Wikileaks. Any comments?

[Toontown]

Yes, the lying slut should have know that he... oh wait, all rape accusations should be taken seriously except those against people you like.

What must I do to get on the "automatically defended from rape accusations without knowing the facts" list? Is there an official "get out of jail free" card?

You gotta be a Neoprogressive Amerikkka hater.

Wul, Ah'ma Neoprogressive, baby
Git inta mah big black car
Yeah, Ah'ma Neoprogressive, baby
Git inta mah big black car
Ah jest wanna show you
Whut mah politiks are


But don't kid yourself. The card is no good. Old John Law ain't no Neoprogressive and don't honor no Neoprog rape-em-for-free card.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

He leaks everything he has.

Just as a matter of fact, this isn't true--at least not yet. (Depending on what you mean by "leaks"--he at least has not yet published everything he has. Technically, the documents were leaked to him not by him.) I think in this latest batch (comprising something like 250,000 pages) he's been publishing about 80 per day.

Assange gets to claim the trappings of ethical behavior, but does not review the documents.

Again, as a point of fact, this isn't true. He had these documents for many months and didn't publish them until he (and the Guardian and the NY Times and maybe some other organizations) reviewed them all and redacted what they considered might put someone in danger.

It's simply not true that he published everything that was leaked to him without review.

I agree with you that he hasn't focussed specifically on meaningful documents. But it's a different era in mass media now compared to the days of the Pentagon Papers. You couldn't publish thousands of pages of anything back then. Nowadays, he might be accused of taking things out of context or cherry picking if he didn't release them in their entirety. . .eventually.

 

[Tapio]

Would you like to see a law making all internal diplomatic discussions and strategys available online?

Yes. With politics, economics, sports, everything.

 

[Checkmite]

Unrelated to the leaks. It's for rape.

So? Arrested is arrested.

 

[TraneWreck]

That may be his personal opinion of the U.S., but why does everyone ignore all of the leaks regarding other countries and complain about Wikileaks being solely an America-hating enterprise?

Assange on the topic of what they choose to release:

We’re totally source dependent. We get what we get. As our profile rises in a certain area, we get more in a particular area. People say, why don’t you release more leaks from the Taliban. So I say hey, help us, tell more Taliban dissidents about us.

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/2/

I suppose those servants of power who have already decided to hate Wikileaks will just claim he's lying, but I would love for someone to produce an instance of Assange sitting on documents because he's only interested in the US.

 

[TraneWreck]

But who determines what action is an awful war crime in the making and what action is necessary for the security of one's country? The journalist?

No, the courts, the usual authorities. Woodward wasn't going to impeach Nixon, Congress was.

What if the leaking journalist is, say, a member of the far left who thinks all American actions in the ME are evil per se and thus releases the names of all CIA agents there? What if he's a racist, and decides to leak only those communications that show Black politicians in a bad light?

If they're just smears, then said journalist would be a scumbag. If a racist reveals the corruption of a politician just because that politician is black, he may still be a scumbag, but the corruption either exists or it doesn't.

Releasing the names of undercover agents would be a horrible choice regardless of the motivation. Wikileaks did something similar in releasing the names of Afghani informers. That was an awful thing to do. Wikileaks has exerted effort to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Just because official secrecy can be used, and is sometimes used, to hide crimes hardly means all secret documents are a cover of an evil government conspiracy for the heroic reporter to uncover (as the fantasy has it). There is a serious downside here that people have not considered.

I really wish people would read the link I provided about Assange's goal with all of this. You will likely disagree just as strongly with his actual position, but we're basically having a conversation about positions that no one holds.

Yes, the lying slut should have know that he... oh wait, all rape accusations should be taken seriously except those against people you like.

What must I do to get on the "automatically defended from rape accusations without knowing the facts" list? Is there an official "get out of jail free" card?

If he raped or molested anyone, he should go to prison. If, however, these charges are a pretext to arrest Assange and then retaliate against him for the publications, that's obviously a different matter.

