Wiki Leaks

[Paulie_Walnuts]

Don't know how much the Wiki Leaks story is getting in the US, but it's big over here right now. Currently the Wiki Leaks founder, Julian Assange, is being held in custody in London whilst the Swedish government appeal against the granting of bail for Assange yesterday. Assange is fighting extradition to Sweden on two charges of sexual assault. Assange has some celebrity big hitters, as well as respected journalist John Pilger, fighting his corner with the obvious implication being that he is being "fitted up" by the powers that be.

I just wondered if people had made time to explore the Wiki Leaks website and what their views were on it? I haven't explored the site yet myself, but there is definitely a negative portrayal of the site and it's founder in the British press (in my opinion).

What's the truth? Is Wiki Leaks the last bastion of a free press? Does anyone care?

Here's the Wikipedia take on the whole thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

[el_chode]

Serious warning:

Do NOT click on any links or really read this thread if you hold any gov't position (at least here in the states).

In fact, you law-types are also cautioned against participating in this discussion as well if you have any security clearance.

With that said, yeah...this is getting a lot of "press" but not. Assange's editorial never ran here unless you read foreign press. Those warnings above? Official statements by Attorneys General offices, various branches of the US Military, and various law school career services departments.

Plus here they're (intentionally?) mixing the person with the activities - if there's no legal recourse, he's still ugly and arrogant, right? That'll make it wrong to do what he does! He's albino!

Sarah Palin has already called for his head for treason (he's not a citizen, someone really needs to put a large tampon in her mouth), Lieberman has already tried to shut down the Internet, and politicians are generally running around frantic because their grip on "security" has tightened so far the sand is finally started to leak out through the cracks.

WITH THAT SAID - I write this procrastinating for an Information Privacy law exam in about 10 hours, and what Assange has done is really jeopardize a lot of information that could otherwise be privileged through state secret doctrines. Agree or not, it potentially undermines some legal abilities. Plus it's not really fair to force the hand of diplomats in areas that aren't really matters of national concern.

Then again, he's a publisher, just with the open hatred towards the west. He's not the leaker, and Bradley Manning, the one who broke the secrecy, is the one who can be and actually is looking down the very long barrel of a very short-tempered gun.

[el_chode]

Also, I personally haven't read any of the cables, just the news stories that resulted. I will say that I wish he retained some editorial control since not everything is really worth sharing (didn't we learn from Twitter?).

I did disagree with the publication of the chopper video. I felt it was out of context and deliberately painted soldiers in a bad light, especially since the video was edited, and I'm one to not micromanage soldiers in a warzone via hindsight.

[Tracy 3000]

I just wondered if people had made time to explore the Wiki Leaks website and what their views were on it? I haven't explored the site yet myself, but there is definitely a negative portrayal of the site and it's founder in the British press (in my opinion).

What's the truth? Is Wiki Leaks the last bastion of a free press? Does anyone care?

Here's the Wikipedia take on the whole thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

Americans generally don't care. I mean, it's not like Anna Nicole Smith died or something. As long as we can have warm pizza delivered to our homes, sports on TV, stars dancing on TV and the right to complain about the government, we're all fairly comfortable over here.

Now, if there was a WikiLeaks show! And people were trapped on an island together and had dance contests to win pieces of the wikileaks publications in order to solve some murder and the public could vote, then we'd be interested in Wikileaks and national security. Until then, that's just too much reading

[capt. scotty]

what the fuck is wiki leaks?

[MarkW]

Serious warning:

Do NOT click on any links or really read this thread if you hold any gov't position (at least here in the states).

In fact, you law-types are also cautioned against participating in this discussion as well if you have any security clearance.

With that said, yeah...this is getting a lot of "press" but not. Assange's editorial never ran here unless you read foreign press. Those warnings above? Official statements by Attorneys General offices, various branches of the US Military, and various law school career services departments.

Plus here they're (intentionally?) mixing the person with the activities - if there's no legal recourse, he's still ugly and arrogant, right? That'll make it wrong to do what he does! He's albino!

Sarah Palin has already called for his head for treason (he's not a citizen, someone really needs to put a large tampon in her mouth), Lieberman has already tried to shut down the Internet, and politicians are generally running around frantic because their grip on "security" has tightened so far the sand is finally started to leak out through the cracks.

