprise, our intelligence service wishes it could do the things the Americans could, and have total disregard for our citizens.

Ecuador initially seemed willing to accept Asange as a permanent resident quickly changed it opinion and followed the international line of "how could you ralease american secrets", look for them to get something from the IMF soon.

Originally posted by Liberator
This is what worries me.

The American government was very stern in saying to Wikileaks not to go ahead and release the documents, and then suddenly the site goes down via hacker.

I don't mean to get all Conspiracy like, I'll have to read up on Lamo and Chet Uber.

I don't think there is anything overly conspiritorial about thinking US intelligence attacked the Wikileaks site

we don't have direct evidence, but that, to me, isn't as far of a stretch as even Ecuador being pressured into towing the American line, as I suggested above

The site will bounce back and the whole thing is supposed to be out already on those encrypted files. There'll be not stopping this. Only leak prevention could work.

I do have a suspicion that this latest release is really just a statement of strength from wikileaks. Their previous releases were genuinely of secret stuff. This lot is all tittle tattle- interesting to read, sure, but noit exactly a classified release and all stuff that gets routinely released in the end anyway (and, as I say, was available to be seen by millions, which in turn means most of it was known by diplomats anyway, and it does not tell us anything about the way things work that we don't already know).

But we also know that wikileaks has been the subject of certain threats and that Julian takes some of these seriously- his release of encrypted information for which the key will only be released if he chooses- i.e. if he ever gets arrested by the US or, presumably, dies mysteriously- shows that they are taking up this defensive posture. One can only speculate what is in those files- possibly nothing, of course.

A release like this is a statement to the world that they do have this power- this time, it's nothing damaging; merely embarrassing. But push them, and who knows what they might let out?

I don't think wikileaks is sitting on their biggest secrets though. I think they only wait long enough to verify content and authenticity before releasing it. It probably operates at 100% of its destructive capacity at all times, but they are indeed sendin a message that intimidation and terrorist labels will not work on them.

The funny thing is I agree with all what the US gov said secretly about our politicians

Originally posted by 753
I don't think wikileaks is sitting on their biggest secrets though. I think they only wait long enough to verify content and authenticity before releasing it. It probably operates at 100% of its destructive capacity at all times, but they are indeed sendin a message that intimidation and terrorist labels will not work on them.

If you think that, then what do you think is in those encrypted files? A bluff?

I reckon they sit on rather a lot, actually.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you think that, then what do you think is in those encrypted files? A bluff?

I reckon they sit on rather a lot, actually. I believe it's the entirety of the cables which I understand they have been releasing gradually - correct if i'm wrong on this. I believe the insurance file was released before they leaked it to the newspapers and posted it on their website. Maybe it has other documents they were still verifying or info about how they were being spooked upon, but I don't think that's very likely.

That's pretty weak insurance if it is just a bunch of diplomatic gumf.

I think they always want to keep a couple of big guns in reserve.

I heard practically this exact argument on FOX News today.

I have to agree that this is just a publicity stunt. It is a bunch of obvious information, meant to strike some sort of fear in governments. At most, only the public would be suprised by the things in these documents. Suprised most of all by the fact that our government officials think as much of each other as we do most of our governments officials.

The guy on FOX said that it was obvious that the current US administration was behind the charges files by the Swedish government against Mr. Assange to discredit the information he leaked that revealed how inept it was in running the country. He said that Mr. Assange represented the fourth estate and it was the job of the media to keep the government in check. Well, wikileaks isn't the media. And this guy wasn't a member of the fourth estate, just a paid pundit. Then they spent the next 15 minutes talking about why Hillary Clinton should resign.

These documents cover like 40 years worth of childish play ground slap fighting, from so many governments, that it amounts to little more than finding your sister's diary.

to be fair, there are actual new releases and insights most people didn't know. The revelations on Yemen come to mind, and regardless of how surprising it is (or isnt) the revelations about UN spying weren't known prior. the majority of the cables are fairly unintersting, but there is some meat. I wouldn't just dismiss the entire dump though. sure it was a stunt, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yeah, there's some stuff in there, no denying it... but it's only an early scoop. None of it is any more secret than, say, the contents of the memoirs of Bush and Blair, released less than ten years after the events they describe. It's not the super state secrets of doom, or the like- or more down to Earth, like the military stuff they were blowing before.

I agree. I do still see them as interesting, as I said before, knowing how the cogs fit into the machine is important for an enlightened population.

AJE had people speculating that the hype by American leaders was actually to make the cables seem much less important.

I think, if we have learned anything from Oliver North, stuff that is "super secret" gets destroyed. Maybe a leak can get at it, but its not like government agencies didn't take some precautions.

so has anyone played new vegas? i just got it and am having so much fun. What do you think?

Originally posted by skekUng
I heard practically this exact argument on FOX News today.

I have to agree that this is just a publicity stunt. It is a bunch of obvious information, meant to strike some sort of fear in governments. At most, only the public would be suprised by the things in these documents. Suprised most of all by the fact that our government officials think as much of each other as we do most of our governments officials.

