Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   wikileaks: the diplomacy dump. (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/159328-wikileaks-diplomacy-dump.html)

loquitur 12-03-2010 10:49 AM
I agree with these two blog observations. First, from the Economist:
Quote:
My gripe against Mr Assange is that he takes advantage of the protections of liberal democracies, but refuses to submit himself to them. If he wants to use the libel protections guaranteed by New York State, then he should live in New York, and commit himself to all of the safety and consequences of America's constitution. If he wants to use Sweden's whistleblower laws, then he should return to Sweden and let its justice system take its course. This, as we've written in the paper, is what distinguishes Mr Assange from Daniel Ellsberg. Mr Ellsberg did not flee America after releasing the Pentagon Papers; he stayed here and stood trial. Regardless of what you think about Mr Ellsberg's motives, he followed the basic tenets of civil disobedience: break a law, then publicly accept the consequences. Mr Assange just protects himself.

Julian Assange has created a legal structure that allows him to answer only to his own conscience. This is an extraordinarily clever hack of the world's legal systems. But it makes his pretense at moral authority a little hard to take seriously. And it also points toward a solution. If America feels threatened by WikiLeaks, then it should lean on its allies—Sweden, Iceland and Belgium—to strip the organisation of the protections it so carefully gathers as it shifts its information around the world. Mr Assange has suggested that he might be hounded all the way to Russia or Cuba. If he has to take all of his servers with him, it wil be harder for him to act so boldly.
Next, Megan McArdle at the Atlantic:
Quote:
Julian Assange seems to have fallen prey to what I call Supply-Sider's Disease, a little-known, yet surprising widespread psychiatric disorder in which people become convinced that things they very much want to do from strong moral convictions, must therefore have no downside. It is the political equivalent of believing that frozen yogurt and smoothies are calorie-free foods.
The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.

Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.
Ah. This must be why Wikileaks has been getting so much material from the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea, and why internal documents from Cargill are currently dominating their traffic. Ooops! That was a flash from an alternative universe where what Assange is saying isn't nonsense. In the real world, he got a bunch of government documents because the US, in its addlepated, well meaning way, dumped all of them on a network open to 3 million people where they could be seen by a disaffected 23-year old stupid enough to either believe he could get away with this, or not understand how long the years in jail might be.

I mean, it's certainly true that closed, secretive networks become less effective--but that doesn't mean they become less effective at the things we dislike them doing. Stalin remained exceptionally good at purges and liquidations all through World War II, and that didn't stop him from helping to win the war, and dominating half of Europe. It's just that it took more dead Russian boys to do it, because being secretive and purge-oriented kind of hampered the efficiency of the economy, leaving them a little short of key items like guns. But since Stalin was running a super-secretive, centrally controlled regime, that insight didn't really matter.

Similarly, forcing the US military and the state department to become more secretive might well hamper their effectiveness. But it seems most likely to hamper their effectiveness at things like nation-building and community outreach, where you need a broad, decentralized effort. I don't see why they'd be much less effective at launching drone attacks. To be sure, the drone attacks might kill a lot more innocent civilians. But no doubt Assange thinks this is all to the good because it heightens the contradictions or something.

It's also worth noting that the assumption that secretive organizations will necessarily be undermined by leaks is only even arguably true in a world where they can't expand their sphere of influence to control the propagation of those leaks. It will be clear to anyone who has ever visited China that we do not live in that universe. And of course, the US government has plenty of room to expand its power. And what truly worries me about Wikileaks is not the immediate damage that has been done by the release of this sort of information, but the fact that the latest drop has created an enormous, nearly unanimous backlash in the United States.

Most of the libertarians I know are ambivalent, for heaven's sake--if you can't get the libertarians united on actions that increase transparency, you've sure as hell lost the rest of the country. That's a ripe environment for new laws that reduce transparency. Maybe we'll be less effective--but we'll also be less free.
My point earlier about Assange's acting as a self-appointed avenger underscores both of these authors. Assange is a fine anarchist in tone and pronouncements, but he depends on the protection of laws and at the same time chooses his targets in a cowardly way. So he's both a hypocrite and a coward.

RB, I'm OK with civil disobedience, if the people doing it are actually assuming the responsibility that comes with it. The civil rights protesters were effective because they were willing to go to jail for what they did - and in fact going to jail highlighted the righteousness of their cause because, after all, it showed that the segregationists threw the people in jail for the crime of wanting to eat at a lunch counter. Assange is depending on the protection of western legal systems, not submitting himself to them. Big difference.

roachboy 12-03-2010 11:08 AM
well, i don't agree with anything you say about this, loquitor. i don't buy the libertarian/paranoid idea that assange has appointed himself anything. if you read what he actually says about the evolution of wikileaks, he emphasizes that for a long time they wanted there to be no face to the organization at all.

the vetting of the information that's released is at this point being done by a cadre of journalists in collaboration with wikileaks---i think they call it a form of investigative journalism. it doesn't matter particularly whether you like it or not---personally i think it's a good thing in the main, breaking up the secrecy that enables those in power to break the law, commit massive human rights violations and, in the case of iraq and the "war on terror" war crimes and not have to answer for it because they, cowards and hypocrites that they are, hide behind the illusion of patriotism or "national security" and a veil of secrecy from all accountability.

and now some of their cover's blown. boo fucking hoo.

and you've also got people like robert gates dismissing all this hullaballoo about the "endangering of security" blah blah blah.

here's a sane interpretation of all this authoritarian gnashing of teeth over the release. it's a little long and is better to read in the original because it's extensively linked. but i'll but it here anyway:

Quote:
Tuesday, Nov 30, 2010 06:31 ET
WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets
By Glenn Greenwald

*

WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets
Wikipedia/AP/Salon
Clockwise from lower left: Jonah Goldberg, Wolf Blitzer, Julian Assange, Bill Keller and Sarah Palin

(updated below - Update II)

The WikiLeaks disclosure has revealed not only numerous government secrets, but also the driving mentality of major factions in our political and media class. Simply put, there are few countries in the world with citizenries and especially media outlets more devoted to serving, protecting and venerating government authorities than the U.S. Indeed, I don't quite recall any entity producing as much bipartisan contempt across the American political spectrum as WikiLeaks has: as usual, for authoritarian minds, those who expose secrets are far more hated than those in power who commit heinous acts using secrecy as their principal weapon.

First we have the group demanding that Julian Assange be murdered without any charges, trial or due process. There was Sarah Palin on on Twitter illiterately accusing WikiLeaks -- a stateless group run by an Australian citizen -- of "treason"; she thereafter took to her Facebook page to object that Julian Assange was "not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders" (she also lied by stating that he has "blood on his hands": a claim which even the Pentagon admits is untrue). Townhall's John Hawkins has a column this morning entitled "5 Reasons The CIA Should Have Already Killed Julian Assange." That Assange should be treated as a "traitor" and murdered with no due process has been strongly suggested if not outright urged by the likes of Marc Thiessen, Seth Lipsky (with Jeffrey Goldberg posting Lipsky's column and also illiterately accusing Assange of "treason"), Jonah Goldberg, Rep. Pete King, and, today, The Wall Street Journal.

The way in which so many political commentators so routinely and casually call for the eradication of human beings without a shred of due process is nothing short of demented. Recall Palin/McCain adviser Michael Goldfarb's recent complaint that the CIA failed to kill Ahmed Ghailani when he was in custody, or Glenn Reynolds' morning demand -- in between sips of coffee -- that North Korea be destroyed with nuclear weapons ("I say nuke ‘em. And not with just a few bombs"). Without exception, all of these people cheered on the attack on Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 innocent human beings, yet their thirst for slaughter is literally insatiable. After a decade's worth of American invasions, bombings, occupations, checkpoint shootings, drone attacks, assassinations and civilian slaughter, the notion that the U.S. Government can and should murder whomever it wants is more frequent and unrestrained than ever.

Those who demand that the U.S. Government take people's lives with no oversight or due process as though they're advocating changes in tax policy or mid-level personnel moves -- eradicate him!, they bellow from their seats in the Colosseum -- are just morally deranged barbarians. There's just no other accurate way to put it. These are usually the same people, of course, who brand themselves "pro-life" and Crusaders for the Sanctity of Human Life and/or who deride Islamic extremists for their disregard for human life. And the fact that this mindset is so widespread and mainstream is quite a reflection of how degraded America's political culture is. When WikiLeaks critics devote a fraction of their rage to this form of mainstream American thinking -- which, unlike anything WikiLeaks has done, has actually resulted in piles upon piles of corpses -- then their anti-WikiLeaks protestations should be taken more seriously, but not until then.

* * * * *

Then, with some exceptions, we have the group which -- so very revealingly -- is the angriest and most offended about the WikiLeaks disclosures: the American media, Our Watchdogs over the Powerful and Crusaders for Transparency. On CNN last night, Wolf Blitzer was beside himself with rage over the fact that the U.S. Government had failed to keep all these things secret from him:

Are they doing anything at all to make sure if some 23-year-old guy, allegedly, starts downloading hundreds of thousands of cables, hundreds of thousands of copies of sensitive information, that no one pays attention to that, no one in the security system of the United States government bothers to see someone is downloading all these millions -- literally millions of documents? . . . at this point, you know, it -- it's amazing to me that the U.S. government security system is so lax that someone could allegedly do this kind of damage just by simply pretending to be listening to a Lady Gaga C.D. and at the same time downloading all these kinds of documents.

Then -- like the Good Journalist he is -- Blitzer demanded assurances that the Government has taken the necessary steps to prevent him, the media generally and the citizenry from finding out any more secrets: "Do we know yet if they've [done] that fix? In other words, somebody right now who has top secret or secret security clearance can no longer download information onto a C.D. or a thumb drive? Has that been fixed already?" The central concern of Blitzer -- one of our nation's most honored "journalists" -- is making sure that nobody learns what the U.S. Government is up to.

Then there's the somewhat controversial claim that our major media stars are nothing more than Government spokespeople and major news outlets little more than glorified state-run media. Blitzer's CNN reporting provided the best illustration I've seen in awhile demonstrating how true that is. Shortly before bringing on David Gergen to rail against WikiLeaks' "contemptible behavior" (while, needless to say, not giving voice to any defenders of WikiLeaks), this is what was heard in the first several minutes of the CNN broadcast:

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Brooke, thanks very much.

Happening now, a criminal investigation into the leak of U.S. diplomatic secrets. . . . The White House says it would be an understatement to say that President Obama is not pleased about these leaks. The Justice Department says a criminal investigation is ongoing and the State Department is leading attempts at international damage control right now.

Our foreign affairs correspondent, Jill Dougherty, is over at the State Department working the story for us.

And there's enormous potential damage for the United States in these -- in these leaks, Jill. I assume that's what officials there are telling you.

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: They are, Wolf. They're pretty overt about it. It could be very, very damaging. . . . The Secretary slammed the release of the cables, calling it an attack.

CLINTON: This is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community. . . .

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Let me be very clear, this is not saber rattling.

DOUGHERTY: The U.S. attorney general is not ruling out going after the WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange, even though he is not an American citizen.

HOLDER: To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law and who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described, they will be held responsible.

That's CNN's journalism: uncritically passing on one government claim after the next -- without any contradiction, challenge, or scrutiny. Other than Blitzer's anger over the Government's failure to more effectively keep secrets from everyone, what would an overtly state-run media do differently? Absolutely nothing. It's just so revealing that the sole criticism of the Government allowed to be heard is that they haven't done enough to keep us all in the dark.

Then we have The New York Times, which was denied access to the documents by WikiLeaks this time but received them from The Guardian. That paper's Executive Editor, Bill Keller, appeared in a rather amazing BBC segment yesterday with Carne Ross, former British Ambassador to the U.N., who mocked and derided Keller for being guided by the U.S. Government's directions on what should and should not be published (video below):

KELLER: The charge the administration has made is directed at WikiLeaks: they've very carefully refrained from criticizing the press for the way we've handled this material . . . . We've redacted them to remove the names of confidential informants . . . and remove other material at the recommendation of the U.S. Government we were convinced could harm National Security . . .

HOST (incredulously): Just to be clear, Bill Keller, are you saying that you sort of go to the Government in advance and say: "What about this, that and the other, is it all right to do this and all right to do that," and you get clearance, then?

