Wikileaks ... Friend or Foe?

EastTexas

I did not mind him putting out the video of the helicopter shooting and reprehensible attitude of the soldiers doing the shooting.
That was real whistle blower stuff.


But question Julian Assange’s motives regarding the release of private Diplomatic cables.
In undermining the cohesiveness of foreign relations and embarrassing world leaders there is so much more to be lost then gained.
IMHO it reeks more of anarchy rather then the desire the make the world a better place.

Thoughts opinions?

fudgez

Friend....

EastTexas

Personally I think Assange is a very bright fellow, comes across as well spoken and thoughtful, but is horribly misguided by his over the top idealism.
He’s true believer of his own doctrine but completely unaware and incapable of even considering the magnitude of harm he has done by publishing private conversations.

More then hypocritical is that he values HIS privacy and elusiveness above all else but has little no respect for that of others.

nyarlothothep

EastTexas wrote: »

Personally I think Assange is a very bright fellow, comes across as well spoken and thoughtful, but is horribly misguided by his over the top idealism.
He’s true believer of his own doctrine but completely unaware and incapable of even considering the magnitude of harm he has done by publishing private conversations.

More then hypocritical is that he values HIS privacy and elusiveness above all else but has little no respect for that of others.

well he has little or no respect for institutions/elites that have little or no respect for the privacy of anyone, eg the patriot act.

EastTexas

nyarlothothep wrote: »

well he has little or no respect for institutions/elites that have little or no respect for the privacy of anyone, eg the patriot act.

Though I myself take issue with some aspects of the Patriot act, I think it’s also easy to point blank shoot it down for those not responsible for the post 911 security of a nation.
Much of what Assange chose to publish lately is idle gossip, some of it amusing, but unnecessarily embarrassing world leaders and pitting them against one another.
With these choices he left the path of righteousness.

yoshytoshy

I'd be worried that one outspoken person like this ,triggers another. I'm sure theres plenty of loons in power ,who are looking for any excuse to go to war.

I think he's in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Memnoch

EastTexas wrote: »

Though I myself take issue with some aspects of the Patriot act, I think it’s also easy to point blank shoot it down for those not responsible for the post 911 security of a nation.
Much of what Assange chose to publish lately is idle gossip, some of it amusing, but unnecessarily embarrassing world leaders and pitting them against one another.
With these choices he left the path of righteousness.

And what is so special about these world leaders that they should be protected?

Every day you see people complain about the state of politics, about corrupt and self serving leaders, about politicians who are driven by agenda to serve elite and corporate interests. Yet no one seems to put two and two together and realise that the reasons politicians behave as they do is because of the total lack of accountability.

They can basically do almost anything and get away with it. The major journalistic outlets have been coalesced into a few mega corporations that back a handful of candidates and raise them to power. There is no balance or accountability anymore.

For once these leaders are being forced out into the light of truth, and that is a good thing.

Also, the idea that the patriot act makes America safer is utterly laughable. Don't allow them to use your fears to control you, because the freedom you give up is far greater than what any terrorist will ever take from you or the vast majority of the US populace.

ChocolateSauce

Wikileaks is the friend of honesty, integrity, transparency and liberal democracy, and the foe of secretive, dishonest, paranoid, unethical, imperialist, corrupt governments (I'm not at all implying that any one government is all of those things, although almost all governments are, probably, at least one of them).

So what if those minor cables with the unfettered and candid opinions of individuals are unflattering of certain world leaders? Maybe if world leaders were more candid with each other there wouldn't be the need for those kind of things. I think that if the French know that the US thinks of Sarkozy as they really do, relations can only be more open.

As for major embarrassments, as I said in another thread, wikileaks cannot embarrass a government by exposing its actions, the government embarrasses itself by committing them.

And as for why wikileaks is so secretive, the reason is because there are many governments who would like to shut it down by any means possible. The Republicans have branded it a terrorist organisation, and we all know what methods the US employs against terrorists. If I feared for my very life, I'd be clandestine too.

nyarlothothep

EastTexas wrote: »

Though I myself take issue with some aspects of the Patriot act, I think it’s also easy to point blank shoot it down for those not responsible for the post 911 security of a nation.
Much of what Assange chose to publish lately is idle gossip, some of it amusing, but unnecessarily embarrassing world leaders and pitting them against one another.
With these choices he left the path of righteousness.