The guy on FOX said that it was obvious that the current US administration was behind the charges files by the Swedish government against Mr. Assange to discredit the information he leaked that revealed how inept it was in running the country. He said that Mr. Assange represented the fourth estate and it was the job of the media to keep the government in check. Well, wikileaks isn't the media. And this guy wasn't a member of the fourth estate, just a paid pundit. Then they spent the next 15 minutes talking about why Hillary Clinton should resign.

These documents cover like 40 years worth of childish play ground slap fighting, from so many governments, that it amounts to little more than finding your sister's diary. something tells me they'd have a different opinion about leaks during a republican government

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's pretty weak insurance if it is just a bunch of diplomatic gumf.

I think they always want to keep a couple of big guns in reserve. it's not insurrance for them, it's insurance for the leak, to make it sure it gets out no matter what.

Originally posted by inimalist
to be fair, there are actual new releases and insights most people didn't know. The revelations on Yemen come to mind, and regardless of how surprising it is (or isnt) the revelations about UN spying weren't known prior. the majority of the cables are fairly unintersting, but there is some meat. I wouldn't just dismiss the entire dump though. sure it was a stunt, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But, I wasn't really talking about revelations to the public. I was saying that it's likely nothing new to the people involved in the documents.

What do you think about the idea that a site like wikilinks is part of the media at large?

Originally posted by 753
something tells me they'd have a different opinion about leaks during a republican government

Why?

Originally posted by 753
it's not insurrance for them, it's insurance for the leak, to make it sure it gets out no matter what.

How does 'insurance' mean the same thing, in this case?

Originally posted by skekUng
But, I wasn't really talking about revelations to the public. I was saying that it's likely nothing new to the people involved in the documents.

of course its not... the leak wasn't for the benefit of the diplomats. Karazi knows the Americans think he is corrupt, China knows people accuse them of hacking.

However, it might not be so true that North Korea knew how fed up with their shit China was, /shrug

Turkey has had a very negative reation to the leaks, and is threatening to sue the American gvt (probably not, but thats what they said). There are hints that some of the turkish documents contain info about turkey supporting al qaeda or the US the pkk. Either of those would be bombshells.

Originally posted by skekUng
What do you think about the idea that a site like wikilinks is part of the media at large?

Asange is playing the media, and hyping his own stuff. He has become savvy in how he deals with media outlets and seems as territorial and sensitive to criticism as any mogul.

The thing is, the media is supposed to do a different job than he is. Asange is supposed to just release info to the public, to leak it. The media is supposed to employ experts to give us the context. Whether that difference is important or not is obviously a matter of opinion, but it can certainly be said that Asange is trying to entwine wikileaks into the mainstream media establishment.

I guess I don't understand the significance of the question, so what if he is? or so what if he isnt? the "media" is hard to define, especially on the internet.

Originally posted by inimalist
of course its not... the leak wasn't for the benefit of the diplomats. Karazi knows the Americans think he is corrupt, China knows people accuse them of hacking.

However, it might not be so true that North Korea knew how fed up with their shit China was, /shrug

Turkey has had a very negative reation to the leaks, and is threatening to sue the American gvt (probably not, but thats what they said). There are hints that some of the turkish documents contain info about turkey supporting al qaeda or the US the pkk. Either of those would be bombshells.



Asange is playing the media, and hyping his own stuff. He has become savvy in how he deals with media outlets and seems as territorial and sensitive to criticism as any mogul.

The thing is, the media is supposed to do a different job than he is. Asange is supposed to just release info to the public, to leak it. The media is supposed to employ experts to give us the context. Whether that difference is important or not is obviously a matter of opinion, but it can certainly be said that Asange is trying to entwine wikileaks into the mainstream media establishment.

I guess I don't understand the significance of the question, so what if he is? or so what if he isnt? the "media" is hard to define, especially on the internet.

It's okay not to approach me as though I'm asking a "gotcha' question. I was just curious.

I don't agree that NKorea was caught off guard. I think it's a lot of why they act like the petulant children the Chinese call them in the memos. They don't get their big brother to fight their battles for them, so they pitch a fit. They've been doing that for years.

I don't know that I think the media needs experts to put the information into perspective. I think an educated population wouldn't need their information contextualized for them if the media was doing their job in the first place. (I'm not talking about the asinine notion that the media is liberal...or conservative. It's a pay per usage institution, just like most modern economy. People who babble out of their ass about a liberal media are naive.)

So, Assange goes into hiding in a fortified bunker.

Sweden isn't allowing him an appeal for his rape charges.

The United States has claimed some active role in shutting down the Wikileaks site yesterday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security

This is all sounding a little Orwellian.

How is any of that vaguely Orwellian?

And what is this idea that he is hiding in a bunker? That's where his servers are, not where he is.

Because he's being pursued and possibly framed because he is exposing the government.

Right, well, none of that is different from what it was from yesterday or last week or last month. Even if all of that was true, the adjective 'Orwellian' doesn't strike me as apt. As it is, I find this speed to assume he is being framed far more disturbing; comments on all of that are above.

Originally posted by skekUng
But, I wasn't really talking about revelations to the public. I was saying that it's likely nothing new to the people involved in the documents.

What do you think about the idea that a site like wikilinks is part of the media at large?



