Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Brian · 28-11-2010 06:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It sounds like something from a James Bond movie.

ie. a piss take.

sponsoredwalk · 28-11-2010 06:39PM

Or Assange could just be with a new chick and she's mashing the keys on
the open laptop messing up the servers & Assange's co-workers are going
mental thinking it's a bit attack by the US :pac:

/exits...

Clawdeeus · 28-11-2010 06:40PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Anyone else think it's odd that over the last few days, the US has continued to 'warn' nations of the impending release even though said warnings were quickly being made public.. adding fuel to the fire? Seriously, sometimes I think it's all just a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from things happening today. What have any of the leaks actually achieved yet other than to create headlines and encourage online nattering?

Has anyone been held to account over the actions of the US yet.. other than the guy who is supposedly responsible for all these leaks?

So far there hasnt really been anything earth shattering. Perspective, yes, but no really new news. This may be different.

28-11-2010 06:41PM

Running scheduled maintenence.

Nodin · 28-11-2010 06:44PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Has anyone been held to account over the actions of the US yet.. other than the guy who is supposedly responsible for all these leaks?

Few hillbillies got jailed for torturing Iraqis like they were told to, but apart from that.....

dashboard_hula · 28-11-2010 06:46PM

http://gawker.com/5700580/wikileaks-newest-leak-leaked-on-twitter

Looks like Der Speigel went out too early and it doesn't matter whether the sites up or down.

The "revelations" so far don't look too world-shaking.

Biggins · 28-11-2010 06:46PM

My name is URL wrote: »

...Has anyone been held to account over the actions of the US yet.. other than the guy who is supposedly responsible for all these leaks?

Well the American military stated at one time that they would be investigating the infamous incident (caught on video and released) where a reporter and camera man were killed by helicopter gunfire blasts along with other innocent civilians in an Iraqi town - but that story/investigation has been quietly allowed to drop off the radar so to speak.
Convenient or what!

An incident by the way that was only then (years later) going to be investigated - only because it became public knowledge.

Overheal · 28-11-2010 06:48PM

Was "News Flash" meant sarcastically?

Wikileaks isn't interested is only interested in 'revealing the truth' it seems when it comes secondary to hype and self-publicity. They're sitting on enough documents to drip tidbits for a decade or more: they aren't going to blow their load. Further to that they'll hang on to the most incriminating evidence until the bitter end, if such information even exists, or for that matter is in their possession, or for that matter ever happened. Hell, the Helicopter scenario may have just been the juiciest thing in their hands and they used it for that initial attention grab. Like a big flashy season premier.

I mean ask yourself why go to all the expense of secret cold war bunker server farms and everything else if you weren't going to drag this out until the end of time?

My name is URL · 28-11-2010 06:50PM

Clawdeeus wrote: »

So far there hasnt really been anything earth shattering. Perspective, yes, but no really new news. This may be different.

I reckon it'll be much the same as the last batch of documents, cause a few people embarrassment and keep the public preoccupied for a few months.. until the next release is ready. It has two uses.. it'll instill a sense that 'what we need to know will be made public' in people, while at the same time draw attention away from the things happening today.

I could be talking crap, though.

Biggins · 28-11-2010 06:52PM

Overheal wrote: »

Was "News Flash" meant sarcastically?

Wikileaks isn't interested is only interested in 'revealing the truth' it seems when it comes secondary to hype and self-publicity. They're sitting on enough documents to drip tidbits for a decade or more: they aren't going to blow their load. Further to that they'll hang on to the most incriminating evidence until the bitter end, if such information even exists, or for that matter is in their possession.

I mean ask yourself why go to all the expense of secret cold war bunker server farms and everything else if you weren't going to drag this out until the end of time?

My estimation is that they won't sit on anything too long - for the longer they do so, the less relevance it might have to current establishments, relationship to time scale of current events world-wide and/or effectiveness in self promotion anyway.

If they are found to to sitting on something anyway too long, for their own sake, they know their credibility here too would be under scrutiny and question.

Clawdeeus · 28-11-2010 06:53PM

Biggins wrote: »

Well the American military stated at one time that they would be investigating the infamous incident (caught on video and released) where a reporter and camera man were killed by helicopter gunfire blasts along with other innocent civialians in an Iraqi town - but that story/investigation has been quietly allowed to drop off the radar so to speak.
Convenient or what!

An incidentally by the way that was only then going to be investigated - only because it became public knowledge.

Yeah, same helicopter was involved in another use of what could be considered too much force in the Iraq war logs. Just to clarify it was investigated BEFORE the release, it was released and then the US military said it would reopen the investigation.

sponsoredwalk · 28-11-2010 06:54PM

Overheal wrote: »

Was "News Flash" meant sarcastically?

Wikileaks isn't interested is only interested in 'revealing the truth' it seems when it comes secondary to hype and self-publicity. They're sitting on enough documents to drip tidbits for a decade or more: they aren't going to blow their load. Further to that they'll hang on to the most incriminating evidence until the bitter end, if such information even exists, or for that matter is in their possession, or for that matter ever happened. Hell, the Helicopter scenario may have just been the juiciest thing in their hands and they used it for that initial attention grab. Like a big flashy season premier.

I mean ask yourself why go to all the expense of secret cold war bunker server farms and everything else if you weren't going to drag this out until the end of time?

