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 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.
Originally posted by skekUngbecause they are unapologetically pro-republican
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?
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 inimalist
Interpol has emphasized that he is only wanted for questioningmaking 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:
Larry King: What about the statement by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates that Russian democracy has disappeared and that the government is being run by the security services? What is your response to the American secretary of defence's statement?Vladimir Putin: I am personally acquainted with Mr Gates, I have met him on several occasions. I think he is a very nice man and not a bad specialist. But Mr Gates, of course, was one of the leaders of the US Central Intelligence Agency and today he is defence secretary. If he also happens to be America's leading expert on democracy, I congratulate you.
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
NiceThese 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.