Why? because they are unapologetically pro-republican

Originally posted by skekUng
How does 'insurance' mean the same thing, in this case? It's not collateral guarantee if that's what you mean by insurance. It ensures the leak is spread with or without them. They do prefer to to it by themselves however.

It's disturbing how many people I know who think we should assassinate Assange.

"We killed the Rosenbergs! We should kill him!"

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Right, well, none of that is different from what it was from yesterday or last week or last month. Even if all of that was true, the adjective 'Orwellian' doesn't strike me as apt. As it is, I find this speed to assume he is being framed far more disturbing; comments on all of that are above.

He may not be framed, but he gets an unusual attention, and apparently uncommon or even illegal treatment. Of course such allegations need to be listened to, however if I am informed correctly he hasn't been and still isn't actually charged with anything.

It does appear fidhy, I don't think we need to be 50/50 on this issue atm, but it should be looked at closely, and then decided whether there was a crime, and whether the actions taken were legal.

Though I think we agree that Liberator doesn't have his facts straight and that he misuses the term Owellian.

Originally posted by Lucius
It's disturbing how many people I know who think we should assassinate Assange.

"We killed the Rosenbergs! We should kill him!" Whoo!

Originally posted by Bardock42
however if I am informed correctly he hasn't been and still isn't actually charged with anything.

Interpol has emphasized that he is only wanted for questioning

making it even stranger that he wouldn't face his accusors head on

Originally posted by inimalist
Interpol has emphasized that he is only wanted for questioning

making it even stranger that he wouldn't face his accusors head on

Well, apparently he was willing to be questioned via a video link or in the Swedish embassy, it does seem unreasonable to have to travel to a foreign country on your own money because they would like to talk to you...I also think Sweden must have something similar as the fifth amendement, no?

Well, regardless, I can understand that he of all people may be paranoid.

the scope of Russian corruption and ties to organized crime, at least in how American diplomats saw it, continues to roll out.

The scope is essentially the "worst case scenario", and imho was something that might have been expected in Bulgaria or Moldova, but not Russia proper, though people more familiar with the country might be less surprised.

Russia, like Turkey and Iran, now claims the leaks might have been a deliberate attempt to discredit their nation, essentially accusing Wikileaks of being an arm of American power. In the specific cases of all of these nations, it is easy to understand why they might say this, but in terms of the scope of the leaks, the intended target was almost certainly America.

anyways, I might link some specific stuff about how corrupt Washington thought Moscow was, but I really just wanted to put up this quote from Putin on Larry King:



Putin - 1
King - 0

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, apparently he was willing to be questioned via a video link or in the Swedish embassy, it does seem unreasonable to have to travel to a foreign country on your own money because they would like to talk to you...I also think Sweden must have something similar as the fifth amendement, no?

totally, but you have to meet the prosecution to plead the fifth, I don't think it allows you to avoid being detained

I think meeting in the embassy does offer a reasonable compromise. There is enough reason for Asange to keep his profile low, but a video conference I think would remove a lot of the personal side that is necessary in a proper investigation of this kind. I hadn't come across that though /shrug

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, regardless, I can understand that he of all people may be paranoid.

true enough. Im really just trying to keep a balanced view, because it is way too easy to fall into the pattern of thinking it is a conspiracy, almost keep my own train of thoughts in check

Originally posted by inimalist
anyways, I might link some specific stuff about how corrupt Washington thought Moscow was, but I really just wanted to put up this quote from Putin on Larry King:



Putin - 1
King - 0

Nice

These nations having fits about it should just say the views of the us are nothing more than the views of the us and that the diplomats spurting them out have their heads up their asses. It'd work better towards dismissing public concerns than claiming USA was behind the whole thing.

Originally posted by 753
Nice

These nations having fits about it should just say the views of the us are nothing more than the views of the us and that the diplomats spurting them out have their heads up their asses. It'd work better towards dismissing public concerns than claiming USA was behind the whole thing.

there is precedence for this too

in the run up to the Russia-Georgia war, the US embassy literally had their heads up their asses, and were reporting, uncritically, essentially exactly what the Georgian government wanted them to say.

While America may have trouble getting Asange through legal recourse:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/02legal.html?_r=1

A radio host has taken matters into his own hands:

http://www.rbr.com/radio/radio-programming/todd-schnitt-offers-50-000-for-julian-assange.html

which brings up a very interesting question... when can Asange actually charge the people calling for his death? sure, he probably believes in freedom of speech, but there is nothing to insinuate that a many of the people calling for his execution are joking. Wouldn't, at some point, this amount to inciteful speech?

oh, and wikileaks could have prevented 9/11:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rowley-wikileaks-20101015,0,5616717.story

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/12/02/us/02lede_lieberman/02lede_lieberman-articleInline.jpg

Joe Lieberman has taken some credit for forcing Amazon.com to drop the Wikileaks site.

Wikileaks had little problems finding a new host, and Amazon is now facing some criticism over the whole ordeal.

However, another free image hosting site has now bowed to the pressure from Lieberman, raising concerns that other social media sources, re: facebook and twitter, might follow suit.

who's lieberman?

an american senator, iirc, he was John Kerry's running mate in 2004

Originally posted by inimalist
an american senator, iirc, he was John Kerry's running mate in 2004
That was John Edwards. He was Gore's running mate.

ah, my bad!