Well East Texas, Im not too sure about that argument. 911 didn't occur because the security measures put forward by the patriot act weren't in place, it happened because the Bush admin almost let it happen by consistently ignoring CIA reports that a terrorist attack by Bin Laden was imminent. In the same way body scaners are relatively useless, spying on citizens isn't going to really achieve anything apart from forwarding the agendas of people with authoritarian mentalities in congress. In any case collecting "humint" data on UN members was completely unethical and its a good thing thats in the light of day.

Jonny7

I thought there would be a big fuss from the various countries involved in having their office gossip displayed for all the see - however the US is the only one kicking up such a fuss.

The republicans have to be the funniest, not knowing how to react, then one of them kicks up and they all start squawking like geese. The village mob.

The Russians, Chinese, etc taking it on the chin

North Koreans silent as usual and Iran dismissing it as giant zionist/cia plot as usual.

Whatever motives Assange has, I think people are secretly relishing this

People - 1 Elitist controlling government - 0

Manic Moran

So what if those minor cables with the unfettered and candid opinions of individuals are unflattering of certain world leaders?

Several issues.

1) If a career diplomat is afraid that his honest assessment of someone is going to go public and cause embarassment, thus possibly putting a hold on his career (or even his ability to use personal relationships to get his job done), he is going to be far more reluctant to be honest. Then you have governments working on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate information and diplomats working at reduced efficiency. That's not a good thing.

2) People may be focusing on the 'Batman and Robin' comments, but more to the point, negotiations become more difficult.

Example: Two countries come to the brink of war. Neither country can afford to 'lose face', which is very important in some societies. A back-room deal can be brokered in secret which de-escalates the situation, a public statement (which doesn't mention the real deal) is made and war is averted.

And how many hostages have been released by way of secret negotiations/deals/payoffs? Ireland hasn't the capacity to physically rescue an Irish aid worker taken hostage in Somalia or wherever. About the only option for the Irish government to secure a release is secret negotiations. Of course, if the release of government communications is to be a routine risk, is the government going to do that? "Mrs O'Reilly was tragically killed after the Irish government refused to negotiate... The Government has issued a strong condemnation of this act, and praised aid workers who place their lives at risk to help others..."
Actually, maybe the latter is the better course of action, but is it really the one people want?

NTM

ChocolateSauce

Manic Moran wrote: »

Several issues.

1) If a career diplomat is afraid that his honest assessment of someone is going to go public and cause embarassment, thus possibly putting a hold on his career (or even his ability to use personal relationships to get his job done), he is going to be far more reluctant to be honest. Then you have governments working on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate information and diplomats working at reduced efficiency. That's not a good thing.

2) People may be focusing on the 'Batman and Robin' comments, but more to the point, negotiations become more difficult.

Example: Two countries come to the brink of war. Neither country can afford to 'lose face', which is very important in some societies. A back-room deal can be brokered in secret which de-escalates the situation, a public statement (which doesn't mention the real deal) is made and war is averted.

And how many hostages have been released by way of secret negotiations/deals/payoffs? Ireland hasn't the capacity to physically rescue an Irish aid worker taken hostage in Somalia or wherever. About the only option for the Irish government to secure a release is secret negotiations. Of course, if the release of government communications is to be a routine risk, is the government going to do that? "Mrs O'Reilly was tragically killed after the Irish government refused to negotiate... The Government has issued a strong condemnation of this act, and praised aid workers who place their lives at risk to help others..."
Actually, maybe the latter is the better course of action, but is it really the one people want?

NTM

I take your point on number one, well put.

Regarding number two, I have very little time for face saving. Either one country is in the wrong, or both are. In the former, the country in the wrong should back down and stop being a bully, and in the latter both need to stop acting like selfish children and stop trying to see who has the bigger penis. It is acting touph, throwing ones weight around, being secretive and being unfair which brings countries to the brink of war in the first place.

Two countries which deal with each other in a fair and honest manner don't lose face to begin with.

As for secret negotiations in general, if it possible to say "this person will be harmed by these people if that is leaked", then I would support the classification of said document and oppose its dissemination. The dealings of individuals with small matters like that is quite different from that of nations though.