WITH THAT SAID - I write this procrastinating for an Information Privacy law exam in about 10 hours, and what Assange has done is really jeopardize a lot of information that could otherwise be privileged through state secret doctrines. Agree or not, it potentially undermines some legal abilities. Plus it's not really fair to force the hand of diplomats in areas that aren't really matters of national concern.

Then again, he's a publisher, just with the open hatred towards the west. He's not the leaker, and Bradley Manning, the one who broke the secrecy, is the one who can be and actually is looking down the very long barrel of a very short-tempered gun.

Wow - so you could jeopardise a law/military/government career by reading something that's freely available to everyone outside the US?

This would be the same US government that cited China to the WTO for its censorship of the internet?  Hmmmm.

As Paulie says, this is getting a lot of media time in the UK.

Of course, if you're a right-winger, this is all a plot by Obama:

http://biggovernment.com/pgeller/2010/12/03/wikileaks-obamas-war-on-america-target-hillary-clinton/

WARNING: do not click on this link if you value your grasp on reality.

[el_chode]

Serious warning:

Do NOT click on any links or really read this thread if you hold any gov't position (at least here in the states).

In fact, you law-types are also cautioned against participating in this discussion as well if you have any security clearance.

With that said, yeah...this is getting a lot of "press" but not. Assange's editorial never ran here unless you read foreign press. Those warnings above? Official statements by Attorneys General offices, various branches of the US Military, and various law school career services departments.

Plus here they're (intentionally?) mixing the person with the activities - if there's no legal recourse, he's still ugly and arrogant, right? That'll make it wrong to do what he does! He's albino!

Sarah Palin has already called for his head for treason (he's not a citizen, someone really needs to put a large tampon in her mouth), Lieberman has already tried to shut down the Internet, and politicians are generally running around frantic because their grip on "security" has tightened so far the sand is finally started to leak out through the cracks.

WITH THAT SAID - I write this procrastinating for an Information Privacy law exam in about 10 hours, and what Assange has done is really jeopardize a lot of information that could otherwise be privileged through state secret doctrines. Agree or not, it potentially undermines some legal abilities. Plus it's not really fair to force the hand of diplomats in areas that aren't really matters of national concern.

Then again, he's a publisher, just with the open hatred towards the west. He's not the leaker, and Bradley Manning, the one who broke the secrecy, is the one who can be and actually is looking down the very long barrel of a very short-tempered gun.

Wow - so you could jeopardise a law/military/government career by reading something that's freely available to everyone outside the US?

This would be the same US government that cited China to the WTO for its censorship of the internet?  Hmmmm.

As Paulie says, this is getting a lot of media time in the UK.

Of course, if you're a right-winger, this is all a plot by Obama:

http://biggovernment.com/pgeller/2010/12/03/wikileaks-obamas-war-on-america-target-hillary-clinton/

WARNING: do not click on this link if you value your grasp on reality.

Yeah, I don't have the links available, but you can google it and probably hit a flood of stories. The short of it: these docs, despite being published, have not yet been declassified, therefore reading them is without the proper clearance is still illegal. Think of it as if you're a low-level employee at the Pentagon and you come across a folder marked classified that was left on a desk. You still can't read it despite it being in your hands, you know?

There's a sort of cognitive dissonance required to make sense of it all, because I actually totally understand the gov't logic - if you need to verify the trustworthiness of your employees, you need to see that they'd still comport to certain rules regardless of the environment they find themselves in (especially if you want to prevent similar leaks from happening in the future).

The only likely way they'd figure out if you read them is (a) reading them while on the job and on company connections or (b) lie detectors administered to get clearance. It's not like they're tracking your every move online (yet).

My issue with it all is this: transparency is good, but at a certain level it is bad. Some stuff needs to be confidential. It's poor logic to say that in the name of security and the right to be free from deception we must sacrifice the right to security through diplomacy and military tactic.

In other words, we're faced with the issue of where to draw the line as far as matters of national security and laundering deception through those same channels.

[MarkW]

In other words, we're faced with the issue of where to draw the line as far as matters of national security and laundering deception through those same channels.

It's an interesting conundrum.  It's a generalisation, but those who favour "big government" (ie who are happy for the govt to control/monitor many facets of our day-to-day life) are paradoxically most likely to back the leaks.  "Small government" right-wingers are more likely to want such information kept secret.  So the big/small split is reversed on matters of national security...