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, and wikileaks could have prevented 9/11:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rowley-wikileaks-20101015,0,5616717.story This was already mentioned in Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11, like him or not the "document of warning" was there.

I'm not constantly following the thread, last I've heard is that interpol searches the wikileaks guy for raping a woman (Yeah I laughed too).

Originally posted by Parmaniac
This was already mentioned in Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11, like him or not the "document of warning" was there.

the opinion isn't that there was evidence, but that there was no anonymous way for people to leak that evidence. The article is about how wikileaks could provide that mechanism, not about the mistakes made in the run up to 9/11. I don't think Micheal Moore could have come up with something like Wikileaks on his best day, which farenheight was not one of.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
I'm not constantly following the thread, last I've heard is that interpol searches the wikileaks guy for raping a woman (Yeah I laughed too).

-interpol are looking for Asange in order to question him with regards to possibly molesting (rape charges have been dropped) 2 women.

-in terms of the women's behaviour, with the possible exception of some coincidence in the timing of their reports, there is nothing to suggest they are anything but earnest.

-Actions by the Swedish prosecutor's office seem much more suspiscious

-Asange seems willing to cooperate, at least in terms of what he says, but suspisciously has yet to face his accusors.

-Asange clearly has an ego, former associates have implied that he might be a complete megalomaniac, especially in terms of Wikileaks, and he was catapaulted into the limelight as an international icon during the time these events were supposed to take place.

-guilty or not, both Asange and his detractors are using these charges for political gain. Asange to paint himself at the center of an international conspiracy, his opponents to paint Asange as a bad person

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think Micheal Moore could have come up with something like Wikileaks on his best day, which farenheight was not one of. he does alright

I liked Roger and Me

How do you guys liked "Capitalism a lovestory"?

And MM in general?

Originally posted by Parmaniac
How do you guys liked "Capitalism a lovestory"?

didn't see that one

Originally posted by Parmaniac
And MM in general?

not bad. I'd suggest watching Micheal Moore hates America, not becuase its like an expose, but it talks about how moore and documentaries in general are apt to be persuasive rather than accurate.

his stuff is entertaining

I've heard about this docu haven't DLed it this far.

it is entertaining. everything has its bias, MMHA wears it on its sleave

Originally posted by Parmaniac
How do you guys liked "Capitalism a lovestory"?

And MM in general? I've had the file sitting on my desktop for weeks, but havent come arround to watch it yet. I personally like him. He is a propagandist, but there is nothing wrong with that and most of the gross factual innacuracies people have accused him of, he's actually managed to defend fairly decently. I don't think he tampers data anymore than mainstream media does and he might actually do it less for the most part. More importantly, he speaks from a point of view and exposes data that rarely, if ever, reach large audiences.

check it out, the economist reads our thread:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/after_secrets?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/missingpointofwikileaks

(not really, but its an interesting look at why the culture of "leaking" has made the phenomenon bigger than Asange, and jailing or killing him will do little to stop it. A lot of it sounds like the stuff we've already been discussing)

and sorry skek, spaced on this:

Originally posted by skekUng
It's okay not to approach me as though I'm asking a "gotcha' question. I was just curious.

I didn't think it was a gotcha, its just, I don't see what difference it makes, ultimately, if we consider Asange or Wikileaks as part of the media proper. We could have the same debate about blogs or forums, it is really a matter of opinion. I do think what he does is different from "journalism" though, so I don't think it would be fair to lump him in with reporters.

Originally posted by skekUng
I don't agree that NKorea was caught off guard. I think it's a lot of why they act like the petulant children the Chinese call them in the memos. They don't get their big brother to fight their battles for them, so they pitch a fit. They've been doing that for years.

it will be interesting to see how often the North opens fire on SK targets in the future, now that China has publically confirmed the cables about their willingness to turn on Kim.

You could totally be right, but considering they live on Russia's doorstep with American guns pointed down on them, the tacit assumption that the Chinese would militarily support the North Koreans likely explains why the NK feel they could brazenly kill Korean citizens.

Originally posted by skekUng
I don't know that I think the media needs experts to put the information into perspective. I think an educated population wouldn't need their information contextualized for them if the media was doing their job in the first place. (I'm not talking about the asinine notion that the media is liberal...or conservative. It's a pay per usage institution, just like most modern economy. People who babble out of their ass about a liberal media are naive.)

What I mean is something more like, I guess I don't know you personally, but I am going to assume you have never been to Abkhazia, or Nagorno-Karabakh, you weren't alive during the armenian genocide, and haven't studied much on the Caucasus. (don't worry, I'm not trying to be insulting, these obviously don't apply to me either. Thats the point, as educated people, there are things we probably don't know, like the social context of break away regions boardering on Turkey with large Armenian minorities. Or, that is the only thing we know).

So, when a cabel comes out talking about why a politician in Azerbijan wont discuss Nagorno-Karabakh, because the turkish aren't willing to discuss the ethnic... blah blah blah, basically relying on stuff you would have to be an expert on the region to understand, it is good to have a journalist there to give you that context.

How many papers have Azerbijan specialists? Few anymore, if ever:

1Ox35KbshlU

(I will have David Simon's babies)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So, uh, basically the same logic behind the PATRIOT act. Wonderful.