Manic Moran

Regarding number two, I have very little time for face saving. Either one country is in the wrong, or both are. In the former, the country in the wrong should back down and stop being a bully, and in the latter both need to stop acting like selfish children and stop trying to see who has the bigger penis. It is acting touph, throwing ones weight around, being secretive and being unfair which brings countries to the brink of war in the first place.

Two countries which deal with each other in a fair and honest manner don't lose face to begin with.

Idealistic, but utterly unrealistic. Two countries that distrust each other so much that they're at the brink of war aren't going to suddenly become forthright and honest.

And you may not have much time for face-saving, but you are presumably not a member of a cultural group which does. Neither are you at loggerheads with anyone with an army.

NTM

EastTexas

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Well East Texas, Im not too sure about that argument. 911 didn't occur because the security measures put forward by the patriot act weren't in place, it happened because the Bush admin almost let it happen by consistently ignoring CIA reports that a terrorist attack by Bin Laden was imminent. In the same way body scaners are relatively useless, spying on citizens isn't going to really achieve anything apart from forwarding the agendas of people with authoritarian mentalities in congress. In any case collecting "humint" data on UN members was completely unethical and its a good thing thats in the light of day.

Agreed, but consider that Bush left office with an around 20% approval rating, meaning that he most certainly lost the majority of Republican support.
But this is not a Bush whack thread.
So let’s not digress to old favorites

Mr.Micro

I think Wikileaks have done a great job. It shows up skulduggery of the Leaders and their machinations. I look forward to many more leaks.....its great to see what people really think of the US, UK, France and many other countries. It clears the air instead of all the BS that the public is fed. We see the real hawk Hillary Clinton, bumbling Gordon Brown, the self promoting shallow Milliband and the King of Saudi calling for blood and war. If there were a few more wikileak type sites even better. All these big secrets so juvenile in the 21st century. Even the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war was comprised as the US demanded guarantees that US interests would not be revealed....and got them.....disgusting. Well done Wikileaks.

ChocolateSauce

Manic Moran wrote: »

Idealistic, but utterly unrealistic. Two countries that distrust each other so much that they're at the brink of war aren't going to suddenly become forthright and honest.

And you may not have much time for face-saving, but you are presumably not a member of a cultural group which does. Neither are you at loggerheads with anyone with an army.

NTM

I wouldn't deny I take an idealistic view, if you don't aim for the ideal you'll never achieve better than a second-rate outcome. Maybe two countries on the brink of war aren't going to become forthright and honest, but there is no good reason why at least one of them shouldn't. If one does, the pressure is then on the other to do the same. I point to the USSR and USA in the 80's as an example of a tense situation de-escalating . Indeed, rather than losing face, I'd say the country which backed down first gained it. It was Gorbachev, not Regan or Thatcher, who won the peace prize. He's the one who held up his hands and said "this is getting us nowhere (although come to think of it, didn't the Soviets do that in the 50's when they offered to re-unify Germany as an independent neutral state? As I recall the US said no, in part because such a thing would have been the effective end of the cold war; it would have meant the US losing face by not having defeated its sworn ideological enemy).

Finally, I take a dim view of cultures which place a high value on face-saving, the best example I can think of being Victorian Europe. Excessive pride is not a habit that should be fed and accommodated. It reminds me of lads the schoolyard each trying to get one up on each other. By going along with the face-saving habit, say between two countries at each other's throats, then even if war is averted, the macho, nationalistic mentality is reinforced, laying the foundation for troubles further down the line.

BlaasForRafa

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Regarding number two, I have very little time for face saving. Either one country is in the wrong, or both are. In the former, the country in the wrong should back down and stop being a bully, and in the latter both need to stop acting like selfish children and stop trying to see who has the bigger penis. It is acting touph, throwing ones weight around, being secretive and being unfair which brings countries to the brink of war in the first place.

Two countries which deal with each other in a fair and honest manner don't lose face to begin with.

As for secret negotiations in general, if it possible to say "this person will be harmed by these people if that is leaked", then I would support the classification of said document and oppose its dissemination. The dealings of individuals with small matters like that is quite different from that of nations though.

Sorry but that is extremely naive.