KELLER: We are serially taking all of the cables we intend to post on our website to the administration, asking for their advice. We haven't agreed with everything they suggested to us, but some of their recommendations we have agreed to: they convinced us that redacting certain information would be wise.

ROSS: One thing that Bill Keller just said makes me think that one shouldn't go to The New York Times for these telegrams -- one should go straight to the WikiLeaks site. It's extraordinary that the New York Times is clearing what it says about this with the U.S. Government, but that says a lot about the politics here, where Left and Right have lined up to attack WikiLeaks - some have called it a "terrorist organization."

It's one thing for the Government to shield its conduct from public disclosure, but it's another thing entirely for the U.S. media to be active participants in that concealment effort. As The Guardian's Simon Jenkins put it in a superb column that I can't recommend highly enough: "The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment. . . . Clearly, it is for governments, not journalists, to protect public secrets." But that's just it: the media does exactly what Jenkins says is not their job, which -- along with envy over WikiLeaks' superior access to confidential information -- is what accounts for so much media hostility toward that group. As the headline of John Kampfner's column in The Independent put it: "Wikileaks shows up our media for their docility at the feet of authority."

Most political journalists rely on their relationships with government officials and come to like them and both identify and empathize with them. By contrast, WikiLeaks is truly adversarial to those powerful factions in exactly the way that these media figures are not: hence, the widespread media hatred and contempt for what WikiLeaks does. Just look at how important it was for Bill Keller to emphasize that the Government is criticizing WikiLeaks but not The New York Times; having the Government pleased with his behavior is his metric for assessing how good his "journalism" is. If the Government is patting him on the head, then it's proof that he acted "responsibly." That servile-to-power mentality is what gets exposed by the contrast Wikileaks provides.

* * * * *

Then we have the Good Citizens who are furious that WikiLeaks has shown them what their Government is doing and, conversely, prevented the Government from keeping things from them. Joshua Foust -- who says "he’s spent the vast majority of his adult life doing defense and intelligence consulting for the U.S. government" -- has a private Twitter feed for various intelligence officials and reporters, behind which he's been bravely railing against WikiLeaks defenders (including me) and hysterically blaming WikiLeaks disclosures for everything from Chinese cyber warfare to the next terrorist attack. Plenty of other people are reciting anti-WikiLeaks condemnations from the same script.

It's hardly surprising that people like Foust who work for the Government and depend upon staying in its good graces are screeching all sorts of fear-mongering claims (he's apparently a DIA analyst under contract for Northrop Grumman, though he doesn't disclose that to his readers). That's what the Government, its enablers and royal court hangers-on do: you wind them up and they insist that any restraints on, or exposure of, the U.S. Government will help the Terrorists get us, and subject us to other scary dangers. But what's extraordinary is that these strident claims continue even after the U.S. Government's prior "blood-on-their-hands" warnings have been exposed as wildly exaggerated. As the pro-Obama, pro-National Security State New York Times Editorial Page put it today with great understatement: "The claim by [] Clinton that the leaks threaten national security seems exaggerated."

Before setting forth why these WikiLeaks disclosures produce vastly more good than harm, I'll state several caveats as clearly as I can. Unlike the prior leaks of war documents, there are reasonable concerns about this latest leak (most particularly that impeding diplomacy makes war more likely). Like all organizations, WikiLeaks has made mistakes in the past, including its failure to exercise enough care in redacting the names of Afghan informers. Moreover, some documents are legitimately classified, probably including some among the documents that were just disclosed.

Nonetheless, our government and political culture is so far toward the extreme pole of excessive, improper secrecy that that is clearly the far more significant threat. And few organizations besides WikiLeaks are doing anything to subvert that regime of secrecy, and none is close to its efficacy. It's staggering to watch anyone walk around acting as though the real threat is from excessive disclosures when the impenetrable, always-growing Wall of Secrecy is what has enabled virtually every abuse and transgression of the U.S. government over the last two decades at least.

In sum, I seriously question the judgment of anyone who -- in the face of the orgies of secrecy the U.S. Government enjoys and, more so, the abuses they have accomplished by operating behind it -- decides that the real threat is WikiLeaks for subverting that ability. That's why I said yesterday: one's reaction to WikiLeaks is largely shaped by whether or not one, on balance, supports what the U.S. has been covertly doing in the world by virtue of operating in the dark. I concur wholeheartedly with Digby's superb commentary on this point yesterday:

My personal feeling is that any allegedly democratic government that is so hubristic that it will lie blatantly to the entire world in order to invade a country it has long wanted to invade probably needs a self-correcting mechanism. There are times when it's necessary that the powerful be shown that there are checks on its behavior, particularly when the systems normally designed to do that are breaking down. Now is one of those times. . . . .As for the substance of the revelations, I don't know what the results will be. But in the world of diplomacy, embarrassment is meaningful and I'm not sure that it's a bad thing for all these people to be embarrassed right now. Puncturing a certain kind of self-importance --- especially national self-importance --- may be the most worthwhile thing they do. A little humility is long overdue.

The Economist's Democracy in America blog has an equally excellent analysis:

The careerists scattered about the world in America's intelligence agencies, military, and consular offices largely operate behind a veil of secrecy executing policy which is itself largely secret. American citizens mostly have no idea what they are doing, or whether what they are doing is working out well. The actually-existing structure and strategy of the American empire remains a near-total mystery to those who foot the bill and whose children fight its wars. And that is the way the elite of America's unelected permanent state, perhaps the most powerful class of people on Earth, like it.

As Scott Shane, the New York Times' national security reporter, puts it: "American taxpayers, American citizens pay for all these diplomatic operations overseas and you know, it is not a bad thing when Americans actually have a better understanding of those negotiations". Mr Shane goes on to suggest that "Perhaps if we had had more information on these secret internal deliberations of governments prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, we would have had a better understanding of the quality of the evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

I'd say providing that information certainly would have been a socially worthy activity, even if it came as part of a more-or-less indiscriminate dump of illegally obtained documents. I'm glad to see that the quality of discussion over possible US efforts to stymie Iran's nuclear ambitions has already become more sophisticated and, well, better-informed due to the information provided by WikiLeaks.

If secrecy is necessary for national security and effective diplomacy, it is also inevitable that the prerogative of secrecy will be used to hide the misdeeds of the permanent state and its privileged agents. I suspect that there is no scheme of government oversight that will not eventually come under the indirect control of the generals, spies, and foreign-service officers it is meant to oversee. Organisations such as WikiLeaks, which are philosophically opposed to state secrecy and which operate as much as is possible outside the global nation-state system, may be the best we can hope for in the way of promoting the climate of transparency and accountability necessary for authentically liberal democracy.

The central goal of WikiLeaks is to prevent the world's most powerful factions -- including the sprawling, imperial U.S. Government -- from continuing to operate in the dark and without restraints. Most of the institutions which are supposed to perform that function -- beginning with the U.S. Congress and the American media -- not only fail to do so, but are active participants in maintaining the veil of secrecy. WikiLeaks, whatever its flaws, is one of the very few entities shining a vitally needed light on all of this. It's hardly surprising, then, that those factions -- and their hordes of spokespeople, followers and enablers -- see WikiLeaks as a force for evil. That's evidence of how much good they are doing.

* * * * *

Two related items: FAIR documents how severely and blatantly the New York Times reporting distorted some of these documents in order (as always) to demonize Iran and the "threat" it poses. And Assange, in an interview with Forbes, says that the next leak will target a major U.S. bank.

And here is the above-referenced BBC segment with Bill Keller:



UPDATE: Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked today about the WikiLeaks disclosures and he said this:

“Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. . . .

“Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.’’

To recap: warnings about the dangers from WikiLeaks are "significantly overwrought" and the impact on foreign policy: "fairly modest." So it appears that the political class and its eager enablers in the media world and foreign policy community have -- as usual -- severely exaggerated national security threats in order to manipulate the public and its emotional reactions. Shocking, I know.
WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

loquitur 12-03-2010 01:13 PM
Will respond when I can, but for now will just note that evaluating Assange is a separate issue from whether State behaves well or whether people were endangered by this particular data dump. A murderer is a murderer even if his victim is a lowlife.

roachboy 12-03-2010 01:26 PM
i don't think you can separate the registers without draining away the political content of the release itself. but if you do that, then you aren't talking about the release any more. you're talking about a fiction.

look forward to your response tho. i understand your position, btw. i just don't agree with it.


in reactionary land, things are getting nutty:

WikiLeaks US embassy cables: live updates | News | guardian.co.uk

if you go to this guardian blog that is tracking various aspects of the fallout from the leak, there are some quite disturbing developments....there's a good demolition of amazon's weak, stupid decision to throw wikileaks out based on an imaginary terms of service violation...and there's also some strange stuff happening...like an email ciruculating at columbia which warns people who are considering applying for a job with state away from looking at the wikileaks material....and a threat to all government employees to not look at them.

it's insanity. it really is.

ring 12-03-2010 01:51 PM
Yep. I've been hearing that for a time earlier today, Facebook was considering that alternate Wikileak site 'an abuse' & some folk had difficulty posting the link.

mixedmedia 12-03-2010 02:06 PM
maybe that explains my appearing and disappearing facebook posts this morning...

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

so it seems that in lieu of lynching Julian Assange they might start turning that punitive eye inward. perhaps they didn't imagine so much popular support would turn up right under their noses.

nice. another comforting thought that belies how 'hep to the jive' our government is, lol.

Willravel 12-03-2010 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur (Post 2848290)
Will...
Yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur (Post 2848290)
...respond when I can...
The drawbacks of being an auxiliary verb... :expressionless:

ASU2003 12-03-2010 06:17 PM
The Pirate Bay - The world's most resilient bittorrent site

Once something is on the net, and the hackers want it, there is no taking it away without shutting down the ISPs. That would be an interesting move.

I got an e-mail saying not to view the site even on my personal computer at home...

hiredgun 12-06-2010 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan (Post 2846848)
One must ask why none of these cables used encryption? Perhaps I am missing something.
Sorry if this was already answered. Certainly the data was encrypted in transmission, but it gets decrypted at the other end.. for good reason, because the point is that people with the right to access this data (like the source of this leak) need to be able to read it.

Encryption only helps keep outsiders away from your data. If an individual 'inside' your encryption scheme wants to leak the information, there are no straightforward technical ways to stop him.

roachboy 12-06-2010 02:13 PM
U.S. Diplomats Aren't Stupid After All - By Joshua Kucera | Foreign Policy

i quite like this article, which blows away much of the "endangerment" nonsense and replaces it with something closer to accuracy---that there's something actually good about the state dept releases, that alot of people think more of the diplomatic corps than they might have previously when most of what they were fed was talking-point based cream-of-wheat pablum....

can't have that, now can we?

mrmacq 12-06-2010 05:14 PM
ya know
the idea of circling the wagons
only comes when youre extremely concerned
hell
theres been mass extinctions
devoted to the cause
of
some not complying
----
and what is it hes accused of?
disseminating the truth
----
good god
what a charge
here in the lands of the supposed free

ASU2003 12-06-2010 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiredgun (Post 2849004)
Sorry if this was already answered. Certainly the data was encrypted in transmission, but it gets decrypted at the other end.. for good reason, because the point is that people with the right to access this data (like the source of this leak) need to be able to read it.

Encryption only helps keep outsiders away from your data. If an individual 'inside' your encryption scheme wants to leak the information, there are no straightforward technical ways to stop him.
That sounds like a crappy encryption scheme which is exactly what our government is using.

There are plenty of straightforward technical ways to stop this from happening again. First, they should be using Linux (the NSA released a version a few years ago), second, they just need to create a "classified" user type that has the ability to open secret or top secret files.

An example of it done badly is DVDs which had the encryption hacked, but HD-DVDs and Blu-Rays proved harder. It could be done.

mrmacq 12-06-2010 06:20 PM
well
call me naive
but why all the secrecy in the first place?
our dips could pretty much figure out what your dips were thinking
the saudis
know their richest fund
(and ya dont like little mosque on the prarie)
still chucling on that one

the yanks fund in their own way
not like us little folk cant read
put two and two together
yet now its a huge deal?
holy crap
are they so out to lunch?

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------

ah
one more thing

since when did we throw out

freedom to spread truth?

or even speak it?

have we sunk this low?