Precisely why it sounds reasonable that it's coming from Assange. I think it's been stated in this topic that he sort of revels in the image he's created for himself and is actually a bit dictatorial with his staff.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So, uh, basically the same logic behind the PATRIOT act. Wonderful.

How do you figure that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you figure that?

If you're doing something bad we should know about it.
If you're not doing something bad you shouldn't care that we know about it.

People have plenty of legitimate reasons to want privacy when they're doing something that's perfectly reasonable. Government agencies similarly need a certain level of secrecy in order to do their jobs. You can't make the blanket descision that all secrecy is bad for either group.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you're doing something bad we should know about it.
If you're not doing something bad you shouldn't care that we know about it.

People have plenty of legitimate reasons to want privacy when they're doing something that's perfectly reasonable. Government agencies similarly need a certain level of secrecy in order to do their jobs. You can't make the blanket descision that all secrecy is bad for either group.

I can understand what you're trying to say, it's like the same with parenting I suppose, you don't tell your child everything at first and ease them into it as they get older so certain life aspects won't come as such a shock to them.

At the same time, I'm not sure that applying that particular logic to a system of government is really the greatest idea. We should have a right to know what's going on, what our particular countries are doing both foreign and at home.

They are hiding a lot, and I think Wikileaks is doing a great job at exposing this, I just can't see myself agreeing with all that they've done in terms of releasing certain names.

He said his client was in a "bizarre situation" where he had tried to seek a meeting with the Swedish prosecutor to discuss the charges against him, but had been rebuffed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11911162

So it seems he has tried to make contact with the authorities.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you're doing something bad we should know about it.
If you're not doing something bad you shouldn't care that we know about it.

People have plenty of legitimate reasons to want privacy when they're doing something that's perfectly reasonable. Government agencies similarly need a certain level of secrecy in order to do their jobs. You can't make the blanket descision that all secrecy is bad for either group.

doesn't that assume that privacy-from-government serves the same purpose as government-secrecy?

it is certainly in the public interest for there to be a high degree of privacy-from government involvement in one's life, but state secrets, as demonstrated with the wikileaks, do more to hide the real politik that the citizens, who democratic leaders are supposed to work for, don't want people to know about. This isn't a leak of personal information about the state that might be equivalent with a violation of its "privacy", its information about how the US negotiates its position in the world.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you're doing something bad we should know about it.
If you're not doing something bad you shouldn't care that we know about it.

People have plenty of legitimate reasons to want privacy when they're doing something that's perfectly reasonable. Government agencies similarly need a certain level of secrecy in order to do their jobs. You can't make the blanket descision that all secrecy is bad for either group. government is not a person, it has no claim to privacy, what it does have is the power to keep secrets when it deems them necessary and since the contents of such secrecy and what should or shouldn't be revealed to the public are up to the state itself to define this means it is answering to itself. and unlike private citizens who can do whatever the **** they want in their private lifes unless it's illegal, the state can only do what the law allows it to do and must be held acountable. clearly there were international law violations described in those cables

Originally posted by 753
government is not a person, it has no claim to privacy, what it does have is the power to keep secrets when it deems them necessary and since the contents of such secrecy and what should or shouldn't be revealed to the public are up to the state itself to define this means it is answering to itself. and unlike private citizens who can do whatever the **** they want in their private lifes unless it's illegal, the state can only do what the law allows it to do and must be held acountable. clearly there were international law violations described in those cables

someone on AJE was talking about this last night

if the sum total of the cables were only to show that the Americans behaved properly overseas, and had private dialogue with world leaders that expressed the same views they expressed in public, there might be an argument that this was a violation of state privacy. However, given the articles contained clearly hidden state programs that violate the law, the "privacy" argument makes no sense. I don't have privacy from the state when I am breaking the law.

Maybe there is an argument that wikileaks doesn't have the equivalent of "probable cause" to investigate state privacy, but because the information was a leak, and not stolen, obviously someone considered the information in enough violation of US law (potentially), or at the very least, thought it amounted to something that concerned the public enough that "state secrecy" was not more important.

Originally posted by 753
government is not a person, it has no claim to privacy, what it does have is the power to keep secrets when it deems them necessary and since the contents of such secrecy and what should or shouldn't be revealed to the public are up to the state itself to define this means it is answering to itself. and unlike private citizens who can do whatever the **** they want in their private lifes unless it's illegal, the state can only do what the law allows it to do and must be held acountable. clearly there were international law violations described in those cables

I'm objecting more to the low quality of the argument that "x could be doing something bad, thus it's okay to find out everything x is doing", which is what Assange's argument seems to boil down to. Wikileaks does a good thing but I still think it should be supported by a solid argument.

And you're right, governments aren't people. And while I don't think that negates all privacy I do agree that they don't have the fundamental right to privacy that we extend to people. What they do have is a need for privacy, a government cannot perform the functions of government unless some of what it does is unknown.

However, I think that's where you can fit reporting leaks/ doing investigative journalism in as good things or at least necessary ones. A government also can't do it's job if it isn't accountable (as this means it cannot be trusted by the people), neither can they be trusted to be wholly transparent about what they do.