A case in point would be Egypt. The majority of Egyptians think that they actually won the Yom Kippur war...despite the fact that they got horribly beaten by Israel, the gains that the Egyptians made at the start of that war gave Sadat enough leverage to be able to make peace with Israel. Saving face is extremely important in arab culture.

If the secret negotiations between Israel, Egypt and third parties had been wikileaked then Sadat would never have spoken in the Knesset, would never have concluded the Camp David peace deal and there would probably have been another Egypt/Israel war culminating in tens of thousands more dead and wounded Egyptians. And Sadat would most likely have been assassinated before being able to make peace.

Denerick

I have two very contradictory opinions about this.

1) As somebody in love with history, its fantastic having the ability to have a real look at modern diplomacy and how our contemporaries view their rivals and colleagues. We usually have to wait at least 30 years for this kind of stuff, sometimes longer. And some of the dispatches are so beautifully written, complete with wit and insight that could only be better by a comic writer like the late J.G. Farrell.

2) I also recognise that this has now changed diplomacy; diplomats will seek to have unrecorded communications; their language will become more guarded - generally people will be afraid to say what they really think. And we'll start feeling the effects of that in 30-50 years time, when the historians begin writing about our period in earnest.

steelcityblues

I think most contributors are being very naive to the true meaning behind Wikileaks. Given it is a subsidiary site of Jimmy Wales mega profit Wikipedia, it is not too hard to imagine that they have a cosier relationship with U.S. authorities than what seems at face value.

This all sounds like its engineered to soften US citizens attitude to another 'culture war' against Iran,only because this nation will refuse to lay down peacefully to the global order endgame, and argubaly remains justified to increase its nuclear capacity since nearly everyone else is doing so.

What the payoff, other than fame, for Mr.Assange is I wonder too!

The below article is worth studying to understand this chess game.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/kumar031210.html

Exile 1798

steelcityblues wrote: »

I think most contributors are being very naive to the true meaning behind Wikileaks. Given it is a subsidiary site of Jimmy Wales mega profit Wikipedia, it is not too hard to imagine that they have a cosier relationship with U.S. authorities than what seems at face value.

This all sounds like its engineered to soften US citizens attitude to another 'culture war' against Iran,only because this nation will refuse to lay down peacefully to the global order endgame, and argubaly remains justified to increase its nuclear capacity since nearly everyone else is doing so.

What the payoff, other than fame, for Mr.Assange is I wonder too!

The below article is worth studying to understand this chess game.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/kumar031210.html

Wikipedia has no relationship with Wikileaks. It is not a subsidiary of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder, has been highly critical of Wikileaks. In no way can Wikipedia be descriped as "mega profit." The very opposite is true, it is a non-profit.

Do yourself a favour, revisit whatever nut website it is that you got that completely false information from and disregard everything else they put forth as fact.

Capt'n Midnight

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Well East Texas, Im not too sure about that argument. 911 didn't occur because the security measures put forward by the patriot act weren't in place, it happened because the Bush admin almost let it happen by consistently ignoring CIA reports that a terrorist attack by Bin Laden was imminent. .

roll he clock back further and you see that the CIA trained Bin Laden.

Look at 911 and you will see that other members of the Bin Laden were some of the few people to fly home during the ban on air travel.

Capt'n Midnight

Manic Moran wrote: »

Ireland hasn't the capacity to physically rescue an Irish aid worker taken hostage in Somalia or wherever.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0108/liberia.html

The Minister for Defence, Michael Smith, has praised the actions of Irish members of the UN peace enforcement mission to Liberia this week, in securing the release of 35 men and women held captive by renegade forces.

Irish Rangers FTW

Lirange

steelcityblues wrote: »

I think most contributors are being very naive to the true meaning behind Wikileaks. Given it is a subsidiary site of Jimmy Wales mega profit Wikipedia, it is not too hard to imagine that they have a cosier relationship with U.S. authorities than what seems at face value.

Do you know what the term "wiki" means and where it derives from?

Dude111

I dont know what to think about Wikileaks anymore!

Why didnt they SEIZE the domain like they seized 30 or so other domains lately?? (www.torrent-finder.com is one seized domain)

IF THEY CAN SO EASILY TAKE A SITE DOWN,WHY DIDNT THEY TAKE HIS DOWN IF HE WAS REALLY EXPOSING ALL THIS STUFF THEY DONT WANT KNOWN??