As with Roman Polanski (who was actually convicted), a rapist should be brought to justice. I think people are just suspicious of the timing and accustomed to watching the power structure retaliate against dissidents--ie, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So? Arrested is arrested.

True. Once he is in custody, I would expect further charges.

 

[TjW]

I assume, since information should be free, that there is a website somewhere with read-only access to Assange's mail server?

 

[IDB87]

I enjoy the apologists defending the government's ability to keep useless secrets from its citizens.

What right do we have to know how our tax dollars are being spent in foreign invasions and occupations?

And so, so, funny to see this coming from the "small government" crowd.

Useless secrets are very important to you?

 

[TraneWreck]

Useless secrets are very important to you?

To respond I'd have to guess at your meaning. Please flesh that out a little so I don't accuse you of holding a view you do not.

 

[JimBenArm]

Wikileaks?
Hmm. Must need a new gasket, or maybe it's a blown "O" ring. Maybe some radiator sealant in the coolant will help.
Or it could be a loose hose clamp. Better check all those, too.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Isnt wikileaks the one who spun that helicopter attack on a terrorist embedded reporter as some giant evil thing, by adding text and clipping up the video? If that was them, all claims of nonbias go out the window. If that wasn't them nevermind

 

[Ziggurat]

In the same way that if you believe that an omniscient God can see all your actions, similarly, if you are some civil servant having to enforce some awful policy or action that will almost certainly result in many civillians being killed (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan,.. or for the 60s crowd, Vietnam) then, for that civil servant or politican, the prospect of any action being potentially made public is - morally - a wonderful thing,

Back in the real world, there's a rather major problem with all this transparency. Regardless of how accountable we want our our politicians and diplomats to be, if everything about their actions is public, then the other countries we deal with won't tell us the truth. And sometimes it's rather more important for the people making the decisions to know the truth than it is for the public to know everything about the people making decisions.

All this is a great development thanks to technology and the moral bravery of someone such as Julian Assange.

Moral bravery? Please. There's no bravery of any kind involved. In his own words:

Here then is the truth to set them free. Free from the manipulations and constraints of the mendacious. Free to choose their path, free to remove the ring from their noses, free to look up into the infinite voids and choose wonder over whatever gets them though. And before this feeling to cast blessings on the profits and prophets of truth, on the liberators and martyrs of truth, on the Voltaires, Galileos, and Principias of truth, on the Gutenburgs, Marconis and Internets of truth, on those serial killers of delusion, those brutal, driven and obsessed miners of reality, smashing, smashing, smashing every rotten edifice until all is ruins and the seeds of the new.

He's not a brave man, he's a petulant man-child who just wants to break things, and is taking no real risk (he knows the US will do nothing to him) in doing so.

 

[Ziggurat]

I hate Assange. Not the same way American conservatives hate him because they luv Amerka! I find him childish and petulant.

Then you're just love his deep thoughts:

But then, when truth matters most, when truth is the agent of freedom, I stood before Justice and with truth, lost freedom. Here was something fantastical, unbelievable and impossible, you could prove that (A => B) and (B => C) and (C => D) and (D => F) Justice would nod its head and agree, but then, when you turned to claim your coup de grace, A => F irrevocably, Justice would demur and revoke the axiom of transitivity, for Justice will not be told when F stands for freedom. Transitivity is evoked when Justice imagines F and finding the dream a pleasurable one sets about gathering cushions to prop up their slumber.

He never adds any context.

That's not quite true. He added false context when he set up that "Collateral Murder" website.

 

[Skeptic]

"Honor" and "loyalty" had been getting a bad rap ever since the Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg used it as an excuse for everything and anything.

But that Col. Stauffenberg should have violated his oath to Hitler because he discovered what a monster he was hardly means that any soldier, the moment he feels military operation X is not a good idea, has the right to give classified material to the enemy.

This guy isn't a Stauffenberg. He's more like the sergeant who says, "those generals are such idiots! I'll show 'em!" and then passes classified material in his hands to the enemy.

 

[Thunder]

Comparing Assange to Staufenberg is pathetic and offensive.

