Wikileaks Update

dr gonzo · 03-08-2010 7:44pm #1

Apologies for a further Wikileaks thread but i figured this probably deserves a thread of its own.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/08/03/u-s-congressman-calls-for-execution-of-wikileaks-whistleblower/

I understand that a congressman can say what he or she likes and have absolutely no bearing on the guys actual sentencing but even still, this is quite a statement. What does everyone think?

Apologies again if this should have just gone into one of the other Wikileaks threads.

Manic Moran · 03-08-2010 7:55pm

He is expressing the sentiments of a lot of people given the practical consequences of the leak, but you are correct, what he says will have no bearing on the actual sentence handed out if found guilty. In reality, the death sentence is probably well off the table as I think it would be very hard to prove an active intention to aid the enemy or act against the US. He may have been stupid and misguided, but I think the intent was missing.

NTM

My name is URL · 26-11-2010 8:47pm

Something big is happening atm.. WL are about release more stuff, and nations have been briefed about how sensitive they are in regards to defense

Sticky_Fingers · 26-11-2010 8:53pm

I wonder had the decision of the Swedish courts to uphold the issuance of an international arrest warrant for Julian Assange earlier this week over the sexual assault charges have anything to do with this?

Edit Link added:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11803703

chicken fingers · 26-11-2010 9:00pm

Wikileaks are wrong about a lot of stuff, but they are 100% spot on about something.

"[the] US authorities [are] afraid of being held to account."
In that respect, yes. They are correct.

karma_ · 26-11-2010 9:06pm

That congress man is an idiot in fairness, and I'm willing to bet he is a Christian, it's funny that Christians over there have no trouble with the termination of life whether by execution or during war, hypocrites the lot of them.

As for the new wikileaks releases, looking forward to them, it's looks like there is going to be some juicy stuff included. The US and it's diplomatic skullfúckery about to be highlighted in a none too positive light and you just know it's going to be good when they are already running to put out potential fires.

smk89 · 26-11-2010 9:11pm

I agree with Wikileaks, it has a proper method of assuring articles are true and correct and as they put it "The winners shouldn't write history".

But Bradley Manning is an idiot of the highest order. He admitted that he stole top secret information ffs! Just for that he shouldn't win the hero of the year award

Clawdeeus · 26-11-2010 9:11pm

chicken fingers wrote: »

Wikileaks are wrong about a lot of stuff, but they are 100% spot on about something.

"[the] US authorities [are] afraid of being held to account."
In that respect, yes. They are correct.

Completly agree, but then again who isnt?

26-11-2010 9:17pm

Whats happening?

themadhair · 26-11-2010 9:25pm

Typical Pentagon tactics. Claim the leakers are harming the troops or whatever and then sit back as most of the US media misframe the issue. They did the same thing with Ellsberg.

They did the same thing during the last Wikileaks release. Only this time they were caught out when one of their internal memos showed they were lying:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/gates-wikileaks.pdf

Same tactics will be used here. Don’t expect many in the media to call the US out for lying though.

Clawdeeus · 26-11-2010 9:33pm

themadhair wrote: »

Typical Pentagon tactics. Claim the leakers are harming the troops or whatever and then sit back as most of the US media misframe the issue. They did the same thing with Ellsberg.

They did the same thing during the last Wikileaks release. Only this time they were caught out when one of their internal memos showed they were lying:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/gates-wikileaks.pdf

Same tactics will be used here. Don’t expect many in the media to call the US out for lying though.