BTW Its still up here > www.wikileaks.ch


I dunno if its a LEGIT site or if its sponsered by GOVT wanting to secretly have this info leaked so they dont have to flat out admit this stuff!

Something strange about that site!

Manic Moran

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0108/liberia.htmlIrish Rangers FTW

Yes, on a mission where the Irish were already present, and in a relatively permissive enviroment.

I'm thinking more along the lines of instances like Margaret Hassan or Sharon Cummins where the Irish military were not already present or suitably equipped for the job. Particularly the latter. We don't know what deals the Irish government made in their negotiations to get her released, and I don't think the Irish people or GOAL really care. We are blissful in our ignorance. But the Rangers' capability to affect rescue is limited by small issues like the Irish government not providing sufficient funding for them to take any helicopters places with them. And I don't see them doing an Entebbe any time soon.

NTM

steelcityblues

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Wikipedia has no relationship with Wikileaks. It is not a subsidiary of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder, has been highly critical of Wikileaks. In no way can Wikipedia be descriped as "mega profit." The very opposite is true, it is a non-profit.

Do yourself a favour, revisit whatever nut website it is that you got that completely false information from and disregard everything else they put forth as fact.

My bad on thinking they were associated with Wikipedia - has Jimmy Wales launched any proceedings against that given the obvious name similarities?

As for being a 'nut', how do you think Assange got a hold of all of this info if he really is a thorn in the Western countries side. If anything it is trying to present Iran as 'irrational' for even considering to hold nuclear weapons while US backed states do the same. The US authorities will be losing little sleep over what has been leaked.

I think it should be clear that there is a difference between providing information in the public interest and being reckless. For example, I believe Wikileaks publshed the names and addresses of every British National party member. Whatever the views you or I have on the BNP, that stinks of being unethical and a gross invasion of privacy. Would he do the same for Tory and Labour members?

Assange has made himself famous, but at what cost to his credibility.

EastTexas

steelcityblues wrote: »

My bad on thinking they were associated with Wikipedia - has Jimmy Wales launched any proceedings against that given the obvious name similarities?

As for being a 'nut', how do you think Assange got a hold of all of this info if.....

Assange accepted stolen property from Bradley Manning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

Memnoch

MM - It would be hard to deny that there is considerable validity to the arguments you've made in this thread.

Saving lives however works both ways.

Take for instance the issue of Iraq, where the CIA helped Saddam rise to power and the US government (along with many other western powers) not only turned a blind eye to his actions but actively supported him and encouraged him to wage a 10 year long war with Iran.

How many lives would have been spared if the CIA/US government officials who made the decisions to help Saddam) knew their actions would be open to public scrutiny? How many other dictators are propped up and propelled to power by the US? How many of their citizens do they murder and subjugate?

How many lives would have been saved if the secret diplomatic comuniques regarding Saddam's war with Iran were released and how the US and other powerful nations really reacted and participated in the affair?)

And how many lives would have been spared if the TRUE information about Saddam's so called WMD's and all the other lies that were carefully constructed by Bush and Blair were out in the open for the public?

I don't buy the argument that this kind of secrecy is good for the people. It's only good for those who engage in wrong doing of the greatest magnitude which I respectfully submit they would have to give PAUSE about if they knew their actions would someday be revealed in the full and open light and judged for what they really were rather than the lies and spin that are currently propagated.

If I had ANY faith that these world leaders could be trusted to behave in an honourable manner and hold themselves to account or even ALLOW themselves to account by say the ICC or the UN or any other independent means then there could be an arguement made that the public doesn't need to know. As it stands, the only real purpose the secrecy serves is to allow corrupt and immoral individuals and organisations to act with impunity and without fear of consequence and that must end.

If there is any naievete on display here, it is the belief that elected world leaders are somehow trustworthy and honest and always act genuinely in the best interests of those they are supposed to represent, especially when they are fully aware that whatever they do as well as their real motives for their actions will remain shrouded in secrecy and protected under the guise of serving the so called national interest.

ei.sdraob

Friend

i am doing my bit to help by issuing them ftp account and offered to serve a mirror on one of my servers

the world needs wikileaks, and Irish whistle-blowers need to start using it, especially if anything is known about that criminal organisation called Anglo

gizmo555

EastTexas wrote: »

Assange accepted stolen property from Bradley Manning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

There was no theft nor has Manning been charged with theft. It follows that Assange didn't receive stolen property.