Risking his own life and the lives of his family and friends, he tried to kill the Fuhrer numerous times. He is a true hero for the ages, while Assange is a coward.

 

[joobz]

I would recommend reading this essay. Whether you agree or disagree, Assange is not simply dumping things without purpose:



http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/201...iracy-“to-destroy-this-invisible-government”/

In order to have an educated conversation about Wikileaks, we all need to read that essay and the works Assinage has produced. I just read it today and realized I was mistaken about a good many things.

His goal is to eliminate the ability of governments and corporations to effectively conspire in secret by making them paranoid. Thus, the cable leaks, which have no revelatory information, aren't leaked for their content, but to force changes in the operating procedure of the government.

Now, that is an overly brief explanation. Assagne's goal is quite provocative.

I read it, and am now certain that his actions are wrong.
It seems to me to be an example of a tyranny of the exploiter. He wishes to drive his own agenda by shaming and inducing fear in others. I don't see his actions as noble or just at all. What prevents others from turning this exposure game onto every individual in society? He is running on the premise of "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" type of logic. This is insanely wrong and the whole reason why we have a fifth amendment.

Now, I do not believe that states have the same level of rights an individual has, but that doesn't mean a government body or organization is without any rights. Especially if we want that government body to be effective at serving it's citizens.

 

[gumboot]

The comments from the wikileaks guy about the bank leak are quite disturbing. I haven't read any of their leaks, nor do I have a great deal of interest in doing so, as I can't say I'd expect anything to surprise me at all. Most of it seems pretty pointless. What I have heard is that some other people in Wikileaks have left because Assange is "obsessed" with the USA, and is ignoring other far more important leaks that more closely align with the intention behind creating wikileaks (i.e. leaking criminal and unethical behaviour, rather than embarrassing gossip).

But back to his comments about the banks; what alarms me is the comment about "bringing down a couple of banks" or destroying financial institutions. It sounds like he's bragging - he's an megalomaniac reveling in his own perceived greatness. Problem is, he doesn't seem to care at all about the consequences. Has he really thought through what would actually happen if his leaks caused the collapse of "one or two" major US banks?

He's sounds to me like a reckless, egotistical little boy who doesn't have the least understanding of what he's actually doing or what the consequences could be for millions of people. hardly someone to admire. Perhaps someone to send to bed without any supper and ban from the internet for a month.

 

[gumboot]

If he raped or molested anyone, he should go to prison. If, however, these charges are a pretext to arrest Assange and then retaliate against him for the publications, that's obviously a different matter.

Why would a nation that was vehemently opposed to the US war in Iraq, and far from an ally of the USA assist in retaliating against him for leaking information that criticises said war?

And why would a woman who organised a seminar for him in Sweden (i.e. a person who supports his views and wants his message to be heard) agree to then accuse him of rape to assist in this retaliation?

The "it's a smear campaign" claim doesn't make the least bit of logical sense.

 

[TraneWreck]

Why would a nation that was vehemently opposed to the US war in Iraq, and far from an ally of the USA assist in retaliating against him for leaking information that criticises said war?

And why would a woman who organised a seminar for him in Sweden (i.e. a person who supports his views and wants his message to be heard) agree to then accuse him of rape to assist in this retaliation?

The "it's a smear campaign" claim doesn't make the least bit of logical sense.

Look, I have no idea how legitimate the allegations are. I have no interest in learning. I trust the judicial system of Sweden to deal with things fairly.

I'm simply pointing out that the reason it looks suspicious is because of the timing.

Let's say the US pushes Sweden to go after Assange on weak charges (again, I have no idea) when Sweden would usually pass on a case like that. Once he's in custody, the US goes after under some nebulous "national security" charge.

We've already held people who we knew were innocent:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece

It's not like Obama has done much to change the system that allows such abuse to occur.

It's plausible that the rape charges are bogus. I agree that the fact that Sweden is the one issuing charges gives me added confidence that it's a legitimate investigation.

I was merely explaining, not defending. If he raped or assaulted those women, I hope he is brought to justice regardless of my opinion concerning the leaks.