Em... that document seems to hold up exactly what they said;

"I share your concerns about the potential compromise of classified infoxmation and its effect on the
safety of our troops, allies, and Afghan partners."

nyarlothothep · 26-11-2010 9:36pm

most elites will have a nietzschean ubersmench mentality. We are to them what we consider scumbags to us. Do you know there is a club in Oxford uni where you need the wealth to own 12 porsches just to join. Personally I think thats retarded criteria for membership but think about it, these people and others like them are a tribe unto themselves and so they have little or no empathy towards those outside of it, just as we care little for the sufferings of unkown victims in an Ethiopian famine. I'm not saying its right, but the joke is on them all the same because they are actors of an evolutionary program which is increasingly redundant. Most of them are superstitious idiots for believing in esoteric bullsh1t. teeheehee:pac:

themadhair · 26-11-2010 9:41pm

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Em... that document seems to hold up exactly what they said;

"I share your concerns about the potential compromise of classified infoxmation and its effect on the
safety of our troops, allies, and Afghan partners."

"..…the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure."

Terry · 26-11-2010 9:50pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Something big is happening atm.. WL are about release more stuff, and nations have been briefed about how sensitive they are in regards to defense

Sorry, but I'm with eircom.

Yeah, I know about 10 different ways around that block.

nommm · 26-11-2010 9:55pm

Must be something big considering a D notice has been issued by the UK government. Can't wait to see what it is. Apparently the info was leaked from a source within the US military with highest security clearance, the same guy responsible for the Afghan and Iraw war leaks and it is all very damaging data. At least 33 meeting between US diplomats and other countries today.

Clawdeeus · 26-11-2010 9:58pm

themadhair wrote: »

"..…the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure."

Difference between "intelligence sources and methods" and troops, no?

smk89 · 26-11-2010 10:00pm

Terry wrote: »

Sorry, but I'm with eircom.

Yeah, I know about 10 different ways around that block.

The insurance history is a file they send out periodically containing the raw data encrypted (50 billion years to deencrypt apparently). This is just in case they lose the data or die.

The information is rumoured to be about diplomatic information and other stuff. Denmark, Sweden have received US warnings about its contents so at a guess I'd say it may be about the Mohammed drawings.

Manic Moran · 27-11-2010 5:33pm

"..…the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure."

The difference between a sensitive source, and 'Abdullah the Farmer who reports information on the goings on in town A to local patrols' is important to the CIA, but pretty academic to Abdullah.

NTM

DeVore · 27-11-2010 6:18pm

I'm betting Canada gets it in the ear from the Americans, along with the Brits. This should be fun!

DeV.

My name is URL · 27-11-2010 6:23pm

Article here about what the leak could potentially contain - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333532/WikiLeaks-revelations-expose-corruption-allies-U-S-warns.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

cml387 · 27-11-2010 6:26pm

Is the USA any clearer as to the source of the leaks?

I would have thought that the nature of the material (esp inter gov communication) must point to the State Department.

Cookie_Monster · 27-11-2010 6:33pm

Julian Assange

Manic Moran · 28-11-2010 5:28am

cml387 wrote: »

Is the USA any clearer as to the source of the leaks?

Bradley Manning is suspect #1.

Same lad as the Iraq and Afghan leaks.

NTM

FionnMatthew · 29-11-2010 12:21am

Highly useful Wikileaks resource on the present leaks:

http://wlcentral.org/node/377

This node contains info on Irish coverage.

Steodonn · 29-11-2010 12:29am

It diplomatic cables form most of the worlds USA embassies.

Everything form USA trying to get Pakistanis nukes to a wild parties somewhere in Russia. Also comments on the personal life of major world leaders. USA also seems to be expecting North Korea to collapse or least planning with SK for it

Some major newspapers already have the leak the other thread had some good links

FionnMatthew · 29-11-2010 12:44am

The publications that had access to the leaks are Der Spiegel, the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde and El Pais.

More news organizations will be able to apply to WL to get advance access, as they roll out the revelations.

They have not yet released all 250000. They are releasing them in stages, depending on where they are relevant to.

There are 900 Dublin embassy cables. There are a number also pertaining to NI.

Constant updates will be issued from this website, which is a fansite that archives up to date media coverage of the leaks.

http://wlcentral.org/

Mark200 · 29-11-2010 1:08am

themadhair wrote: »

"..…the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure."

That's solely intelligence sources and methods.