EastTexas

gizmo555 wrote: »

There was no theft nor has Manning been charged with theft. It follows that Assange didn't receive stolen property.

S

Semantics?
Manning was arrested in May after WikiLeaks released leaked footage of attacks by US Apache helicopters in Iraq in 2007.
He was later charged with transferring classified data and “delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source”, which could carry a maximum sentence of 52 years in jail.
The Pentagon described Mr Manning as a “person of interest” for the subsequent and latest releases of documents.
Meaning there is a good chance for his charges to be amended to treason and or espionage which could carry the death penalty.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Denerick wrote: »

I have two very contradictory opinions about this.

1) As somebody in love with history, its fantastic having the ability to have a real look at modern diplomacy and how our contemporaries view their rivals and colleagues. We usually have to wait at least 30 years for this kind of stuff, sometimes longer. And some of the dispatches are so beautifully written, complete with wit and insight that could only be better by a comic writer like the late J.G. Farrell.

2) I also recognise that this has now changed diplomacy; diplomats will seek to have unrecorded communications; their language will become more guarded - generally people will be afraid to say what they really think. And we'll start feeling the effects of that in 30-50 years time, when the historians begin writing about our period in earnest.

Completely agree. Real goose that lays the golden eggs scenario.

Mr. Presentable

Loose cannon IMO. In other words, foe. The ideal is admirable, the problem is the man in the street will ultimately be the one to suffer - not politicians or the system.

gizmo555

EastTexas wrote: »

S

Semantics?
Manning was arrested in May after WikiLeaks released leaked footage of attacks by US Apache helicopters in Iraq in 2007.
He was later charged with transferring classified data and “delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source”, which could carry a maximum sentence of 52 years in jail.
The Pentagon described Mr Manning as a “person of interest” for the subsequent and latest releases of documents.
Meaning there is a good chance for his charges to be amended to treason and or espionage which could carry the death penalty.

Not semantics at all. Just because Manning has been charged with and will likely be convicted of offences relating to the passing of the information to Assange, doesn't mean Assange is guilty of an offence in receiving it.

Your assertion that he is guilty of receiving stolen goods when no goods were stolen makes as little sense as Sarah Palin's claim that Assange has committed treason against the US, when he isn't a US citizen and therefore by definition can't have.

Memnoch

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Loose cannon IMO. In other words, foe. The ideal is admirable, the problem is the man in the street will ultimately be the one to suffer - not politicians or the system.

Why will the man in the street suffer if the political elite cannot act with complete impunity and fear of justice or exposure for their actions?

The man on the street has nothing to gain with people in power being able to do whatever they want without any consequence.

Memnoch

gizmo555 wrote: »

Not semantics at all. Just because Manning has been charged with and will likely be convicted of offences relating to the passing of the information to Assange, doesn't mean Assange is guilty of an offence in receiving it.

Your assertion that he is guilty of receiving stolen goods when no goods were stolen makes as little sense as Sarah Palin's claim that Assange has committed treason against the US, when he isn't a US citizen and therefore by definition can't have.

I wish Sarah Palin would commit REASON against the US.

mr.bovy

EastTexas wrote: »

He’s true believer of his own doctrine but completely unaware and incapable of even considering the magnitude of harm he has done by publishing private conversations.

Which doctrine are you talking about?
I remember when he used to aim for making the service offering raw data to the people. Nowadays we targets it to the press and they make a story out of it (check the interview for the economist on youtube). Mainstream recently gets even leak from wiki before website publishes it...

Its quite a propaganda machine to me...

please comment.

Jonny7

Why are the Americans the only ones getting into such a barney about this? they are practically baying for this mans blood, whilst every other nation affected just seems to respond with 'meh'

Black Swan

gizmo555 wrote: »

Sarah Palin's claim that Assange has committed treason against the US, when he isn't a US citizen and therefore by definition can't have.

"...US Govt can't stop Wikileaks' treasonous act?"