The motivation of the government's actions seems to be based more on fear of roosting chickens rather than rule of law.

The encrypted file has the entirety of the Cable Gate files which they have been gradually releasing and some other info on the USA and other world governments. He says they've been distributed 100.000 people already.

"The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable Gate archives is in the hands of multiple news organisations. History will win. The world will be elevated to a better place. Will we survive? That depends on you."

I love the way Assange is removing subjectivism from journalism. Awesome.

Originally posted by Corrupt_America
I love the way Assange is removing subjectivism from journalism. Awesome.

how do you think he is doing that?

Originally posted by inimalist
how do you think he is doing that?

By putting the information out there unedited, like a Scientist he proves what's happening using evidence, rather than being the corrupt mouth piece of the rich and powerful like most newspapers in the U.K. and U.S. are.

He is a hero!

And the Lionization begins...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And the Lionization begins...

The plaudits began long ago. Look at how he is loved in pplaces like VENEZUALA!!!! Assange is he who watches the watchmen.

Originally posted by Corrupt_America
By putting the information out there unedited, like a Scientist he proves what's happening using evidence, rather than being the corrupt mouth piece of the rich and powerful like most newspapers in the U.K. and U.S. are.

He is a hero!

Asange has said, point blank, that he has a specific agenda with his releases, and has even alienated members of the Wikileaks staff to the point of leaving the organization because of it.

Asange, much like science, is not clear of bias

your remark about the newspapers is bizarre as well, as they (Both in the US and UK) have done more to get the leaks to the mainstream public than has Asange. Most of the cables are dense and require a large understanding of local context to even understand, they really aren't in a format digestable to the majority of the public.

Originally posted by inimalist
Asange has said, point blank, that he has a specific agenda with his releases, and has even alienated members of the Wikileaks staff to the point of leaving the organization because of it.

Asange, much like science, is not clear of bias

your remark about the newspapers is bizarre as well, as they (Both in the US and UK) have done more to get the leaks to the mainstream public than has Asange. Most of the cables are dense and require a large understanding of local context to even understand, they really aren't in a format digestable to the majority of the public.

Actually, Assange agenda is to act as aconduit for unbiased information. Read up

The papers have put the leaks out there whilst giving an editorial message against WL.

You only have to look at how things like Afghanastan have been reported. As a 'war', brave heroes etc.

Originally posted by Corrupt_America
Actually, Assange agenda is to act as aconduit for unbiased information. Read up



what in particular?

Originally posted by Corrupt_America
The papers have put the leaks out there whilst giving an editorial message against WL.

which papers? Certainly neither the NY Times or UK Guradian have come out against Wikileaks, and even conservative publications like the Washington Post and The Economist have written many editorials in support of Wikileaks

I think you are confusing people showing rational skepticism of something with them being against it.

Originally posted by Corrupt_America
You only have to look at how things like Afghanastan have been reported. As a 'war', brave heroes etc.

I think you are extrapolating from Fox News to cover the entirety of published media in America. The NY Times is certainly no slouch when it comes to publishing stuff against the war.

Also, considering a soldier a hero doesn't make someone pro war.

Originally posted by inimalist


what in particular?



which papers? Certainly neither the NY Times or UK Guradian have come out against Wikileaks, and even conservative publications like the Washington Post and The Economist have written many editorials in support of Wikileaks

I think you are confusing people showing rational skepticism of something with them being against it.



I think you are extrapolating from Fox News to cover the entirety of published media in America. The NY Times is certainly no slouch when it comes to publishing stuff against the war.

Also, considering a soldier a hero doesn't make someone pro war.

No, in the Uk it's generally a brave war. The Guardian has it's own agenda and pushes womens issues etc in the U.K. something which here has gone to far as men are now targets believe it or not.

Assange's agenda is what you need to read up on of course,

keep the faith

Stay wiki

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/paypal-suspends-wikileaks-account/

Paypal has suspended Wikileaks from its service

Interesting tactic, but I think it is ultimately doomed to fail. People willing to pay for wikileaks will probably be willing to use other payment services, and there is certainly nothing stopping Asange et al from designing their own service to recieve funds.

Obviously that opens them up to "money-type" legislation that might be launched against them, but considering there are no clear laws that Wikileaks is breaking, they could hardly be investigated for "funding crime" or "living off the avails".

Most importantly, attacking wikileaks' net infrastructure in terms of access to funding, amazon, twitter, etc, doesn't stop them from recieving leaks, or giving them to the news agencies that make them available to the public. If this is pressure from the American government (which I suspect it is ), it seems the most they can do are harrassment or delaying tactics.

Originally posted by inimalist
I didn't think it was a gotcha, its just, I don't see what difference it makes, ultimately, if we consider Asange or Wikileaks as part of the media proper.

It was a matter of assuming his sort of journalism is a legitimate part of the fourth estate, or if he is just a bastard. If he isn't a part of legitimate media, then he deserves all of the flak he's getting and the accusations levied against him.

Proof of Totalitarianism. The State Department and Defense Department are now threatening students and soldiers with consequences for LOOKING at wikileaks or talking about wikileaks.