I'm undecided: I've worked in a classified position, and there are certainly things that are best kept secret.  However, I'm all for whistleblowing where government or official actions are illegal - I'd include state-sponsored/tolerated torture, assasination of foreign nationals, bribery etc among those activities that should be exposed.  Leaking the fact that the US ambassador to Moscow thinks Putin is a power-crazed nutjob doesn't really help anybody.

[el_chode]

In other words, we're faced with the issue of where to draw the line as far as matters of national security and laundering deception through those same channels.

It's an interesting conundrum.  It's a generalisation, but those who favour "big government" (ie who are happy for the govt to control/monitor many facets of our day-to-day life) are paradoxically most likely to back the leaks.  "Small government" right-wingers are more likely to want such information kept secret.  So the big/small split is reversed on matters of national security...

I'm undecided: I've worked in a classified position, and there are certainly things that are best kept secret.  However, I'm all for whistleblowing where government or official actions are illegal - I'd include state-sponsored/tolerated torture, assasination of foreign nationals, bribery etc among those activities that should be exposed.  Leaking the fact that the US ambassador to Moscow thinks Putin is a power-crazed nutjob doesn't really help anybody.

Which is why I think that the current political pressure to paint Wikileaks with a broad brush is simply wrong. As a general threshold issue, it's not even Wikileaks that's the problem - they're not "leaking" anything, it's Pfc. Manning that's the issue, or anyone who has access to information that is not trustworthy.

[Ruckus]

Thanks for the illuminating discussion here guys.  I followed this story intently for the 1st couple of days after it broke but now it has grown so many legs I've completely slacked.

Though Assange seems to be peripheral now to the real issues at hand, as a gossip seeking American, have there been any respectable polls done here and across the pond that reveal what percentage of the gen pop believe him to be guilty of his deviant behavior?

I have not actually attempted access any of the cables but have heard of some of the material 2ndhand.  Good 'ole John Pilger doing his thang!

I don't watch Dancing With Survivors.

[el_chode]

Thanks for the illuminating discussion here guys.  I followed this story intently for the 1st couple of days after it broke but now it has grown so many legs I've completely slacked.

Though Assange seems to be peripheral now to the real issues at hand, as a gossip seeking American, have there been any respectable polls done here and across the pond that reveal what percentage of the gen pop believe him to be guilty of his deviant behavior?

I have not actually attempted access any of the cables but have heard of some of the material 2ndhand.  Good 'ole John Pilger doing his thang!

I don't watch Dancing With Survivors.

Polls are dumb. I don't trust them to survey properly. I think the majority that I've read have had a vocal minority supporting Assange with a complacent majority buying the whole "they're making your children less safe" argument and demanding blood

[Paulie_Walnuts]

A woman on my train yesterday tried to talk about Assange gaining bail with her two friends but they had no idea what she was talking about. When they asked her she said it was something to do with Wikipedia!

I honestly don't think that many people here give a shit. They are more interested in who's dying in Coronation Street (our oldest soap opera), which talentless fuck is winning X Factor, who's getting fired on The Apprentice, or which D-List celebrity is winning I'm A Celebrity get Me Out Of Here!

Personally I reckon Assange is being fitted up. Put it this way, I trust him way more than the global powers whose cage he is rattling!

[el_chode]

A woman on my train yesterday tried to talk about Assange gaining bail with her two friends but they had no idea what she was talking about. When they asked her she said it was something to do with Wikipedia!

I honestly don't think that many people here give a shit. They are more interested in who's dying in Coronation Street (our oldest soap opera), which talentless fuck is winning X Factor, who's getting fired on The Apprentice, or which D-List celebrity is winning I'm A Celebrity get Me Out Of Here!

Personally I reckon Assange is being fitted up. Put it this way, I trust him way more than the global powers whose cage he is rattling!

See he needs to sell his rights to a movie. Then people will care. Do I think the "rape" is real? No. But do I think the women have CIA ties? No. Still, its total pretext

[Ruckus]

My initial reaction was "the fix was on" or as y'all call it, getting "fitted up."   ;D  Why would they choose Sweden guys?

I just watched the Apache video.  It's tough to watch...really.  