Cimarron29414 12-07-2010 09:20 AM
mrmacq,

For the love of Pete, please don't discuss politics in Haiku. Please type like a normal person. Please.

YaWhateva 12-07-2010 10:22 AM
Julian Assange turned himself in. I don't like this at all.

Edit: He hasn't been charged with a crime apparently but its for questioning on his sexual assault charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe...ex.html?hpt=T1

silent_jay 12-07-2010 10:27 AM
...

roachboy 12-07-2010 10:47 AM
from the guardian blog:

Quote:
5.30pm: With perfect timing an email arrives from Philip Crowley at the state department:

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

Ironic? Read the next paragraph from the press release:

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

Shameless. You really could not make it up.
WikiLeaks US embassy cables: live updates | News | guardian.co.uk

the press release:

U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011

mixedmedia 12-07-2010 11:37 AM
sheesh.

ring 12-07-2010 11:41 AM
This Kinda reminds me of hysterical McCarthyism & what happened to Wilhelm Reich.

Cimarron29414 12-07-2010 01:15 PM
I think the man is a dickhead, but those charges against him are total bullshit. If he goes to jail on account of those hussies, it WILL be a miscarriage of justice.

Willravel 12-07-2010 02:32 PM
For the record:
Quote:
WikiLeaks has posted to its website only 960 of the 251,297 diplomatic cables it has. Almost every one of these cables was first published by one of its newspaper partners which are disclosing them (The Guardian, the NYT, El Pais, Le Monde, Der Speigel, etc.). Moreover, the cables posted by WikiLeaks were not only first published by these newspapers, but contain the redactions applied by those papers to protect innocent people and otherwise minimize harm.
Anti-WikiLeaks lies and propaganda - from TNR, Lauer, Feinstein and more - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com)

ASU2003 12-07-2010 06:25 PM
What is in the torrent file then? Is it just the 960, or all 250k?

If the media can only report on just a few things, and doesn't want to or doesn't care to make the connections, then it's not their fault for being slow.

glasscutter43 12-07-2010 10:00 PM
If any of the cables released by Assange save the US government any money, Assange might qualify for a reward of 10% of any savings under the US goverment's own "Whistleblower" program. Kind of ironic.

dksuddeth 12-08-2010 08:42 AM
'authorized journalist' could soon become reality
 
A while back, I made a comment about freedom of the press being severely restricted to 'authorized journalists' in a thread i'm sure that somewhere I was probably cop bashing. In that thread, someone scoffed at the notion that this could possibly happen. Well, it may soon become reality if Holder has his way.

An Assange prosecution would raise 1st Amendment issues | McClatchy

Quote:
top Obama administration officials are considering filing an extradition request with Sweden to have WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange face criminal charges, possibly for espionage.

Any such proceedings would set up a test of whether the First Amendment's protection for a free press extends to a website with a worldwide audience.

loquitur 12-08-2010 10:45 AM
This rape business with Assange is ridiculous. One of the reasons I detest broad criminal laws is that if the authorities are out to get you they can always find something to charge you with. So now with Assange it's apparently fucking without a condom. Bloody ridiculous. If they can't charge him with illegally stealing other people's data, which is what he and his confederates did which is so objectionable, then they should leave him free.

I remember that back in law school, when I took my criminal law course, it struck me that the laws are written so broadly that everyone is a criminal -- the only thing that saves most of us is the good sense of prosecutors and the limited resources allocated to law enforcement. But the problem with giving government agents discretion is that it's really easy for them to abuse it.

I take the rule of law very very seriously. There is little that is worse than governmental lawlessness or standardless discretion. That is, simply put, tyranny.

Wes Mantooth 12-08-2010 10:59 AM
Yup I agree, either the fellow broke the law and can be charged or he didn't. Simply finding ANYTHING they can think of to throw at him to make a point or just "get him off the street" is sad and quite frankly making a mockery out of the law.

Absurd.

dlish 12-08-2010 11:10 AM
Loq - but he didnt break the law. someone else within the US government breached that trust and passed the information onto wikileaks.

so really, Assange has done absolutely nothing illegal, probably cant be charged, or wont be charged unless they come up with a retrospective law to pin him to. hes an aussie that lived in sweden who recieved documents from someone who stole them from the US government. we can speak about whether something is morally right or morally wrong, but essentially, if he hasnt broken the law then he should be free.

roachboy 12-08-2010 11:29 AM
as the details of this charge have surfaced, it's strained credulity...even as it is apparently the law in sweden that a broken condom can result in a rape charge in the context of consensual sex. why that would be the case, i've no idea--not an expert on swedish law by any means.

there has been some information floating about that's labels assange's accuser as someone who's been involved with anti-castro groups etc. but i've no idea how credible it is so haven't put anything here or relayed it elsewhere.

this feels like a put-up job, frankly, as it does to alot of people. beyond that, i agree with loquitor, above.

this is an interesting take, from political scientist henry farrell

Quote:
State power and the response to Wikileaks

The US response to Wikileaks has been an interesting illustration of both the limits and extent of state power in an age of transnational information flows. The problem for the US has been quite straightforward. The Internet makes it more difficult for states (even powerful ones such as the US) to control information flows across their own borders and others. It is much easier than it used to be for actors to hop jurisdictions by e.g. moving a particular Internet based service from one country to another, while still making it possible for people across many countries to access the service. This makes it much harder for the US and other actors to use the traditional tools of statecraft - their jurisdiction does not extend far enough to stop the actors who they would like to stop.

However, there is a set of tools that states can use to greater effect. The Internet and other networks provide some private actors with a great deal of effective transnational power. Banks that operate across multiple jurisdictions can shape financial flows between these jurisdictions. Information companies may be able to reshape flows of information in ways that advantage or disadvantage particular actors. These private actors are often large, relatively immobile, and partially dependent on state approval for their actions. They thus provide a crucial resource for states. Even if states cannot directly regulate small agile actors outside their jurisdiction, they can indirectly regulate them by pressganging big private actors with cross-jurisdictional reach. A few years ago, the US found itself unable to regulate Internet gambling firms which were based in Antigua and selling their services to US customers. But the US was able to tell its banks that they would suffer legal and political consequences if they allowed transactions between US customers and Antiguan gambling firms, helping to drive the latter out of existence.

This is the topic of my least cited article evah (PDF), where I argue that:

states are not limited to direct regulation; they can use indirect means, pressing Internet service providers (ISPs) or other actors to implement state policy. For example, states might require ISPs to block their users from having access to a particular site, or to take down sites with certain kinds of content. More generally ... a small group of privileged private actors can become "points of control"--states can use them to exert control over a much broader group of other private actors. This is because the former private actors control chokepoints in the information infrastructure or in other key networks of resources. They can block or control flows of data or of other valuable resources among a wide variety of other private actors. Thus, it is not always necessary for a state to exercise direct control over all the relevant private actors in a given issue area in order to be a successful regulator.

And this is exactly what the US is doing in response to Wikileaks. US political pressure caused Amazon to stop hosting Wikileaks, EveryDNS to break Wikileaks.org's domain name, eBay/Paypal to stop facilitating financial transactions, Swiss Post to freeze a Wikileaks bank account (in perhaps the first instance in recorded history of a Swiss bank taking residency requirements seriously), and Mastercard and Visa to cease relations with it. This is unlikely to affect the availability of the information that Wikileaks has already leaked. But it may plausibly affect the medium and long run viability of Wikileaks as an organization. This will be a very interesting battle to watch

The Monkey Cage: State power and the response to Wikileaks

cite from here:
WikiLeaks US embassy cables: live updates | News | guardian.co.uk

i'm also quite interested in operation payback, but havent the time at the moment to make a post about it. anyone else following this?

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------

and this is a press release in support of wikileaks signed by daniel ellsberg, among others. strong stuff:

Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures -- Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)

mixedmedia 12-08-2010 11:30 AM
The article that smeth posted last week revealed a little more detail about the rape charges. They primarily extend from an encounter with a woman that weekend with whom he was having sex without a condom. She claims that she asked him to stop when she realized he wasn't wearing one and he didn't...or something. It's not clear.

The incident with the broken condom occurred with another woman and an acquaintance of the woman above. After that weekend, the 'no condom' woman decided to go to the police and the 'broken condom' woman went with her to lend support, not intending to press charges but related her story and, it's unclear how, ended up pressing charges as well.

It's all very puzzling and confusing. But not quite as simple as 'his condom broke.'

One thing it is safe to conclude, Mssr. Assange likes to get biz-ay with the lay-lay. :)

dlish 12-08-2010 11:39 AM
from what ive read the two women coincidentally met when one of them called his office asking for him because he said he'd call. one of them was working in his office temporarily. thats when they realised they had met before and that he'd been chopping them both in the space of a few days.

smells like a case of a woman (women?) scorned.

mixedmedia 12-08-2010 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlish (Post 2849630)
from what ive read the two women coincidentally met when one of them called his office asking for him because he said he'd call. one of them was working in his office temporarily. thats when they realised they had met before and that he'd been chopping them both in the space of a few days.

smells like a case of a woman (women?) scorned.
It could be.

From what I understand, though, the most he would face if found guilty was a fine. So I've been a little mystified as to why he would go to so much trouble to avoid arrest considering what's at stake.

Cimarron29414 12-08-2010 12:31 PM
MM-

I believe his fear is that, once arrested in Sweden, he would be turned over to U.S. authorities - as there is an extradition treaty in place. This being premised on the U.S. actually pressing charges against him.

mixedmedia 12-08-2010 12:35 PM
yes, I can understand that.
Even though it seems unlikely from my perspective, it must be a looming possibility from his.

Cimarron29414 12-08-2010 12:42 PM
There is supporting evidence that the U.S. has retained people without charges or trial. ;) While I seriously doubt Sweden would just hand him over...

mixedmedia 12-08-2010 12:56 PM
uh, yeah.

I get the feeling there is a lot that we don't know about this particular situation.

debaser 12-08-2010 01:21 PM
Our government would be remiss if he is not charged with espionage. What he did clearly violates 18 U.S.C. § 798 and he should be punished.

I am all for greater transparency in government, but I also realize that for our national interests to be served there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy in diplomatic communications. There are second and third order effects of revealing this information, and I do not trust an anarchist egomaniac to properly decipher what those are, or act accordingly if he did. This is not a case of whistleblowing, this is simply the dumping of raw information with absolutely no context or prior greivance.

ring 12-08-2010 01:38 PM
roachboy writes:

"i'm also quite interested in operation payback, but havent the time at the moment to make a post about it. anyone else following this?"

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz17YbEND6m

I've been reading about what they are doing.
I know very little about computers & the language & nothing about hacking.
This type of disruption is very effective & I my lack of computer knowledge brain wonders why it hasn't been used more often.

It's a bit overwhelming. Computers go down & transactions halt.
At the grocery store & bank -during a recent power outage,
the clerks stood blinking & foundered. "Uhh, you'll just have to come back later."

Quite the revolutionary tool that I'm surprised hasn't been used sooner.

Cimarron29414 12-08-2010 01:41 PM
debaser,

The link to the statute was very helpful. Thank you.

roachboy 12-08-2010 01:48 PM
it may be helpful but the fact is that it's not obvious that the statute applies.
this is not a clear-cut situation.
but read on:

Quote:
U.S. Prosecutors Study WikiLeaks Prosecution
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department, in considering whether and how it might indict Julian Assange, is looking beyond the Espionage Act of 1917 to other possible offenses, including conspiracy or trafficking in stolen property, according to officials familiar with the investigation.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. acknowledged this week that there were problems with the Espionage Act, a World War I-era law that says the unauthorized possession and dissemination of information related to national defense is illegal. But he also hinted that prosecutors were looking at other statutes with regard to Mr. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

“I don’t want to get into specifics here, but people would have a misimpression if the only statute you think that we are looking at is the Espionage Act,” Mr. Holder said Monday at a news conference. “That is certainly something that might play a role, but there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal.”

Last week, The New York Times and four other news organizations began carrying articles based on an archive of a quarter-million confidential State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to them. After WikiLeaks released a batch of government documents concerning Iraq and Afghanistan in July, Mr. Holder and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, both said the leaks were being investigated, and Mr. Assange said United States officials had previously warned his organization that there had been “thoughts of whether I could be charged as a co-conspirator to espionage, which is serious.”