It then goes on to say:

"The documents do contain the names of cooperative Afghan nationals and the Department takes very seriously the Taliban threats recently discussed in the press. We assess this risk as likely to cause significant harm or damage to the national security interests of the United States "

The memo completely backs up the idea that the leaks are causing harm to US national security, and by extension troops and those who are helping the US

DeVore · 29-11-2010 1:10am

Is it bad that I'm quite peeved that they only consider the Irish Times to be "domestic coverage" when there are about 7 different wikileaks threads ongoing on this site at the moment... given that our "reach" has an extra 0 on the end of it compared to the IT

I guess it only matters if people read about it on paper. :rolleyes:

DeV.

FionnMatthew · 29-11-2010 1:14am

DeVore wrote: »

Is it bad that I'm quite peeved that they only consider the Irish Times to be "domestic coverage" when there are about 7 different wikileaks threads ongoing on this site at the moment... given that our "reach" has an extra 0 on the end of it compared to the IT

I guess it only matters if people read about it on paper. :rolleyes:

DeV.

I think the idea is to record journalistic sources, rather than internet community sites. I hear you, though. Most of what I've learned has been in this manner. Twitter is incredible for it.

Could you link me to the other WL threads, Dev?

FionnMatthew · 29-11-2010 1:15am

also, was there anything on the news tonight about it?

themadhair · 29-11-2010 1:16am

Mark200 wrote: »

The memo completely backs up the idea that the leaks are causing harm to US national security, and by extension troops and those who are helping the US

No it doesn’t. It clearly states that the review to date has found no harm.

Appealing to the general idea that ‘national security’ being compromised leads ‘by extension’ to harming troops is just US bollocks.

FionnMatthew · 29-11-2010 1:17am

Mark200 wrote: »

That's solely intelligence sources and methods.

It then goes on to say:

"The documents do contain the names of cooperative Afghan nationals and the Department takes very seriously the Taliban threats recently discussed in the press. We assess this risk as likely to cause significant harm or damage to the national security interests of the United States "

The memo completely backs up the idea that the leaks are causing harm to US national security, and by extension troops and those who are helping the US

Nobody has been harmed by Wikileaks' releases to date. This is a pernicious falsehood, promulgated by official Washington.

Debunked: "Wikileaks has Blood on its Hands" : http://wlcentral.org/node/278

Dunjohn · 29-11-2010 1:20am

Can anybody tell me, what is the point of Wikileaks? I know what it does, but I can't seem to form an opinion of whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. It seems to be making trouble for no tangible reason.

DeVore · 29-11-2010 1:25am

It wins back hearts and minds....

DeV.

themadhair · 29-11-2010 1:29am

Dunjohn wrote: »

Can anybody tell me, what is the point of Wikileaks?

If you know what it does then surely that answers your question?

FionnMatthew · 29-11-2010 1:30am

Dunjohn wrote: »

Can anybody tell me, what is the point of Wikileaks? I know what it does, but I can't seem to form an opinion of whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. It seems to be making trouble for no tangible reason.

The point of Wikileaks is to effectuate reform. Wikileaks takes itself as being a response to a world where journalism does not or cannot any longer do its job, where corporations use huge resources to silence press coverage of their misdemeanours, and where governments operate in increasing secrecy, while demanding mandatory encroachment on individual privacy. Julian Assange often points out that free speech is the primary and most important value of any democracy, epitomized in the US first amendment, because it is through communication, and through language, that any legislature makes the laws that systemically shape a society.

They aim to be the people's spy agency, and to forcefully bring the misconduct of the powerful and the secretive to the public eye, so that people may make political decisions with the best information available to them.

If you read the chatlogs between bradley manning and adrian lamo, manning outlines what he hopes the present leaks will achieve.

(02:18:34 AM) Adrian: what’s your endgame plan, then?