I started glancing at some cables.  Too many to sort through but what an inside look at day to day diplomacy.

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

did the wiki dude post bail today for 300k?  I can't remember I was half asleep and heard it on the radio. I think?

Assange, in my opinion isn't doing anything "illegal", maybe ethically questionable, but not illegal.  It's like somebody giving you a CD, you have this thing that needs to be returned to the government one way or another, I can understand the reason to show everybody rather than nobody.  

What is happening on a social level really is incredible.  the human level awareness continues to grow exponentially the more wikileaks is in the spotlight.  wikileaks is like the napster of secret documents.  in 5 years we'll probably have pictures of UFO's and alien bodies.

[Paulie_Walnuts]

Yeah, he got bail yesterday. He's electronically tagged, has to report to a police station every day, and has a 10pm curfew. All for getting it on with a couple of Swedish hotties! Think twice guys if you are ever lucky enough to be in that situation!

I looked at the video of the Apache attack too. It's incredible that those who perpetrated that crime are allowed to get away with it, while the guy who released the video is currently in prison. He's in prison for blowing the whistle on something that, at best, was manslaughter, and at worst was murder. Certainly something that should be brought to a criminal trial.

If you feel the need you can try to help the guy here:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

[el_chode]

Manning is the one I don't feel bad for. That's the risk he took in breaking confidentiality, and I don't think that everything he leaked should have been leaked.

As for the apache vid, that's meaningless to me. There's something like 10 minutes of video edited from it, and if I remember it correctly, it wasn't a joyful shooting like Full Metal Jacket. I have a real hard time telling a few guys locked up in a hovering tin can who they can and cannot trust with my captain hindsight vision.

War. War never changes...

[Paulie_Walnuts]

The video is meaningless to you? If you have watched it you don't think those who did the shooting should at least stand trial?

Even if you buy the argument that they thought the cameras were machine guns, which I don't incidentally, what about opening fire on people who were lifting dead or wounded people into a van?

The guy or guys who did the shooting were itching to pull the trigger. You can sense the frustration when the guy in control is making them wait. I understand that soldiers are often in a difficult and stressful position when they are at war, but they seemed pretty calm and controlled from what I can see. I just think they should be tried publicly rather than protected by the Army.

[el_chode]

The video is meaningless to you? If you have watched it you don't think those who did the shooting should at least stand trial?

Even if you buy the argument that they thought the cameras were machine guns, which I don't incidentally, what about opening fire on people who were lifting dead or wounded people into a van?

The guy or guys who did the shooting were itching to pull the trigger. You can sense the frustration when the guy in control is making them wait. I understand that soldiers are often in a difficult and stressful position when they are at war, but they seemed pretty calm and controlled from what I can see. I just think they should be tried publicly rather than protected by the Army.

Well, yeah, they're itching to pull the trigger. They're in a war zone. Tha'ts the thing. Whether or not a presence is needed there is one question, but that's one for the higher ups. I would not want them to stand trial absent a showing a malicious intent, and I don't see it there.

Being protected by the Army is what happens during war. If I'm in a chopper and a van shows up not showing a red crescent, then I'm lighting that fucker up too because the last thing I need is for an RPG to come out of it.

And like I said, that video is edited significantly to boot.

You can interpret the frustration as "lemme kill because killing is fun" or "please let me shoot before they shoot first". These aren't cops in Detroit trying to bust up a drug ring. It's a war zone and I'm willing to give our troops a bit more deference since I'm not the one running the risk of losing a leg/arm/life

[Paulie_Walnuts]

They were in a helicopter about 2km from the incident! And if their vision was good enough to see "machine guns" surely they would have seen a rocket launcher sticking out of the van? The van shows up and starts trying to help wounded people. Maybe I'd better watch the unedited version to see where you are coming from.

How far should the Army go in protecting their troops in a war zone? If the two children had jumped out of the van to help would you expect the troops be protected if they had still "lit that fucker up"? How about if there was no van and women and children had come out of houses to help the dying and wounded? Would shooting up women and kids be worthy of "protection"? Bearing in mind an RPG could have been in any one of those buildings around why not just destroy the whole area and ask questions later?

If you join the Army expect that there is a chance you could get killed. It's in the job description. It doesn't give you the right to kill people because they MIGHT be a threat.