Mr. Assange was arrested Tuesday in Britain in connection with a Swedish investigation into accusations of sexual offenses. But United States law enforcement officials said the fact that he was in custody did not affect their deliberations about whether he might be charged in this country in connection with the publication of leaked government documents.

Prosecutors have used the Espionage Act to convict officials who leaked classified information. They have never successfully convicted any leak recipient who then passed the information along, however, and the Justice Department has never tried to prosecute a journalist —which Mr. Assange portrays himself as being — under either a Republican or a Democratic administration.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said Tuesday on Fox News that he believed The Times should be investigated alongside WikiLeaks, although he cautioned, “This is very sensitive stuff because it gets into the America’s First Amendment.”

“I certainly believe that WikiLleaks has violated the Espionage Act, but then what about the news organizations — including The Times — that accepted it and distributed it?” Mr. Lieberman said, adding: “To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, and whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.”

A government official familiar with the investigation said that treating WikiLeaks different from newspapers might be facilitated if investigators found any evidence that Mr. Assange aided the leaker, who is believed to be a low-level Army intelligence analyst — for example, by directing him to look for certain things and providing technological assistance.

If Mr. Assange did collaborate in the original disclosure, then prosecutors could charge him with conspiracy in the underlying leak, skirting the question of whether the subsequent publication of the documents constituted a separate criminal offense. But while investigators have looked for such evidence, there is no public sign suggesting that they have found any.

Meanwhile, according to another government official familiar with the investigation, Justice Department officials have also examined whether Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks could be charged with trafficking in stolen government property.

But scholars say there might be legal difficulties with that approach, too, because the leaked documents are reproductions of files the government still possesses, not physical objects missing from its file cabinets. That means they are covered by intellectual property law, not ordinary property law.

“This is less about stealing than it is about copying,” said John G. Palfrey, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in Internet issues and intellectual property.

Intellectual property law criminalizes the unauthorized reproduction of certain kinds of commercial information, like trade secrets or copyrighted music, films and software files. But those categories do not appear to cover government documents, which by law cannot be copyrighted and for which there is no ordinary commercial market.

Mr. Assange has received leaks of private-sector information as well. He has indicated, for example, that his next step might be to publish a copy of the contents of a hard drive belonging to an executive at a bank — apparently, Bank of America.

If he does so, some of the problems associated with trying to find a way to prosecute him for distributing leaked government documents could disappear. The works of a person in the private sector are automatically copyrighted, and bank documents could be deemed trade secrets.

“If you had large-scale dissemination of a private-sector company’s records, there might be some kind of argument there similar to commercial espionage,” said James Boyle, a Duke University law professor who specializes in intellectual property and public-domain issues.

There would still be obstacles. For example, Mr. Assange could claim that his distribution of the files was allowable under the “fair use” exception to copyright law and that it was not for financial gain. Still, “fair use” does not allow wholesale reproduction, and prosecutors could argue that his organization was raising money from its activities.

Even so, Mr. Boyle cautioned, intellectual property law is not well designed to prosecute what WikiLeaks is doing.

“The reason people are upset about this is not about commercial theft or misusing the fabulous original expressions of U.S. diplomats,” Mr. Boyle said. “I think it is the wrong tool. You go after Al Capone for tax evasion rather than bootlegging — fine. But this is a bridge too far.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/08leak.html

further, i think that the political damage that would happen as a function of making a martyr of assange far outweighs any imaginable benefit:


Quote:
The World from Berlin
Assange's 'Martyr Status' Further Damages US Reputation

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested in London and denied bail on charges of rape and sexual molestation. German opinion makers are split on what the arrest really means. One thing they agree on: The reputation of the US continues to suffer.

The London arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange made headlines in all of the major German newspapers Wednesday, with several noting how welcomed the arrest was in the United States, and editorialists discussing what freedom of information means in the world's last remaining superpower.

Assange, who turned himself over to Scotland Yard authorities on Tuesday morning, was denied bail by the British judge overseeing the case. He has been accused in Sweden of one count of rape, one count of unlawful coercion and two counts of sexual molestation, involving incidents which allegedly occured in August 2010. The Swedish public prosecutor's office had issued a European warrant to bring Assange in for questioning.

The arrest came as Assange, the 39-year-old WikiLeaks founder, faced increasing pressure from all corners of the world -- Sweden, the United States, and even his home nation, Australia -- following the stream of secret US diplomatic leaks that have been published by his website and several major news organizations, including SPIEGEL.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told reporters in Afghanistan Tuesday that Assange's arrest: "Sounds like good news to me." Several prominent US politicians had been calling for his arrest, and former Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin said he should be tracked down and hunted like Osama bin Laden. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said that Assange's publication of the US diplomatic cables on his website was illegal.

In his response published Wednesday in the daily The Australian, Assange calls organization the "underdog" and writes: "Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organizations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small."

He also writes that the Australian government is "trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings."

Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said that Assange would get consular support in Britain, and told The Australian: "What we do with Australians in strife anywhere in the world is that we take the view that our responsibility is to ensure the consular rights and legal rights of all Australians abroad are protected. And that includes Mr. Assange."

WikiLeaks spokesman, Kristinn Hrafnsson, wrote on Twitter: "We will not be gagged, either by judicial action or corporate censorship."

The Agence France Presse agency reported Wednesday that Assange supporters hacked into the e-mail system of the Swedish public prosecutor's office in response to his arrest.

Some well-known US politicians are now casting the net wider. "To me the New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, but whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department," US Senator Joe Lieberman told Fox News.

Meanwhile, the German newspapers were split on what Assange's arrest really meant -- a case of Swedish justice, or a convenient way to silence him. Some questioned how a country that long valued freedom of information could now stand against it. The damage done to the reputation of the United States just continues, they say.

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

"The reputation of the United States has been damaged by the WikiLeaks-controlled release of secret documents. That is true… But the United States' reputation is being damaged much more right now as they attempt -- with all of their means -- to muzzle WikiLeaks and its head, Julian Assange. By doing so, the US is betraying one of its founding myths: Freedom of information. And they are doing so now, because for the first time since the end of the Cold War, they are threatened with losing worldwide control of information."

"'The first real information war has begun,' writes US civil rights activist John-Perry Barlow. 'The battlefield is WikiLeaks.' He is right. With the doctrine 'Free Flow of Information' the US has dominated the flow of information and most of its content for decades. They said that every person had the right, everywhere, and without limitations, to collect information and to broadcast and disseminate it. That was a tremendous doctrine, as long as only American companies had the power, the means, and the logisitical capabilities, to make use of this freedom. That changed somewhat with the Internet, but companies like Apple, Windows, Google, Facebook and Amazon advance US-domination in the supposedly democratic Internet. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the first who have used the power of the Internet against the United States. That is why they are being mercilessly pursued. That is why the government is betraying one of the principles of democracy."

The conservative daily Die Welt writes:

"The Swedish public prosecutor's office merely wants to question the Australian Assange about the serious accusations that have been made about him. So far, Assange has balked at this explanation of the facts. His supporters sense that the fix is in, and that the rape charges have been faked to harm the WikiLeaks project."

"If that were true, both of the Swedes, who Assange doesn't deny knowing, and the Swedish prosecutor must be following a secret agenda dictated to them by the United States. Until now, there has not been a single form of proof for that, to make one take it seriously. In Sweden, it is explicitly not about the political damage that the WikiLeaks-activist has caused."

"Obviously, he assumed that the elasticity of law and order in the Internet also applies to real life. But that is where he was wrong. His arrest is proof that in real life the rule of law can have harsher consequences. Even still."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"The arrest is as potentially scandalous and it is superfluous. The operation has produced a martyr, and he has asked if it is all really about the legally offered explanation of the rape charges. Or, if instead it is more about getting a man out of the way, who, in the opinion of numerous US politicians, is Public Enemy No.1."

"And that is the case, even though no one can explain what crimes Assange allegedly committed with the publication of the secret documents, or why publication by WikiLeaks was an offense, and in the New York Times, it was not."

"The already damaged reputation of the United States will only be further tattered with Assange's new martyr status. And whether or not the openly embraced hope of the US government that along with Assange, WikiLeaks will disappear from the scene, is questionable. A platform like WikiLeaks should be able to survive without a frontman, who was just as glamorous as he was polarizing, and whose autocratic leadership style cost him important employees even months ago."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"In the so-called 'war on terror' the democracies of the US and Europe have not only instigated wars without satisfactory reasons but have also tried to reduce the privacy, civil rights and liberties of their citizens. More power for the state but less transparency for the people -- this asymmetrical conflict is self-inflicted by countries like the US and it has created a need for a platform like Wikileaks."

"The new anti-terror powers have made it difficult to bring criticism into the public domain. But now it is much easier to understand 'when who has talked to whom about what'. It doesn't matter if the threat was more imagined than real - it still gave rise to the need for a trustworthy channel. Classic media could not fill this need: It doesn't have a clear awareness of the new, general feeling of being threatened, nor the technical know-how. Wikileaks had both."

"Julian Assange is the star of Wikileaks but the need for his website is bigger than the need for him. If Wikileaks doesn't survive the current attacks then similar sites will take its place, as long as there is a need for them."

The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel writes:

"'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter': this Anglo-Saxon saying still holds true in the Internet age. To the US, Assange is a terrorist; to the Internet community, he is a pioneer of freedom. The favourable view of Assange seems to have more sympathy here in Germany -- in any case, discussions use the words 'platform for exposure' and not 'espionage.' However this perception is based on the unproven assumption that Assange was driven by pure motives -- a desire to enlighten."

"One doesn't need a conspiracy theory to have doubts. The mass production of secret documents on WikiLeaks exhibits no particular strategy apart from the exposure of powerful institutions. Assange clearly wants to destabilize the system -- or all the systems. The content as well as the sheer mass of data should ensure that. Many people's clandestine joy over this anarchic strategy of obstruction is a political signal. This is why the conflict with Assange cannot be won through political or economic means. The institutions that Wikileaks attacks must demonstrate the legitimacy of their actions. If that happens, then Assange really will have achieved something for democracy."

-- Mary Beth Warner and Jill Petzing
The World from Berlin: Assange's 'Martyr Status' Further Damages US Reputation - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Willravel 12-08-2010 01:57 PM
Needs to be a t-shirt:

When in Sweden, double wrap.

mrmacq 12-08-2010 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2849282)
mrmacq,

For the love of Pete, please don't discuss politics in Haiku. Please type like a normal person. Please.
haiku?
as in

"English haiku do not adhere to the strict syllable count found in Japanese haiku, and the typical length of haiku appearing in the main English-language journals is 10–14 syllables. Some haiku poets are concerned with their haiku being expressed in one breath and the extent to which their haiku focus on "showing" as opposed to "telling".

This is the genius of haiku using an economy of words to paint a multi-tiered painting, without "telling all".

Or as Matsuo Bashō puts it, "The haiku that reveals seventy to eighty percent of its subject is good. Those that reveal fifty to sixty percent, we never tire of...

nah
just my way of posting

sorry if you tire of it so quickly
(youre suggesting im abby normal?)

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------

[/COLOR]
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2849620)
as the details of this charge have surfaced, it's strained credulity...even as it is apparently the law in sweden that a broken condom can result in a rape charge in the context of consensual sex. why that would be the case, i've no idea--not an expert on swedish law by any means.

there has been some information floating about that's labels assange's accuser as someone who's been involved with anti-castro groups etc. but i've no idea how credible it is so haven't put anything here or relayed it elsewhere.

this feels like a put-up job, frankly, as it does to alot of people. beyond that, i agree with loquitor, above.

this is an interesting take, from political scientist henry farrell




The Monkey Cage: State power and the response to Wikileaks

cite from here:
WikiLeaks US embassy cables: live updates | News | guardian.co.uk

i'm also quite interested in operation payback, but havent the time at the moment to make a post about it. anyone else following this?

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------

and this is a press release in support of wikileaks signed by daniel ellsberg, among others. strong stuff:

Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures -- Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)
“This is what happens when you exercise the First Amendment and speak against his sick, un-American espionage efforts,”
palin

yup could have been the VP we'd be dealing with now

oh my frikin god
narrowly escaped that one

"also targeted Amazon, the internet retailer, which provoked their fury by withdrawing server space being used by WikiLeaks to host the government documents.