(02:20:57 AM) bradass87: well, it was forwarded to WL

(02:21:18 AM) bradass87: and god knows what happens now

(02:22:27 AM) bradass87: hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms

(02:23:06 AM) bradass87: if not… than we’re doomed

(02:23:18 AM) bradass87: as a species

(02:24:13 AM) bradass87: i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens

(02:24:58 AM) bradass87: the reaction to the video gave me immense hope… CNN’s iReport was overwhelmed… Twitter exploded…

(02:25:18 AM) bradass87: people who saw, knew there was something wrong

(02:26:10 AM) bradass87: Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here

(02:26:36 AM) bradass87: [also reason as to why there's probably no investigation]

(02:28:10 AM) bradass87: i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public

(02:28:10 AM) Adrian : I’m not here right now

(02:28:50 AM) bradass87: if i knew then, what i knew now… kind of thing…

(02:29:31 AM) bradass87: or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid…

(02:30:09 AM) Adrian: which do you think it is?

(02:30:29 AM) bradass87: im hoping for the former

(02:30:53 AM) bradass87: it cant be the latter

(02:31:06 AM) bradass87: because if it is… were ****ing screwed

(02:31:12 AM) bradass87:(as a society)

(02:31:49 AM) bradass87: and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed

themadhair · 29-11-2010 1:58am

http://www.mediafire.com/?zh91jhf9vhy1frk

These are the recent letters involving Wikileaks and the US. I think they say it all concerning the US fearmongering.

Clawdeeus · 29-11-2010 6:16am

FionnMatthew wrote: »

The point of Wikileaks is to effectuate reform. Wikileaks takes itself as being a response to a world where journalism does not or cannot any longer do its job, where corporations use huge resources to silence press coverage of their misdemeanours, and where governments operate in increasing secrecy, while demanding mandatory encroachment on individual privacy. Julian Assange often points out that free speech is the primary and most important value of any democracy, epitomized in the US first amendment, because it is through communication, and through language, that any legislature makes the laws that systemically shape a society.

They aim to be the people's spy agency, and to forcefully bring the misconduct of the powerful and the secretive to the public eye, so that people may make political decisions with the best information available to them.

If you read the chatlogs between bradley manning and adrian lamo, manning outlines what he hopes the present leaks will achieve.

I tought their goal was transparancy? Not effecting reform.

Clawdeeus · 29-11-2010 6:23am

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Nobody has been harmed by Wikileaks' releases to date. This is a pernicious falsehood, promulgated by official Washington.

Debunked: "Wikileaks has Blood on its Hands" : http://wlcentral.org/node/278

That really is assuming a dreadful ignorance on the part of, say the Taliban.

Do you honestly believe that the names and locations of informants, and detailed patrol and tactical information would not be used to plan attacks, or that details of troops deployments is a valuable intelligence scource?

You can agree that the releases are a good thing, and still recongnise that these things inevitably have an negative effect on someone. Its self evident that it will.

Clawdeeus · 29-11-2010 6:34am

themadhair wrote: »

No it doesn’t. It clearly states that the review to date has found no harm.

Appealing to the general idea that ‘national security’ being compromised leads ‘by extension’ to harming troops is just US bollocks.

Really you are displaying ridiculous confirmation bias in reading that document. It EXPLICITLY SAYS that they share the fears of that it puts troops at risk. It cant be anymore in black and white than it is right there. One more time, because you clearly skipped a few lines ¬.¬

"I share your concerns about the potential compromise of classified infoxmation and its effect on the
safety of our troops, allies, and Afghan partners." You dont get any more unequivocal than that. I agree, wikileaks is a valuable scource, and doing some brilliant work, but that you can be so intellectually dishonest as that, you should be embarrassed.

Again, and really this should not be news, "intelligence sources and methods" is not troops. Really I cant see how people can read that, and transpose what they want to see onto it. Its very annoying.

Not to mention childish; that people try so hard to convince themselves that something that they see as a good thing (fair enough, Im not saying the leaks should not have happened) can only have positive consequences shows the shallowness of their thinking on a subject.