Originally posted by skekUng
It was a matter of assuming his sort of journalism is a legitimate part of the fourth estate, or if he is just a bastard. If he isn't a part of legitimate media, then he deserves all of the flak he's getting and the accusations levied against him.

why is that?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Proof of Totalitarianism. The State Department and Defense Department are now threatening students and soldiers with consequences for LOOKING at wikileaks or talking about wikileaks.

I saw the headline about students in diplomatic programs being told if they ever wanted a job at the state department not to post links to wikileaks on their facebook....

what did they say to soldiers?

Originally posted by inimalist
I saw the headline about students in diplomatic programs being told if they ever wanted a job at the state department not to post links to wikileaks on their facebook....

what did they say to soldiers?

Soldiers trying to access wikileaks are shown a popup stating that they are about to break the law and some have reported that they would be court-martialed for discussing wikileaks. They're really scared of the January release because they are afraid of mass military desertions, assassinations, a general strike, etc. and their actions are going to become increasingly irrational, fascistic, and overblown.

lol, what, do the January dumps contain evidence that the US is gas-chambering Mexicans?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, what, do the January dumps contain evidence that the US is gas-chambering Mexicans? They supposedly contain secret information regarding the actions of major banks, really horrific stuff. I've also heard that they have other information for future releases regarding things that quite frankly, I don't even want to know about.

do you actually think the US government is worried that people are going to desert the army and try to assassinate them?

All the blustering from them is talk, imho. They want to make Asange look bad and make what he is doing look even worse so that they can get him declared a terrorist or something, which would make it easier for them to prosecute his organization.

Originally posted by inimalist
do you actually think the US government is worried that people are going to desert the army and try to assassinate them?

All the blustering from them is talk, imho. They want to make Asange look bad and make what he is doing look even worse so that they can get him declared a terrorist or something, which would make it easier for them to prosecute his organization.

I think clear evidence that banks give orders to politicians, manipulate economies, engineer disasters outside of well researched books will be enough. Look at the government's actions. They didn't start pissing their pants UNTIL the January release was announced.

The only stuff that seemed like hype is that supposedly in some interview, the guy said that some of the still unreleased cables had stuff in them that would excite the Deano types. You know, supposed messages about crashes and salvages.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Look at the government's actions. They didn't start pissing their pants UNTIL the January release was announced.

Ive been following this man, I don't think this is the case.

1) Asange revealed much earlier this year that he had Bank of America hard drive data, to no real reaction from the American government

2) The rhetoric about Wikileaks being traitorous began prior to the embassy releases

3) The forbes interview you are citing wasn't released until after the Republicans had started calling for his blood. Palin et al had began saying he should be hunted down as soon as the Cables broke, not as a response to the forbes interview.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think clear evidence that banks give orders to politicians, manipulate economies, engineer disasters outside of well researched books will be enough.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The only stuff that seemed like hype is that supposedly in some interview, the guy said that some of the still unreleased cables had stuff in them that would excite the Deano types. You know, supposed messages about crashes and salvages.

ya, but asange also thought the Afghan and Iraq dumps were going to end the wars. He is a little bit of an idealistic premadonna.

and really, considering "deano types" believe that the eye/pyramid thing on the dollar bill is already proof of massive conspiracy, I can't imagine what some mundane documents that confirm their beliefs is going to do.

Most educated people already understand that this is how banks and wallstreet work.

Right, it's the uneducated people that need to be convinced.

those people are just going to follow what the politicians say anyways.

if, by this point in time, you don't realize that corporations are lying to you, banks manipulate the economy and politicians are never to be trusted, Wikileaks isn't going to do to much for you.

they're not all out yet and most of the maisntream reporting on them dont focus on the worst parts

Originally posted by inimalist
why is that?

Because sometimes there are things that certain people shouldn't know. Unfortunately, not every American is assigned a super secret email account when they're born and swear an oath not to tell the people who shouldn't know what the other side's hand is.

I'm sure most people in America couldn't make heads nor tails of most of the information that is in those leaks, as you pointed out. I'm also sure there are certain people who would be interested in the kind of information Mr. Assange could potentially leak in the future. I'm not saying there was a whole lot in this particular round of releases, but there could be in th enext or the one after that. I don't approach this the way some people do, as though his behavior is keeping governments honest, which is the responsability of the media. I approach it for what it is; espionage without the sexy gadgets and easy women.

there is a difference between whistleblowing and journalism though

When one spies on others, one generally keeps the info to one's self to use as leverage and the goal is to stay ahead in a game of secrecy, not to kick everything out and let it all hit the fan.

What Wikileaks does, and they hit a lot more governments than just the USA, is forcing transparency. Justification of secrecy by pragmatism and patriotism rationales is exactly what legitimizes keeping war crimes under the rug.

Originally posted by inimalist
there is a difference between whistleblowing and journalism though

Sure. But which is Mr Assange doing, in your opinion?

Originally posted by skekUng
Sure. But which is Mr Assange doing, in your opinion?

leaking relevant documents that pertain to how the US performs the diplomatic missions that US taxpayers pay them to do and the US population elects them to do.

these ideas of ending wars and opening governments is fine for rhetoric, but ultimately, he is providing information that is relevant for how citizens of the US should evaluate how the government that is supposed to represent them is doing their job.