PayPal admitted it blocked payments to the group – which is embarrassing the US government by steadily releasing a cache of more than 250,000 cables – amid pressure from the State department.

Anonymous's "distributed denial of service" attacks, which have become the standard weapon of cyber warfare, appeared to have temporarily crippled the companies websites last night.

They also brought down the sites of Swedish prosecutors, who are pursuing Julian Assange,

tis elementary my dear watson

dlish 12-08-2010 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2849695)
Our government would be remiss if he is not charged with espionage. What he did clearly violates 18 U.S.C. § 798 and he should be punished.

I am all for greater transparency in government, but I also realize that for our national interests to be served there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy in diplomatic communications. There are second and third order effects of revealing this information, and I do not trust an anarchist egomaniac to properly decipher what those are, or act accordingly if he did. This is not a case of whistleblowing, this is simply the dumping of raw information with absolutely no context or prior greivance.

does this law apply to american nationals only? or is its jurisdictions against foreign nationals? how far reaching is its jurisdiction if the crime was commited in another country and not american soil?

i guess this is the broad criminal laws Loq was talking about

mrmacq 12-08-2010 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlish (Post 2849855)
does this law apply to american nationals only? or is its jurisdictions against foreign nationals? how far reaching is its jurisdiction if the crime was commited in another country and not american soil?

i guess this is the broad criminal laws Loq was talking about
you ask an interesting question
theres some down there that suggest its treasonous
hello?
"or for treason charges that have been suggested by U.S. politicians, "

now why am i laughing my butt off?

"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely ..."

and here i thought we employed the best-est and brightest
to run this world of ours

oh silly me

dippin 12-08-2010 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2849695)
Our government would be remiss if he is not charged with espionage. What he did clearly violates 18 U.S.C. § 798 and he should be punished.

I am all for greater transparency in government, but I also realize that for our national interests to be served there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy in diplomatic communications. There are second and third order effects of revealing this information, and I do not trust an anarchist egomaniac to properly decipher what those are, or act accordingly if he did. This is not a case of whistleblowing, this is simply the dumping of raw information with absolutely no context or prior greivance.
By that definition, the new york times should also be charged.

mrmacq 12-08-2010 09:16 PM
"Our government would be remiss if he is not charged with espionage. What he did clearly violates 18 U.S.C. § 798 and he should be punished. "


Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...#ixzz17aO91I9Y

798. Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States
or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;
The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.
(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853 (b), (c), and (e)–(p)), shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524 (c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

ah yes the united states version of whats right
the same ones that wont recognise the international courts
or even those courts its deemed as friends

your expressions of self righteous selflessness
is getting tiresome

the bully with the big stick

face it
a lie was exposed

welcome to life

now deal with it
responsibly
(if at all able)

or perhaps we'll see his name on the gitmo registry

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 PM ----------

ya know
the more this goes on
the more im apt to think
you guys got more you wish hidden

circling those wagons

like past interventions of yours werent enough
the great satan?
(wears a white (well sort of discoloUred hat))

i sit here in amazement

Cimarron29414 12-09-2010 07:42 AM
mrmacq,

So it is how you post. Fair enough:

The
trouble
is
that
it
makes
your
post
take
up
too
much
damned
space
on
the
screen
and
makes
it
far
more
difficult
to
read
and
process.
It
disrupts
what
could
be
a
stimulating
discussion
(
Your
posts
certainly
have
great
content.
)
with
a
sort
of
"
look
at
me
"
narcissism.
It's
up
to
you
if
you
want
to
keep
doing
it.
Personally,
I'm
less
likely
to
read
them,
although
others
may
disagree.
Don't
mind
how
I
posted
this,
it's
just
how
I
roll.

dogzilla 12-09-2010 08:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2849888)
By that definition, the new york times should also be charged.
If it can be proven that any of these disclosures were responsible for compromising US security or resulted in death or injury to formerly confidential sources then prosecute the NYT as well.

roachboy 12-09-2010 08:43 AM
figures that the ultra-right would see in this an excuse to threaten one of their favorite Persecuting Others in the ny times.

it makes sense, given that one of the main consequences of the leaks about iraq and afghanistan is evidence for a strong case against members of the bush administration for war crimes.

clearly the problem is the ny times.

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

addition: here's a pew research poll regarding popular reaction in the us to wikileaks.

Public Sees WikiLeaks as Harmful - Pew Research Center


it appears that people still like to like what they're told they like to like in the way they're told they like to like those things.

Cimarron29414 12-09-2010 09:12 AM
I don't think there is a single news organization who has not published one of these cables or leaks. I don't see how one could reasonably apply Debaser's statute to every news organization. But, how will it look if one targets only wikileaks? The nature by which the classified information was published makes it difficult to say "this and only this organization can be held criminally liable." Surely, we can foresee the NYT simply stating, "we didn't release it, we simply reported on the release." I believe I've also heard that, at some point, information becomes common knowledge and news organizations can report on it without risk - the Valerie Plame affair comes to mind.

Suffice to say, from my point of view, it is complicated to prosecute on this matter and any action will appear politically motivated since the line is so difficult to draw.

I might add, I believe Assange is just itching to find a reason to release that password. I don't hold him in high regard, so I believe he's capable of inventing one.

dogzilla 12-09-2010 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2850059)
figures that the ultra-right would see in this an excuse to threaten one of their favorite Persecuting Others in the ny
Believing the government should protect it's national security interests and believing the government shouldn't spend money it doesn't have is hardly 'ultra right'.

Al Queda and other terrorist groups have no interest in playing by the Geneva Convention, the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury or any other rules. I see no reason why we should make it easier for them to track down people who have helped the US in the past with confidential information, or why a list of sites sensitive to national security should be published. Sure, a bright terrorist group could figure some of this out on their own, but why help them?

I might not agree with the NYT on some issues, but as long as they aren't compromising US security and people's safety, no big deal.

dksuddeth 12-09-2010 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2850104)
Believing the government should protect it's national security interests and believing the government shouldn't spend money it doesn't have is hardly 'ultra right'.


I might not agree with the NYT on some issues, but as long as they aren't compromising US security and people's safety, no big deal.
who do we trust to tell us whether it should be a secret kept from us or not?

roachboy 12-09-2010 10:16 AM
for once, i agree with dk.

and it's bizarre to read conservatives who in any other context talk about how evil and irrational the state is now flocking to defend its prerogatives to conceal information from them.

dogzilla 12-09-2010 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2850108)
who do we trust to tell us whether it should be a secret kept from us or not?
Given a choice between people in the government who have the background in national security and military issues and people like wikileaks or news reporters whose purpose seems to be to generate scandals to report about, I'll choose the government. The media has its own agenda too and shouldn't always be trusted either.

ASU2003 12-09-2010 10:50 AM
I want to see the media investigated and 'some' stories on how they operate.

dksuddeth 12-09-2010 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2850129)
Given a choice between people in the government who have the background in national security and military issues and people like wikileaks or news reporters whose purpose seems to be to generate scandals to report about, I'll choose the government. The media has its own agenda too and shouldn't always be trusted either.
Uncle Sam is proud of you for being a fine, upstanding, and patriotic follower. :thumbsup:

Willravel 12-09-2010 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2850129)
Given a choice between people in the government who have the background in national security and military issues and people like wikileaks or news reporters whose purpose seems to be to generate scandals to report about, I'll choose the government. The media has its own agenda too and shouldn't always be trusted either.
You'll choose Obama and Biden and Hillary and Rahm (or now what's-his-face)? I call bullshit. You're just being anti-left for the sake of being anti-left. You see what the liberals on the internet are supporting and choosing the opposite. Wikileaks is all about small, transparent, accountable government, which is the absolute central tenant of Republicanism, and suddenly the right is opposed to it? Give me a break.

roachboy 12-09-2010 12:39 PM
when it comes to almost everything, conservatives assume that the people who work for the state are entirely incompetent--they don't understand the manly man world of bidness, they work to actively "punish success" by having the audacity to favor social stability over individual gain, the "produce crisis" by interfering with the magickal operations of the Market....but now, in this context, the state is manned to the gills with skilled professionals who know better than anyone else possibily could what's best for everyone.

i believe this is what we call horseshit.

dksuddeth 12-09-2010 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2850164)
You'll choose Obama and Biden and Hillary and Rahm (or now what's-his-face)? I call bullshit. You're just being anti-left for the sake of being anti-left. You see what the liberals on the internet are supporting and choosing the opposite. Wikileaks is all about small, transparent, accountable government, which is the absolute central tenant of Republicanism, and suddenly the right is opposed to it? Give me a break.
Will, this is no longer true. Hasn't been since reagan. both left and right are for bigger central government, they just have different ideologies to pursue it for. the only reason the 'right' is against wikileaks now is that republicans are for a military/police state and wikileaks is causing harm to that.

Willravel 12-09-2010 12:58 PM
I know, but it's fun to point out.

debaser 12-09-2010 01:28 PM
Before we get too much hyperbole in here let me just state this:


There is a balance that needs to be struck between totalitarianism and anarchy, and this is not it. What great scandal or corruption was outed? How does publishing a list of sensitive sites benefit the democratic process?

I am all for whistleblowing that solves a problem, but this has done no such thing. It is in all respects like a kid copying his sisters diary and hanging it up around the high school.

---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmacq (Post 2849898)

face it
a lie was exposed
And what lie was that?

roachboy 12-09-2010 01:40 PM
you know, debaser, were the state department cables the only information to be leaked i might be closer to agreement---this despite the fact that as i read through and about them i think that it was, in fact, a very great service that was performed through their release because a lot of what has been happening in the world internationally is clearer for it. and you'd think that would be a good thing in a democratic system, since the people are supposed to be in a position to make informed decisions about political questions. of course i am under no illusions...the united states is not in fact such a system...but it talks the talk and now has to eat the words.

this is a big problem internationally, btw. the us is taking it in the face **for their reaction** to the leak. not for the leak. for their reaction to it.

but the iraq documents in particular revealed clear evidence of what i take to be war crimes carried out by people within the bush administration.

no wonder the conservative elite wants this sort of thing stopped.

debaser 12-09-2010 01:48 PM
I am not being snide, I really have not had the chance to look at the documents in question in any real depth. Which incidents/documents are you refering to? If they do show misconduct, then I applaud their release. However, I still have to question the logic behind the release of the documents that have no such relevence.

Just because I help an old lady across the street does not excuse me from selling heroin to her grandson.

roachboy 12-09-2010 01:56 PM
the iraq documents shows the whole pattern of condoning torture, of reporting it when witnessed in the context of a system that assured there'd be no investigation, etc. it outlines the implications of the bush administrations (bogus) legal position on the question of torture; similarly with the rendition process; similarly with guantanomo.

there hasn't even been a chilcot commission in the united states (the state cables reveal information about the extent to which chilcot was constructed to protect american interests, btw...) no investigation of how this was possible, no attempt to tail back the expansive claims to executive impunity advanced by the bush people. nothing.

in that, i think wikileaks performed a valuable service.

on the afghanistan leaks, i think there is alot of interesting and disturbing information that should have been public from the outset--one can argue about where the line would be drawn optimally---but it's clear that the pentagon's post-vietnam strategy of total information management and a massive over-reaching of the legitimate uses of classification of information has to be pushed back. and wikileaks has demonstrated something of why and how that's the case.

the state cables are interesting, like i've been saying. they repay reading about. then there's a conversation to be had, maybe.

Willravel 12-09-2010 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2850186)
What great scandal or corruption was outed?
Many. One of the most recent is how the United States and China worked together behind the scenes to sabotage the climate summit. There are numerous scandals and instances of corruption outed by this leak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2850186)
How does publishing a list of sensitive sites benefit the democratic process?
First and foremost, it demonstrates in no uncertain terms that basically every government classifies in instances that have nothing to do with imperative state secrets and saving lives. Overuse of secrets is inherently anti-democratic in the most fundamental way: if the voting public is having the wool pulled over our eyes on pivotal issues, we vote without all the facts. Free press is part of our democracy. Free speech is part of our democracy.

Whole books could be written on how wikileaks serves democracy.