Sarah Palin continues to display her depth of knowledge and understanding of law and civics.

gizmo555

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why are the Americans the only ones getting into such a barney about this? they are practically baying for this mans blood, whilst every other nation affected just seems to respond with 'meh'

Only some Americans - others, like Robert Gates, Defense Secretary and past Director of the CIA are more sanguine:

Let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: ‘How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel.’

“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. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

“So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.

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

Manic Moran

How many lives would have been spared if the CIA/US government officials who made the decisions to help Saddam) knew their actions would be open to public scrutiny? How many other dictators are propped up and propelled to power by the US? How many of their citizens do they murder and subjugate?

I understand your logic, but there's no way of knowing if it turned out to be the better of two evils. What might have happened had not the US taken certain decision policies? How many lives would have been saved had the US not gotten militarily involved in Vietnam? Certainly lots of Americans and Vietnamese, but would the American refusal to demonstrate its willingness to shed its own blood in support of its allies have possibly encouraged other incidents elsewhere?

The possibility that people can make poor, or even illegal decisions should not hamper the possibility of people making good decisions. That's why the default position for freedoms in the average Western world is that you are free to drink, drive high horsepower cars, or own guns, even though there are liabilities to those freedoms.

Why are the Americans the only ones getting into such a barney about this? they are practically baying for this mans blood, whilst every other nation affected just seems to respond with 'meh'

Mainly because they're the ones being targetted. Der Spiegel announced this week that there's been an internal split within Wikileaks on the issue. A number of staff including the former #2 in the organisation, Domscheit-Berg, have gotten fed up with Assange's anti-US vendetta and will be launching a new site later this month with a 'broader approach.' (Or, as D-B points out, he followed Assange's instruction that "If you have a problem with me, piss off". Interestingly, Assange apparently wasn't happy about that leak of the internal Wikileaks goings-on). It is entirely possible that as new organisations focus on other nations that those other nations will start being a little less (publicly) 'meh'.

Just because Manning has been charged with and will likely be convicted of offences relating to the passing of the information to Assange, doesn't mean Assange is guilty of an offence in receiving it

Although possibly correct as far as it goes (there may be caveats to 'knowingly receiving illegally obtained goods' for example), the unauthorised distrubution of intellectual property is an offence in most jurisdictions.

NTM

Digitaljunkie

Has wikkileaks been taken off line? I can't get in even through google.

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

Although possibly correct as far as it goes (there may be caveats to 'knowingly receiving illegally obtained goods' for example), the unauthorised distrubution of intellectual property is an offence in most jurisdictions.

At best, in most jurisdictions it's treated as a civil tort, not a criminal offence. If it's a criminal offence "in most jurisdictions", the Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel are equally, if not more guilty than Assange. Why aren't they being prosecuted, if it's an offence? How come Palin and her ilk aren't calling for the NYT's editor to be tried for treason? After all, he, unlike Assange, actually is a US citizen.

Teferi

Digitaljunkie wrote: »

Has wikkileaks been taken off line? I can't get in even through google.

If it is down it is likely due to a DDOS. There are a ton of mirror sites up if you google for one.

Slightly aside - I am shocked at the Sky News reporting on this. They're really showing their Murdoch roots on this particular issue and are sounding more like the eejits of Fox News than anything else.

Anonymous1987

I question the reason and morality of this:

On Monday, Wikileaks released an extensive list of facilities around the world that, according to the latest leaked cables, the US describes as vital to its national security.
The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.
Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plants.
This is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.
Former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said WikiLeaks' actions were "verging on the criminal".
He told the BBC: "It's not just negligence, it's not just stupidity, it is something which can be of active assistance to terrorist organisations."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11929034

The file identifies sites the US relies on for a range of substances, from smallpox vaccines in Denmark to bauxite in Guinea and liquefied natural gas in the Middle East. Several underwater pipelines are listed in Japan, China and Britain, while Indonesia is flagged up for its tin mines and Iraq for its oil.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d463920-011a-11e0-8894-00144feab49a.html#axzz17MRL91so

Manic Moran

gizmo555 wrote: »

At best, in most jurisdictions it's treated as a civil tort, not a criminal offence.

The countries in 'Red' seem to take an interest in it being a criminal matter.