But, as I pointed out, allowing every US citizen to have access to that information doesn't prevent the representatives of other governments from also getting that information.

Of the articles I've read and reports I've heard, the leaks reveal that US diplomats have actually been doing a pretty good job and are being fairly straight forward with us about what they're doing. But, again, I'm not just addressing this round of leaks. Perhaps in the next one he might leak information that should be known only to those specific individuals involved on one side of the diplomatic process. It's a fine line, but one that is sometimes necessary.

Originally posted by skekUng
But, as I pointed out, allowing every US citizen to have access to that information doesn't prevent the representatives of other governments from also getting that information.

Of the articles I've read and reports I've heard, the leaks reveal that US diplomats have actually been doing a pretty good job and are being fairly straight forward with us about what they're doing. But, again, I'm not just addressing this round of leaks. Perhaps in the next one he might leak information that should be known only to those specific individuals involved on one side of the diplomatic process. It's a fine line, but one that is sometimes necessary.

you bring up a good point, and it remains to be seen if that happens

the problem is, without someone like Asange, we rely only on the government to determine what should and shouldn't be seen. As the previous leaks have shown, they aren't making things confidential to hide secrets that we really don't need to know, but really to hide corruption and embarassment.

Like, if wikileaks had released something like, US troop movements in Iraq or Afghanistan, I could see your point. But it doesn't. wikileaks has some documents it wont release for that very reason.

I don't think anyone is arguing, including Asange and wikileaks, that everything the state does should be 100% transparent, but the fact is, the pendulum has swung so far in favor of government secrecy, that even to release a bunch of memos that, as you point out, aren't really that bad, is considered an international incident.

Ultimately, some type of institutionalized leak system would be nice, but the more formal it is made, the more likely it will just become a bloated beuracracy.

Originally posted by inimalist
Ultimately, some type of institutionalized leak system would be nice, but the more formal it is made, the more likely it will just become a bloated beuracracy.

It's done just that. Secrets enjoy a shelf life thanks to a government timeline that allows for the declassification of certain documents after X number of years have passed. But, even that is subject, again, to the whims of a self-protecting government. As I said before, it's a fine line. I'm all for transparency, but responsability is essential as well. This particular leak involves documents that date back to the '60s and earlier, I think. The down side to this sort of argument is that transparent government reporting is wanted by all, but also potentially detrimental in a manner that isn't going to be understood by the majority of people who aren't intimately involved, as say an ambassador might be, or the person leaking the information.

Wikileaks has published a list of sites that are 'vital to american security' according to the state departament. Diplomats were required through those cables to list the most relevant sites to american interests in the countries they work in. The majority seems to be natural resources and their extraction infrastructures like oil reserves and pipelines, mines, etc. but roads, communication lines and hubs and some drug factories and research centers abroad were listed as well.

Wikileaks are now facing a new round of criticism for revealing these sites, which critics claim will become targets for terrorists. But what I found most interesting was how broad the SD definition of 'national security' is as it extends far beyond US territory and obvious strategic interests to encompass almost every single natural resource under the sun.

Originally posted by 753
Wikileaks has published a list of sites that are 'vital to american security' according to the state departament. Diplomats were required through those cables to list the most relevant sites to american interests in the countries they work in. The majority seems to be natural resources and their extraction infrastructures like oil reserves and pipelines, mines, etc. but roads, communication lines and hubs and some drug factories and research centers abroad were listed as well.

Wikileaks are now facing a new round of criticism for revealing these sites, which critics claim will become targets for terrorists. But what I found most interesting was how broad the SD definition of 'national security' is as it extends far beyond US territory and obvious strategic interests to encompass almost every single natural resource under the sun.
Because all resources belong to America. Even the sun. g_serious

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Because all resources belong to America. Even the sun. g_serious



You jest...but...

Originally posted by 753
Wikileaks has published a list of sites that are 'vital to american security' according to the state departament. Diplomats were required through those cables to list the most relevant sites to american interests in the countries they work in. The majority seems to be natural resources and their extraction infrastructures like oil reserves and pipelines, mines, etc. but roads, communication lines and hubs and some drug factories and research centers abroad were listed as well.

Wikileaks are now facing a new round of criticism for revealing these sites, which critics claim will become targets for terrorists. But what I found most interesting was how broad the SD definition of 'national security' is as it extends far beyond US territory and obvious strategic interests to encompass almost every single natural resource under the sun.

I wonder what the people who were told to compile the list were thinking exactly. It might just be that they were told to get a list of all things relevant to US interest abroad.

Originally posted by dadudemon


You jest...but...

... a lady in the Netherlands just laid stake to the sun. Apparently the law only disallows organizations from owning celestial bodies.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I wonder what the people who were told to compile the list were thinking exactly. It might just be that they were told to get a list of all things relevant to US interest abroad.
Yes, that was probably it. I think they were ordered to make a list of anything that could be considered critical to US trade interests and companies, the functioning of US economy, military, etc.

An interesting ramification is that the list reflects how much US values certain resources that the owners themselves probably weren't aware were so critically valuable to them. This could actually lead to some fairer international trade of some commodities.

Looks like he's been placed in custody.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Looks like he's been placed in custody.

Ya, he'll never again see the light of day.