ASU2003 12-09-2010 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2850164)
You'll choose Obama and Biden and Hillary and Rahm (or now what's-his-face)? I call bullshit. You're just being anti-left for the sake of being anti-left. You see what the liberals on the internet are supporting and choosing the opposite. Wikileaks is all about small, transparent, accountable government, which is the absolute central tenant of Republicanism, and suddenly the right is opposed to it? Give me a break.
I don't see this as a right vs. left issue. The handling of it hasn't been that bad, and seems like Wikileaks is just playing it up for attention by releasing them slowly on the site, but all of them in a torrent file. And I want to see government accountable and small, yet there are secrets that need to be kept from the general public and foreign nations.

I'm not saying that Wikileaks should go away anymore, just that they should be professional journalists (or work with them) and figure out what the public should know of crimes being committed or politically unfavorable choices being made. But not just putting a bunch of random things on-line which may not mean anything to 99.9% of the population, but is critical for the other .1% to find out. And over-classification isn't a crime, yet security managers need to be the ones checking it out.

debaser 12-09-2010 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2850212)
Many. One of the most recent is how the United States and China worked together behind the scenes to sabotage the climate summit. There are numerous scandals and instances of corruption outed by this leak.
I think the word you are looking fo is shitty, not corrupt. States act in their own rational self interest, and perhaps the US and China feel that it is not in theirs to participate in the climate summit. This may be a shocker, but countries do not always do what they say, or say what they do...

Now if you could show me a memo that demonstrated that the administration acted only after accepting a payoff from the oil industry or somesuch, I will join you with torches at the gate...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2850212)
First and foremost, it demonstrates in no uncertain terms that basically every government classifies in instances that have nothing to do with imperative state secrets and saving lives. Overuse of secrets is inherently anti-democratic in the most fundamental way: if the voting public is having the wool pulled over our eyes on pivotal issues, we vote without all the facts. Free press is part of our democracy. Free speech is part of our democracy.

Whole books could be written on how wikileaks serves democracy.
And undermines it.

Do we overclassify? You bet. I have to deal with it every day, and it is a major pain in the ass. Is it for the purposes of denying you your rights? Absolutely not. Information is generally classified at the lowest, most operational levels and continues to be classified as it becomes part of larger issues not because there is an evil scheme to hide problems from the voter (though that is a "convenient" side effect), but because it is an arduous process to declassify anything that has been classified. There are people whos sole job it is to declassify information. They are pitted against the entire lower tiers of the government beaurocracy, all of whom are classifying stuff like mad.

Example:

An Army private (not the treasonous kind) sits at a secret computer creating documents from patrol debreifs in Iraq. He is 19 years old, and wishes to avoid being shit on and/or missing dinner, both of which can be caused by pissing off his platoon sergeant. He has been told that he has the authority to determine the classification level (up to secret) of any document he creates. He has also been told that any information that comes off of his computer is to be treated as secret as a matter of course. The shit on a shingle and XBOX are calling. What do you think he is going to do once he is done with a routine patrol debreif that contains NO classified material whatsoever?

Yep.

Now if anyone wants to use the information contained in that report they must hold a secret clearance or , if they wish to release it to individuals who do not hold clearances, they must take it to the proper declassification authority. In that case that authority is the US Army. The Army has people trained and authorized to declassify information. There are about 2 of them for every 4500 soldiers. They must review the document and view it in the both current and possible future operational contexts before deciding to declassify it.

But wait! There's more...

Let's pretend that patrol gave a pump to a village so they could grow whatever the fuck grows in that godforsaken shithole. A state department dude thinks that's pretty cool, and puts it in his report which also contains information from the CIA on friendly villages in the area which was classified to prevent removal of said village elders heads.

Now to declassify the report you must go through a "Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel" (ISCAP henceforth), which as the name suggests, is not the simplest of procedures.


/example


Now the system above needs work, and there are abuses by those who wish to hide their malfeasance. That being said, do you really think that the answer to the problem is some shithead with an axe to grind simply dumping a ton of documents onto the internet? I think not.

You also bring up democracy. You need to realize that for you to have your utopian demopcracy, a lot of other people are going to have to suffer. For example I present the paper regarding US bombing of Yemeni targets and Ali Abdullah Saleh's boozing.

Saleh is a shitty leader. But what is the alternative? Anger over this cable could lead to his removal which will strengthen AQAP, probably to the point where nominal control of the country will slip to them. Now Will, I assume you do not want violent fundamentalists running Yemen, nor would anyone in Yemen if they really thought about it. Sure, no music or smiling or fun is all well and good, but when they start hanging women for talking to non-relatives I start to draw the line (unless they are accusing Julian Assange of rape, in that case the bitches had it coming).

Meh, I'm rambling. I guess what it comes down to is this. Countries need secrets just like they need armys. If they don't have them, some other country that does will destroy them and take what is theirs.

Are we to trust a criminal (Australian/Ex-hacker) to determine what secrets we as a country keep? Do you really think this will lead to a more transparent government?

I think it will lead to a far more draconian classification system that will not only prevent the proper dissemination of information to the public, but hamper the very agencies that make use of it legitimately on a day to day basis...

dogzilla 12-09-2010 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2850164)
You'll choose Obama and Biden and Hillary and Rahm (or now what's-his-face)? I call bullshit. You're just being anti-left for the sake of being anti-left. You see what the liberals on the internet are supporting and choosing the opposite. Wikileaks is all about small, transparent, accountable government, which is the absolute central tenant of Republicanism, and suddenly the right is opposed to it? Give me a break.
No. I mean the people in the military or security agencies who have the responsibility for classifying the information and who have the background to understand why material should be classified.

There is no way you are going to convince me that anyone on the wikileaks staff or any journalist has the detailed timely information they need to decide if information needs to be classified.

There's also no way that you are going to convince me that publishing a list of worldwide sites that are key to national security interests has anything to to with government transparency.

roachboy 12-09-2010 08:07 PM
what makes you think that assange is personally making these decisions, debaser, when the fact of the matter is that wikileaks has assembled a coalition with some of the major media outlets in the world, all of which are fully co-operating with wikileaks in the redaction and contextualizing of the information? all wikileaks is, really, is a conduit. that's it.

Willravel 12-09-2010 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2850288)
I think the word you are looking fo is shitty, not corrupt. States act in their own rational self interest, and perhaps the US and China feel that it is not in theirs to participate in the climate summit. This may be a shocker, but countries do not always do what they say, or say what they do...

Now if you could show me a memo that demonstrated that the administration acted only after accepting a payoff from the oil industry or somesuch, I will join you with torches at the gate...
I'm not getting in a semantic debate over the word 'scandal', debaser. The two largest polluters in the world secretly teamed up, something relatively uncommon, to undermine a global initiative that could have consequences for hundreds of years. That's a big deal whether you understand and accept climate science or not. BTW, Shell has infiltrated and has significant control of the Nigerian government, a Texas company pimped little boys to stone Afghani police, etc. etc. etc. but these aren't the point.

This is the point, debaser:
http://i.imgur.com/jacZd.jpg
This is wikileaks. Wikileaks is a check to balance out power that's wildly one-sided in this world. You and I have almost no power whatsoever, but because of organizations like wikileaks, we get some of the power that's taken from us back. They're giving us the tools to determine if the power we're giving up should be given up, so we can decide with all of the information if the government or corporations really are working in the best interest of the people. In that way, its truly democratic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2850288)
And undermines it.

Do we overclassify? You bet. I have to deal with it every day, and it is a major pain in the ass. Is it for the purposes of denying you your rights? Absolutely not.
No offense, but I think you're being naive. Classified documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have meant a solid Kerry win in 2004. Don't fool yourself: those in power use secrecy as a way to maintain and grow their power at your expense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2850288)
Now the system above needs work, and there are abuses by those who wish to hide their malfeasance. That being said, do you really think that the answer to the problem is some shithead with an axe to grind simply dumping a ton of documents onto the internet? I think not.
Wikileaks (not Assange) is hosting information leaked by someone else. It's a media outlet. They've demonstrated they have no axe to grind and the documents they've 'dumped' have all been vetted by experts and the offer was even made to have the US government go through them just to be sure. That request was denied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2850288)
You also bring up democracy. You need to realize that for you to have your utopian demopcracy, a lot of other people are going to have to suffer. For example I present the paper regarding US bombing of Yemeni targets and Ali Abdullah Saleh's boozing.

Saleh is a shitty leader. But what is the alternative? Anger over this cable could lead to his removal which will strengthen AQAP, probably to the point where nominal control of the country will slip to them. Now Will, I assume you do not want violent fundamentalists running Yemen, nor would anyone in Yemen if they really thought about it. Sure, no music or smiling or fun is all well and good, but when they start hanging women for talking to non-relatives I start to draw the line (unless they are accusing Julian Assange of rape, in that case the bitches had it coming).
I hate to break it to you, but this was all fairly well known long before the leak. The cable is a bit more public here in the states than, say, al Jazeera or Haaretz, but really people pretending like this is a big deal stinks of red herring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2850288)
Meh, I'm rambling. I guess what it comes down to is this. Countries need secrets just like they need armys. If they don't have them, some other country that does will destroy them and take what is theirs.

Are we to trust a criminal (Australian/Ex-hacker) to determine what secrets we as a country keep? Do you really think this will lead to a more transparent government?

I think it will lead to a far more draconian classification system that will not only prevent the proper dissemination of information to the public, but hamper the very agencies that make use of it legitimately on a day to day basis...
You're allowing the complete fuckwad morons on Fox News to blur the reality of this situation. They're trying to make it about Assange, but he's basically just a figurehead. The dump has nothing at all to do with Assange aside from the fact he's one cog of many in the machine of wikileaks. Assange is not a criminal, he's not an egomaniac, and he's not the issue. The issue is the documents.

I cannot say this enough: ignore Orly, Beck, Libaugh, Hannity and their ilk. This isn't a right/left thing, they're corrupt liars and anyone who listens to them will end up with a warped and incorrect understanding of reality. Ignore them.

debaser 12-09-2010 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2850327)
This is the point, debaser:
Handjobs from asian girls?

Quote:
Wikileaks is a check to balance out power that's wildly one-sided in this world. You and I have almost no power whatsoever, but because of organizations like wikileaks, we get some of the power that's taken from us back. They're giving us the tools to determine if the power we're giving up should be given up, so we can decide with all of the information if the government or corporations really are working in the best interest of the people. In that way, its truly democratic.
BS. They are giving you information that you have no business knowing at that level of detail which simply reinforces the way you believed anyway. The purpose of REAL journalists is to provide information in a way that is not harmful to the source and puts it in proper context. Wikileaks fail.

Quote:
No offense, but I think you're being naive. Classified documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have meant a solid Kerry win in 2004. Don't fool yourself: those in power use secrecy as a way to maintain and grow their power at your expense.
Sigh...

Reread my post.

Quote:
Wikileaks (not Assange) is hosting information leaked by someone else. It's a media outlet. They've demonstrated they have no axe to grind and the documents they've 'dumped' have all been vetted by experts and the offer was even made to have the US government go through them just to be sure. That request was denied.
He is the founder of Wikileaks, so I hold him responsible. It is as much of a "media outlet" as Photobucket. It was also making available documents to the agents of nations hostile to the United States, in direct violation of United States law. Why would any government, or individual, essentially help someone hock goods that had been stolen from them?

Quote:
I hate to break it to you, but this was all fairly well known long before the leak. The cable is a bit more public here in the states than, say, al Jazeera or Haaretz, but really people pretending like this is a big deal stinks of red herring.
So at the beginning of your post they were game changing tools to restore democracy, and now they are no big deal? Which one is it? My beef is that they were classified and could damage our foriegn policy, which, despite your personal greivances, has probably done more good than ill over the years.

Quote:
You're allowing the complete fuckwad morons on Fox News to blur the reality of this situation. They're trying to make it about Assange, but he's basically just a figurehead. The dump has nothing at all to do with Assange aside from the fact he's one cog of many in the machine of wikileaks. Assange is not a criminal, he's not an egomaniac, and he's not the issue. The issue is the documents.
In 1992, he pleaded guilty to 24 charges of hacking and was released on bond for good conduct after being fined AU$2100.
If he is not an egomaniac then why has he threatend to release more damaging documents without even the amature redaction attempted on the earlier ones? It seem an awful lot like he is making it about himself. Add to that the legion of scriptkittys that are basking in his 15 minutes, and I think it is pretty hard to separate the man from his creation. Remember also that he has the final word as to what is published on his site.