If it's a criminal offence "in most jurisdictions", the Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel are equally, if not more guilty than Assange. Why aren't they being prosecuted, if it's an offence?

It's a fair question. My guess is it's a cost/benefit policy decision.

How come Palin and her ilk aren't calling for the NYT's editor to be tried for treason? After all, he, unlike Assange, actually is a US citizen.

I have no idea. I don't pay overly much attention to what Palin says, let alone know what she thinks.

In the meantime, State Dept fallout continues, according to the Indo.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/us-forced-to-shake-up-embassies-around-the-world-after-wikileaks-revelations-2152167.html

"In the short run, we're almost out of business," a senior US diplomat told the Reuters news agency, saying it could take five years to rebuild trust. "It is really, really bad. I cannot exaggerate it. In all honesty, nobody wants to talk to us ... Some people still have to, particularly (in) government but ... they are already asking us things like, 'Are you going to write about this?'"

<Snip>

"We're going to have to pull out some of our best people – the diplomats who best represented the United States and were the most thoughtful in their analysis – because they dared to report back the truth about the nations in which they serve."

I still don't see how this is a good thing, or a necessary side-effect of the revalation of illegal activity.

NTM

Digitaljunkie

Looks like the digital feds are working hard to shut wiki down,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/cyber-attacks-close-wikileaks-website-2152953.html

EastTexas

mr.bovy wrote: »

Which doctrine are you talking about?
I remember when he used to aim for making the service offering raw data to the people. Nowadays we targets it to the press and they make a story out of it (check the interview for the economist on youtube). Mainstream recently gets even leak from wiki before website publishes it...

Its quite a propaganda machine to me...

please comment.

Because Assange is an idealist and has adopted a particular view of how the world should function.
The world according to Assange if you will and appears to be dead set to impose that with total disregards to the potential cost and harm to others.
Considering himself above the law whilst holding others to the law also indicates some compartmentalized thinking.
That doctrine, to answer your question.

Also consider context.
If he where an American investigative reporter he’d use a completely different and legal paths to tell the story and be a real whistle blower.
Somebody part of the process (aided and protected by the freedom of the press and freedom of information) holding those in the process accountable, an entity the Government could work with.
But they are not partnering up with Assange at his request to determine what to publish.

Neither would any credible journalist ever sink so low to publish private cables/ mail
But as some internet wild cat, indiscriminately leaking private conversations, he is just a finger pointer whilst hiding from accountability.

Look, I get the Robin Hood aspect of this and don’t deny some admiration at least for his set of huevos, so this is not a blind partisan position.
And in part also blame our mainstream press for not being more vigilant, especially in the last decade.
But that does not legitimatize or exonerate J.A.
Legally and ethically private mail, cables, post, conversations is of the table.
The difference between a pro and a wannabe .
He jumped the shark right there.

EastTexas

Memnoch wrote: »

I wish Sarah Palin would commit REASON against the US.

Isn’t there already a palin thread already?
Must those obsessed with her leak her into topic unrelated? :rolleyes:

COUCH WARRIOR

EastTexas wrote: »

Assange accepted stolen property from Bradley Manning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

innocent until proven guilty does not apply to people accused of actions I do not agree with?

EastTexas

gizmo555 wrote: »

Not semantics at all. Just because Manning has been charged with and will likely be convicted of offences relating to the passing of the information to Assange, doesn't mean Assange is guilty of an offence in receiving it.

Your assertion that he is guilty of receiving stolen goods when no goods were stolen makes as little sense as Sarah Palin's claim that Assange has committed treason against the US, when he isn't a US citizen and therefore by definition can't have.

They are not done charging Manning as the fallout from his actions is ongoing
Depending on what they charge Manning with will greatly affect and broaden the scope of possibilities of what J.A. can be charged with.
Turning it over to a foreigner to publish and not to a legit American news outlet may well put him in the realm of espionage if not treason.

There are many angles on which J.A. can be charged.
One that jumps our right away is that Wikileaks has solicited funds via PayPal for publishing this information.
Which could be legally interpreted as a form of selling, especially since his profits have sky rocketed with the release of the private cables.
How being registered as a none profit organization affects this, I wouldn’t know.

I am not going to respond to your palin argument.
Be sure to stay tuned to her tweets.