29-11-2010 8:29am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11860435

The leaked US embassy cables also reportedly include accounts of:

* Iran attempting to adapt North Korean rockets for use as long-range missiles

* Corruption within the Afghan government with concerns heightened when a senior official was found to be carrying more than $52m (£33m) in cash on a foreign trip; - President Hamid Karzai is described as ''extremely weak'' and prone to being persuaded by conspiracy theories

* Bargaining to empty the Guantanamo Bay prison camp - including Slovenian diplomats being told to take in a freed prisoner if they wanted to secure a meeting with President Barack Obama

* Germany being warned in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for US Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in an operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was abducted and held in Afghanistan

* US officials being instructed to spy on the UN leadership by
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

* The very close relationship between Russian PM Vladimir Putin and his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi

* Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime

* Yemen's president talking to then US Mid-East commander General David Petraeus about attacks on Yemeni al-Qaeda bases and saying: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours"

* Faltering US attempts to prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon

Love Wikileaks.. It shows that the world is actually like the movies.

Biggins · 29-11-2010 9:46am

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11860435

Love Wikileaks.. It shows that the world is actually like the movies.

It shows that you really couldn't make this stuff up and truth is often more stranger and accurate than fiction - which is often accused of being too made up or far fetched! ("Sure these thing could never happen...")

Clawdeeus · 29-11-2010 9:48am

Biggins wrote: »

It shows that you really couldn't make this stuff up and truth is often more stranger and accurate than fiction - which is often accused of being too made up! ("Sure these thing could never happen...")

I dont know, nothing so far seems all that "strange", alot of confirmation of things, but nothing that any informed person didnt already know/ hear.

Is there anything in particular that you find strange so far?

It reinforces conventional knowledge so much that conspiracy theories abound that it is a fake leak. Ah the internet!

Biggins · 29-11-2010 9:55am

Clawdeeus wrote: »

I dont know, nothing so far seems all that "strange", alot of confirmation of things, but nothing that any informed person didnt already know/ hear.

Is there anything in particular that you find strange so far?

For me, with years of life experience, most of what has been exposed is nothing new.
Its just different characters with different topics.

The occasional one does still surprise me though! Like the one about the German politician who stands accused of consistently grassing/giving out about on his fellow German politician, to the Americans!
So much for loyalty to ones own. That said, he wouldn't be the first to be a traitor of sorts (or be seen as one in the same light) to one's own country and/or people

...For example, one can learn that German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the Germany's most beloved politician according to public opinion polls, openly criticizes fellow cabinet member Guido Westerwelle in conversations with US diplomats, and even snitches on him.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,731580,00.html

Dunjohn · 29-11-2010 12:29pm

themadhair wrote: »

If you know what it does then surely that answers your question?

I know what furries do. Doesn't mean I see the point.

themadhair · 29-11-2010 2:50pm

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Really you are displaying ridiculous confirmation bias in reading that document. It EXPLICITLY SAYS that they share the fears of that it puts troops at risk. It cant be anymore in black and white than it is right there.

I really have to call BS on this assumption that ‘fears’ translate into actual harms. Simply repeating the US line doesn’t make it true. As the letter says, the actual review to date evidences against it. That’s not confirmation bias, that is simply reading the letter for what it says.

FionnMatthew · 02-12-2010 1:41am

Clawdeeus wrote: »

I tought their goal was transparancy? Not effecting reform.

How do you expect to make a society more transparent if not by reform?

Transparency isn't the only part of their dossier. Transparency is their method. Not the end in itself. Transparency is clearly not an end in itself ever. The only reason it is good is that it ensures fair dealing.

Assange:We have a harm minimization process. Our goal is just for reform. Our method is transparency, but we do not put our method before the goal. If we have a serious endeavour, we do things in policy; we do not do things in an ad hoc way. And so far our harm minimization process has always worked. To our knowledge, no one has ever been physically harmed by the material we have released. Even though we have caused the change of governments and many other serious reforms.

It strikes me that you don't understand the organization enough yet.

02-12-2010 5:45pm

He doesn't have a notion..

Wikileaks Update

Comments