Quote:
I cannot say this enough: ignore Orly, Beck, Libaugh, Hannity and their ilk. This isn't a right/left thing, they're corrupt liars and anyone who listens to them will end up with a warped and incorrect understanding of reality. Ignore them.
I do not watch Fox News, or any of the people you named.

ASU2003 12-10-2010 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2850327)
I'm not getting in a semantic debate over the word 'scandal', debaser. The two largest polluters in the world secretly teamed up, something relatively uncommon, to undermine a global initiative that could have consequences for hundreds of years. That's a big deal whether you understand and accept climate science or not. BTW, Shell has infiltrated and has significant control of the Nigerian government, a Texas company pimped little boys to stone Afghani police, etc. etc. etc. but these aren't the point.
I support them going through them and finding this information (if it exists). Write articles, ask tough questions, dig deeper. Any criminal or shady behavior is fair game. And diplomatic decisions that go against what a politcian campaigned on is fair game. Any corporate meddling in diplomatic affairs is fine too (Visa & MC in Russia...)

Yet I think that there are some in there that the public doesn't care to know, shouldn't know, or doesn't want to know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2850327)
. Wikileaks is a check to balance out power that's wildly one-sided in this world. You and I have almost no power whatsoever, but because of organizations like wikileaks, we get some of the power that's taken from us back. They're giving us the tools to determine if the power we're giving up should be given up, so we can decide with all of the information if the government or corporations really are working in the best interest of the people. In that way, its truly democratic.
I don't always want the diplomats to have to be worrying about elections and pissing off the voters if they offer something or get something in return for better treaty terms.

No offense, but I think you're being naive. Classified documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have meant a solid Kerry win in 2004. Don't fool yourself: those in power use secrecy as a way to maintain and grow their power at your expense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2850327)
Wikileaks (not Assange) is hosting information leaked by someone else. It's a media outlet. They've demonstrated they have no axe to grind and the documents they've 'dumped' have all been vetted by experts and the offer was even made to have the US government go through them just to be sure. That request was denied.
There is no way that Obama would have sent someone to work on the cables. Could you imagine to news stories about that?

mrmacq 12-11-2010 04:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2850038)
mrmacq,

So it is how you post. Fair enough:

The
trouble
is
that
it
makes
your
post
......
well
just a tad overboard

however
you might be surprised to learn

i also talk like this
nay think as such

blame it on the military
where the one side of the tech manuals
was devoted to that other
official language
after twenty
im used to reading only the left hand side
(aint this fun?)
and again
sorry it bothers you so early

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2850059)
figures that the ultra-right would see in this an excuse to threaten one of their favorite Persecuting Others in the ny times.

it makes sense, given that one of the main consequences of the leaks about iraq and afghanistan is evidence for a strong case against members of the bush administration for war crimes.

clearly the problem is the ny times.

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

addition: here's a pew research poll regarding popular reaction in the us to wikileaks.

Public Sees WikiLeaks as Harmful - Pew Research Center


it appears that people still like to like what they're told they like to like in the way they're told they like to like those things.
Six-in-ten (60%)

well thak crap they cleared that up
(for those of us losy in the maths)

of those paying attention to the story say they believe the release of thousands of secret State Department communications harms the public interest. About half that number (31%) say the release serves the public interest, according to the latest News Interest Index survey conducted Dec. 2-5 among 1,003 adults.

Yet the public makes a distinction between WikiLeaks itself and the press' handling of the document release.

While nearly four-in-ten (38%) of this group say news organizations have gone too far in reporting the confidential material, a comparable number (39%) say the media has struck the right balance. Just 14% say news organizations have held back too much of the classified material.

oh hang on
39s bigger than 38 aint it?
yet they wrote it this way?

lions and tigers and bears
oh my

---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2850186)
Before we get too much hyperbole in here let me just state this:


There is a balance that needs to be struck between totalitarianism and anarchy, and this is not it. What great scandal or corruption was outed? How does publishing a list of sensitive sites benefit the democratic process?

I am all for whistleblowing that solves a problem, but this has done no such thing. It is in all respects like a kid copying his sisters diary and hanging it up around the high school.

---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------



And what lie was that?
why simple
we no longer wear the white hats
havent for awhile now
we cheat steal and lie
all to further our gain
at others expense
after all it wouldnt be a big deal
if all that was being exposed
was the truth
oh hold on
it is
the truth

well shit
can we circle those wagons tighter?
will it help?

nah
lets just give him life imprisonment
then continue on saying how bad chinas track record is

keep those fingers pointing
my friends

keeps the boogieman under the bed at bay

Willravel 12-11-2010 04:58 PM
You're welcome to post like that, but I've not read any of your posts because they're a pain to read.

mrmacq 12-11-2010 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2850288)
I think the word you are looking fo is shitty, not corrupt. States act in their own rational self interest, and perhaps the US and China feel that it is not in theirs to participate in the climate summit. This may be a shocker, but countries do not always do what they say, or say what they do...

Now if you could show me a memo that demonstrated that the administration acted only after accepting a payoff from the oil industry or somesuch, I will join you with torches at the gate...



And undermines it.

Do we overclassify? You bet. I have to deal with it every day, and it is a major pain in the ass. Is it for the purposes of denying you your rights? Absolutely not. Information is generally classified at the lowest, most operational levels and continues to be classified as it becomes part of larger issues not because there is an evil scheme to hide problems from the voter (though that is a "convenient" side effect), but because it is an arduous process to declassify anything that has been classified. There are people whos sole job it is to declassify information. They are pitted against the entire lower tiers of the government beaurocracy, all of whom are classifying stuff like mad.

Example:

An Army private (not the treasonous kind) sits at a secret computer creating documents from patrol debreifs in Iraq. He is 19 years old, and wishes to avoid being shit on and/or missing dinner, both of which can be caused by pissing off his platoon sergeant. He has been told that he has the authority to determine the classification level (up to secret) of any document he creates. He has also been told that any information that comes off of his computer is to be treated as secret as a matter of course. The shit on a shingle and XBOX are calling. What do you think he is going to do once he is done with a routine patrol debreif that contains NO classified material whatsoever?

Yep.

Now if anyone wants to use the information contained in that report they must hold a secret clearance or , if they wish to release it to individuals who do not hold clearances, they must take it to the proper declassification authority. In that case that authority is the US Army. The Army has people trained and authorized to declassify information. There are about 2 of them for every 4500 soldiers. They must review the document and view it in the both current and possible future operational contexts before deciding to declassify it.

But wait! There's more...



I think it will lead to a far more draconian classification system that will not only prevent the proper dissemination of information to the public, but hamper the very agencies that make use of it legitimately on a day to day basis...
"Let's pretend that patrol gave a pump to a village so they could grow whatever the fuck grows in that godforsaken shithole.

hmmmm
unthinking asumptions
we shall let it pass
though it smacks of ignorance
"the fertile cresent"
http://visav.phys.uvic.ca/~babul/Ast...sopotamia1.gif


A state department dude thinks that's pretty cool, and puts it in his report which also contains information from the CIA on friendly villages in the area which was classified to prevent removal of said village elders heads."

so what?
ya figure their so dumb
(your opposition)
as to not figure out which tribal leaders
dont wish to progress?

where do you think this is?
alabama?

now heres the deal dude
they just want the invaders out
wouldnt you?

they werent doing that badly
before you decided your presence was needed
(whole other ball of wax)

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2850331)
y, which, despite your personal greivances, has probably done more good than ill over the years.

.
holy crap dude

1954

Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

off to a great start

1954-1958

North Vietnam — CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA’s continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.

oh theres more

1956

Hungary — Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev’s Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.

oh my
the track record

1957-1973

Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

god but we is impressed

oh hang on
you didnt know this?

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2850854)
You're welcome to post like that, but I've not read any of your posts because they're a pain to read.
so i trust you wont be blaming me
when ya miss something ive posted?

oh
call me slow
could have sworn ya said ya havent read any

no disrespect guys (gals)
but its how i write
its how i get my thoughts out
the only way i know how

i trust respect is a two way street?

debaser 12-12-2010 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmacq (Post 2850858)
"the fertile cresent"
When was the last time you were in Iraq son?


Quote:
ya figure their so dumb
(your opposition)
No, they're receiving their money from outside sources. AQI is not internally funded, and takes both money and direction from outside sources, sources that now have local intelligence thanks to leaks like this.

Quote:
now heres the deal dude
they just want the invaders out
wouldnt you?
"They" being the foreign fighters from Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chechnya, etc. who are chopping off heads and floating them down the Tigris?

Quote:
they werent doing that badly
before you decided your presence was needed
(whole other ball of wax)
I decided no such thing. Iraq was a huge mistake, but it is the reality with which we must now deal. Aside from providing people like you with a smug sense of satisfaction, these leaks have done nothing but made life much more difficult for the men and women trying to patch that country up enough for us to get out.


Quote:
holy crap dude

1954

Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

off to a great start

1954-1958

North Vietnam — CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA’s continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.

oh theres more

1956

Hungary — Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev’s Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.

oh my
the track record

1957-1973

Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

god but we is impressed

oh hang on
you didnt know this?
Know what? Your first four Wikipedia hits? Several of my relatives were killed in the '56 revolution (which would have happened with or without US promises of aid), but I appreciate you using it as a talking point. I never said the US foreign policy was perfect, or even enlightened. I just said it did more good than harm. Have you forgotten the SOVIETS? We did some really shitty stuff in the name of fighting them, but look at the alternatives...

silent_jay 12-12-2010 09:11 AM
...

Baraka_Guru 12-12-2010 09:23 AM
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

debaser 12-12-2010 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay (Post 2851036)
Oh yes, the red scare, watch out for those big bad Soviets (see it can be typed in a normal size, but I guess the bigger the size, the bigger the scare tactic), but hey, as long as they were stopped, it justifies all the bad things the US did, quite the comical position to take really. As for US foreign policy doing more good than harm, that's up in the air, to me, US foreign policy causes more problems than it solves, but, hey as long as the world police are happy, I guess all is good in the world......
It's easy to brush it off now, isn't it? But the fact remains that for all the hideous, fucked up shit the US has done, the Soviets had us beaten hands down.

Why am I even bothering responding to this pablum? Do you really put the Soviet Union on the same moral footing as the US?

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2851040)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
This is the root of the problem, isn't it...

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm fairly certain this isn't it. (edit- "This" being the uncontrolled leaking of sensitive information.)

KirStang 12-12-2010 10:07 AM
Yea...as I stated earlier as anonymous poster..the cost benefit analysis isn't quite working out for me either.

silent_jay 12-12-2010 10:55 AM
...

Willravel 12-12-2010 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2851040)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
http://www.beyondhollywood.com/still....thumbnail.jpg

debaser 12-12-2010 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay (Post 2851056)
That's a question you'll have to ask yourself, must have warranted an answer, although, I suspect you probably enjoy pablum.

Both have/had done their fair share of shitty things, both have caused problems, one continues to cause problems, what moral footing I put them both on doesn't really matter, your mind is made up, as long as it's Team America, no matter how bad, it's alright in your books.

I'll leave you to enjoy your pablum, a treat for you from Canada.
It's ok lad, I'm used to being pidgeonholed into stereotypes by the weak minded. It seems that taking a position that isn't absolutist these days is far more offensive to the sheep on both sides of the fence than simply coloring an issue black and white and walking the party line. Enjoy your snow.

silent_jay 12-12-2010 02:59 PM
...

debaser 12-12-2010 03:29 PM
Yawn, it seems to me there used to be an ignore feature for people like you...

silent_jay 12-12-2010 04:24 PM
...

Willravel 12-12-2010 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2851042)
Why am I even bothering responding to this pablum? Do you really put the Soviet Union on the same moral footing as the US?
The was no "good guy" in the cold war, just two competing powers doing everything they could to end up on top. There's no "we were better than them" argument to be made because we both ended up hurting and killing a hell of a lot of people for no good reason.

silent_jay 12-12-2010 04:28 PM
...

debaser 12-12-2010 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2851140)
The was no "good guy" in the cold war, just two competing powers doing everything they could to end up on top. There's no "we were better than them" argument to be made because we both ended up hurting and killing a hell of a lot of people for no good reason.
Maaaaaaaybe...

No one can deny that both powers acted in their own self interest, but at the very least the US was constrained to some small degree by the it's citizens. The Soviets acted in spite of, and often against their own populace. And yes, I know that someone will bring up Kent State and the McCarthy travesty, but these were aberations in a country otherwise at least nominally held to the rule of law...

dippin 12-12-2010 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2851144)
Maaaaaaaybe...

No one can deny that both powers acted in their own self interest, but at the very least the US was constrained to some small degree by the it's citizens. The Soviets acted in spite of, and often against their own populace. And yes, I know that someone will bring up Kent State and the McCarthy travesty, but these were aberations in a country otherwise at least nominally held to the rule of law...
What the US did or did not do against its own population is sort of irrelevant when it comes to its international policy, isn't it?

And when comparisons between two superpowers start to boil down to who killed fewer millions of people, it is kind of hard to claim any moral superiority, isn't it?

Finally, how does it work? I mean, shutting down wikileaks, torturing, regime change, etc. etc. all in the name of "democracy" and "freedom" is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it?

debaser 12-12-2010 05:39 PM
Well, to it's credit, the US hasn't had a Bulgarian poke Assange with an umbrella yet...

mixedmedia 12-12-2010 06:25 PM
Quote:
a country otherwise at least nominally held to the rule of law...
I can't help but find it a little funny that in the process of defending America against wikileaks one has to admit what it is that they are actually defending. It's just one more step, brother.

Willravel 12-12-2010 06:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser (Post 2851144)
Maaaaaaaybe...

No one can deny that both powers acted in their own self interest, but at the very least the US was constrained to some small degree by the it's citizens. The Soviets acted in spite of, and often against their own populace. And yes, I know that someone will bring up Kent State and the McCarthy travesty, but these were aberations in a country otherwise at least nominally held to the rule of law...
I didn't have the fortune to be born in the 1940s or 1950s to see this stuff for myself. What I know of the cold war is a combination of three things: historical records, discussions with people living during those times, and patterns in human/governmental behavior that I've lived through. The historical record is sketchy because some facts seem open to interpretation. How prevalent were psyops in the United States during the cold war? How wide was support for our various military excursions relating to halting the spread of communism or aiding the spread of capitalism? How many people actually died, particularly in foreign jungles most people my age have never even heard of? Personal details are illuminating, and you can guess at the bias of the storyteller, but the scope of information is narrow. Learning about Vietnam from an uncle certainly carries with it highly specific details of the life of an Army grunt in a terrible war, but it doesn't exactly fill in the blanks or question marks left by the historical record. The most reliable thing I have at my disposal is how people and government have behaved in my lifetime, because neither has really changed for a long time. I know what psyops look like because I get inundated with it daily to the point where there are topics which I should know clearly that I can't even begin to understand. I know that fear can motivate people to abject hatred and murderous rage even at the most innocent people on the planet. I know that the mob is petty, vindictive, and with sufficient power is very easy to control. When I look at the historical record and personal retelling through the lens of what I know, the cold war was about powerful, corrupt people fighting over even more power by using the little people as pawns. Soviet, American, it was all the same shit. The fact that the Soviet Union collapsed is not some indicator that the United States was more righteous or that the American people are more free, but rather that one power was going to win and the other lose, which is the nature of competition.

If one reason could be pulled from the thousands as the biggest reason for the country's collapse, it was oligarchy. America didn't have any more or less oligarchy in the 1980s than the USSR, in fact we have more in 2010 than the Soviets had immediately before collapsing, it's just that we don't have the same competition going on that we had then.

imho

/threadjack

Baraka_Guru 12-14-2010 09:36 AM
An interesting development
 
I suppose this means that the core idea behind WikiLeaks, as well as the actions that arise from it, is decidedly not about Assange.

Introducing OpenLeaks:

Quote:
Breakaway WikiLeaks staff form new service
DOUG SAUNDERS
LONDON— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Dec. 13, 2010 7:35PM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2010 6:39AM EST

Of all the legal, sexual and financial charges levelled against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in recent days, the most damaging – and surprising – may be that he is doing a disservice to whistleblowers.

Yet this is exactly how a group of the document-leaking website’s core staff, including the man who until a few weeks ago was its second-in-command, characterize the 39-year-old Australian as they have announced their break from his organization to create a new service, OpenLeaks, which they say will offer three things WikiLeaks has never managed: transparency, a direct link to the media and lack of celebrity.

“One of the main issues we see with WikiLeaks today,” said Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the 32-year-old German who had been Mr. Assange’s right-hand man and spokesman, “is that it has become too much about self-promoting the project and self-promoting people involved with the project, which is rather distracting from the content of the documents.”

Even as the United States pursues efforts to shut down WikiLeaks and its sources of financing for having negotiated the leak of 250,000 secret diplomatic cables and hundreds of thousands of military communiqués from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, WikiLeaks is collapsing internally under charges from Internet activists and whistleblower advocates that it has become a promotional vehicle for Mr. Assange that no longer helps whistleblowers.

The defection of a handful of core staff – who reportedly include most of the computer-literate people who have assisted Mr. Assange in the past two years – illustrates deep division between those who believe the purpose of WikiLeaks is to make government and other organizations more transparent by exposing their inner communications, and those, such as Mr. Assange, who have a more ideological mission.

Mr. Assange’s anti-American predisposition has become a concern to some Internet activists, who see his political prejudices and personal vendettas as having tainted the group’s image of neutral transparency.

He recently told a Swedish television documentary that he sees the leaks as “actions that are a corrective to injustice,” a claim that annoyed those who prefer to see WikiLeaks as a conduit that can be used to help any disgruntled employee with a cause.

There is concern that the organization’s neutrality and its value to future whistleblowers have been tainted by Mr. Assange’s recent arrest on sex-crime accusations originating in Sweden – which have yet to result in criminal charges or to be questioned in court – as well as his frequent press releases and speeches denouncing those exposed in the leaks.

In response, OpenLeaks was founded as a completely invisible organization. People will be able to post documents to its confidential site and choose a range of media outlets, unions and other groups who can receive them without knowing the identity of the sender. It will be up to the recipients to judge, filter, publish and publicize the leaks, and OpenLeaks will play no active role.

This, in the view of the dissidents, is what WikiLeaks was meant to be from the beginning, until Mr. Assange’s personal motives interfered.

WikiLeaks began with the intention of publishing leaked documents on the Web itself; this was how it attained some of its earlier successes, such as the 2007 revelation that Kenyan president Daniel arap Moi had embezzled funds or the October, 2009, publication of the full membership list of the far-right British National Party.

But its founders soon discovered that its online audience was too small to reach the sort of mass audience needed for the leaks to have an effect. It also lacked the editing and analysis skills needed to turn raw documents into useful information.

So when it received a huge trove of government documents this year, allegedly from U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks took on a new role as a middleman operation, poised between whistleblowers and the media organizations that publish their leaks. Mr. Assange became a dealmaker rather than a publisher, and his negotiating style came to be dominated by his personal tastes and beliefs.

It was around this time that founding staff began to defect. Mr. Domscheit-Berg, who until late September was the public face of WikiLeaks under the nom de plume Daniel Schmitt, was suspended by Mr. Assange after suggesting that the founder take a lower profile and allow new leaks to be accepted while processing Mr. Manning’s trove. (WikiLeaks has not accepted any new documents since the summer.)

Mr. Assange has refused to speak in detail about the defections. “In a tense situation like ours, employees can do bad things and then get suspended by leadership,” he said during a discussion at London’s Frontline club in October.

The founders say that OpenLeaks can operate on little more than €100,000 a year, as it will require no editors or publicists. It will compete with a number of other new whistleblower sites hoping to take advantage of the demise of WikiLeaks.
Breakaway WikiLeaks staff form new service - The Globe and Mail

mixedmedia 12-14-2010 09:54 AM
if this were on facebook I would 'like' it. I'm glad to hear this.

loquitur 12-15-2010 08:20 AM
this is actually a vindication of free market principles. Attempts to control people ultimately fail. People usually find a way to do what they want to do. At least most of the time.

roachboy 12-15-2010 08:38 AM
that's hardly a "free market principle" loquitor.
and there's a lot about this that is specific, in the generational/technological sense... this isn't the deepest piece i've ever seen, but it points to some of the obvious issues:

Quote:

We are Generation Wiki. We are interconnected collaborative creatures, and we like to share. We link and like, comment, post and poke. We Yelp when we're hungry, Skype when we're lonely and Gchat throughout the day. Our cell phone bills are light on minutes and long on data almost every month.

We are the first of our kind. A computer has sat comfortably in some nook of our home for as long as we can remember. We grew up trying to find Carmen Sandiego, and came of age to the beeps and cackles of a 14k modem connecting to America Online. Before we had our own car, before we had our own cash and before we had a fake ID, we had chat rooms, instant messages and inboxes. We had an entire world wide web of possibilities with which to explore beyond the confines of our bedroom walls. Our rebellion was data-driven, a battle cry of zeros and ones where power grew out of the results of a search engine.

We are broadcasters, mini-content creation machines, and this is how we communicate. But while we may share more publicly, we are hardly the open books some claim us to be. Our online profiles reveal little more about our character, competence and intellect than our choice of clothing does, because we know our boundaries, however unspoken. In fact, we are remarkably self-regulating and adept at maintaining privacy, in a very public manner. What we share tends to be topical, trivial and rapidly replaced. The way we share it is marked by a unique etiquette.

We don't SMS the way we email, we won't send a message for what we can comment on and a chat window is not the same as a phone call. We don't type the way we speak and we all understand that. Sometimes, we chastise our parents for not getting it. "No, Mom, text messages are not for conversations!" They are for clarification of questions, confirmation of meetings and the occasional witty witticisms between the sexes. "Don't photo comment on Facebook asking if I ate dinner!" It's simply not the place.

We are aware of these ambiguities of the digital age, and we are comfortable with them. They are the products of a networked world where information is in abundance and easily diffused; it is the only world that we have known. So, imagine how confounding we find the reactions to this WikiLeaks debacle, many of which are so oddly out of date and kneejerk. The email sent by Columbia University's office of career services that made international headlines and the mailing lists of other policy schools, along with similar messages sent to the student bodies of Boston University school of law and Michigan State University James Madison College, is evidence of this reality.

To be sure, no one muzzled our right to free speech, and, contrary to the Village Voice description, Columbia is not "fascist". But the simple truth that someone, somewhere, thought we would do best to keep a lid on it – to say nothing of the statements emanating from Congress and the state department – shows how remarkably misguided the thinking is on this issue.

What seems to be missing is an understanding of what Generation Wiki has known all along about information gone viral: we consume, comment and move on; the story dies when we are done with it. Trying to put the genie back in the bottle is no way to deal with an expose once it has gone online.

Furthermore, WikiLeaks will not be a one-off. Whatever comes of the website, Julian Assange or Bradley Manning does not negate the fact that, in the absence of a far more heavily restricted internet, we live in a WikiLeakable world. No matter how secure our servers, how rigorous our clearance processes or how thorough our legislation, we will never eradicate the human element from security or the technological platforms on which treasure troves of classified documents, corporate secrets or other private data can be obtained and blasted across the public domain.

The million-dollar question that nobody seems to be asking is: where do we go from here? The current strategy of trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted does not seem terribly effective for the digital age. As students of policy – as Generation Wiki – we'd do well to think of an answer, because those managing the current crisis do not appear to have a good one.
Generation Wiki's web savvy | Ethan Wilkes | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

loquitur 12-15-2010 03:59 PM
the free market principle I was talking about is that people will generally find a way to do what they want to do, despite efforts by their "betters" to stop them. Human ingenuity is the great driver of free markets.

Willravel 12-15-2010 04:18 PM
I want to end the wars. Am I just lacking in ingenuity?

filtherton 12-15-2010 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur (Post 2852387)
the free market principle I was talking about is that people will generally find a way to do what they want to do, despite efforts by their "betters" to stop them. Human ingenuity is the great driver of free markets.
I'd say that it's more a characteristic of most successful instances of life than it is a free market principle.

Besides, free markets don't actually exist and in reality-based markets, human ingenuity can be just as much a liability as a blessing. Human ingenuity is arguably responsible for the financial sector shenanigans which brought our economy to its knees.

debaser 12-16-2010 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2852395)
I want to end the wars. Am I just lacking in ingenuity?
Me too. I don't think this is gonna help.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:46 AM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360