Wow, ignoring the venom in your post I think it's obvious why they
aren't publishing all of the documents & it's not in accord with your
self-hype/publicity hypothesis that I'm sure explains everything else
negative about wikileaks :pac:
Haven't they constantly said that they need to check & double
check all of the material to make sure it's credible? Haven't they
already said that they are terribly understaffed & were rejected
by the US & many others when requesting help?
But yeah, they are all about self aggrandizment & headlines because
thay's what matters when you're given secret documents that
people would murder for.

Manic Moran · 28-11-2010 06:55PM

Biggins wrote: »

Well the American military stated at one time that they would be investigating the infamous incident (caught on video and released) where a reporter and camera man were killed by helicopter gunfire blasts along with other innocent civilians in an Iraqi town - but that story/investigation has been quietly allowed to drop off the radar so to speak.
Convenient or what!

An incident by the way that was only then (years later) going to be investigated - only because it became public knowledge.

That isn't accurate. The official, albeit redacted, investigation into the incident was actually released (Complete with the photographs from the camerman's retrieved camera of the US patrol that was in the area) the day after the leak. There was no subsequent re-opening of the case, it was pretty open-and-shut.

I can't think of a single investigation by any country which has resulted from a valid leak. Even Abu Ghraib was under investigation when the photos were leaked. The only thng Wikileaks has thus far managed to advance is Wikileaks and the causes of those who oppose the US. (I put 'valid' in, because a couple of British soldiers were invesigated for what turned out later to be fake photos)

NTM

Biggins · 28-11-2010 06:56PM

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Yeah, same helicopter was involved in another use of what could be considered too much force in the Iraq war logs. Just to clarify it was investigated BEFORE the release, it was released and then the US military said it would reopen the investigation.

Yea, correct. The first look at the incident was a joke.
It was only with the later publicity that they had to be then seen to be doing something more genuine.
...At least for a while till the worlds eyes went elsewhere.

zuroph · 28-11-2010 06:56PM

um. the DOS attack is us. How many people have gone to the page or linked to it to see if its working?!

liah · 28-11-2010 06:56PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

They harass Justin Beiber, and Scientologists, & youtube by putting
porn on it They would hardly stray into the political arena & if they
did there is no way they would target wikileaks. They would literally be
the most likely candidate for their unadulated support but yeah,
I understand how you'd think of them, but thinking about what
they do there is no way in hell it would be them.

@ Biggins, it doesn't surprise me about Britain seeing it is practically
a police state that is against freedom.

Which is why I said, in both of my posts, that I seriously doubted it was them, and asked who it was.

Also, 4chan's been involved in political stuff too, in fairness.

Nodin · 28-11-2010 06:57PM

Its back up.

Clawdeeus · 28-11-2010 06:58PM

My name is URL wrote: »

I reckon it'll be much the same as the last batch of documents, cause a few people embarrassment and keep the public preoccupied for a few months.. until the next release is ready. It has two uses.. it'll instill a sense that 'what we need to know will be made public' in people, while at the same time draw attention to the things happening today.

I could be talking crap, though.

I would kind of agree actually. Looking at that spiegel, it seems like its more mildly insulting to some leaders than earth-shattering. I have no idea how diplomatically damaging that will be, but its hardly of great interest to the general public. Although it will be great to see if they say anytihng about Brain Cowen. My hope is they make a snyde reference to his weight.

I have read (cant remember where) that some of the documents will be much more damaging to the UK, as they make "anti-islamic" sentiments felt by British officials clear. Or summit like that. Oh what fun.

Mrmoe · 28-11-2010 06:59PM

It's a bit pointless as wikileaks would have some many backups and work around that the most anyone could do is to delay the release.

28-11-2010 07:00PM

Nodin wrote: »

Its back up.

Nope, wikileaks.org is still down for me.

sponsoredwalk · 28-11-2010 07:02PM

Clawdeeus wrote: »

I have read (cant remember where) that some of the documents will be much more damaging to the UK, as they make "anti-islamic" sentiments felt by British officials clearer. Or summit like that. Oh what fun.

:pac:

Clawdeeus · 28-11-2010 07:04PM

Biggins wrote: »

Yea, correct. The first look at the incident was a joke.
It was only with the later publicity that they had to be then seen to be doing something more genuine.
...At least for a while till the worlds eyes went elsewhere.

Its very rare that a military punishes its troops for using overt force in a combat situation (some of the men originally shot at had weapons, the reporters, unfortunatly, had big equipment they were lugging around) as it has serious repercussions for tactical deployments later. This obviously means that justice is sidetracked, or ran over completly for "the broader picture".

I think the second investigation was more geared towards the attack on the van, as that was ignored originally (focus on the reporters, and the obvious PR issue), it was more peoples shock at this attack that prompted the second investigation IMO, rather than the original hit on the big group of men. Im willing to be shown wrong here, cant remember where I read that analysis.

Ghost Train · 28-11-2010 07:16PM

got on to the site a minute ago, nothing new up on it yet as far as I can see

Nodin · 28-11-2010 07:17PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope, wikileaks.org is still down for me.

Down again for me now too.

Biggins · 28-11-2010 07:18PM

zuroph wrote: »

um. the DOS attack is us. How many people have gone to the page or linked to it to see if its working?!

:pac: ...You could be right - but their server is probably well, well used to the highest of volumes logging on at times (like before) at normal times.

However to take down their site now (with their own experience maintaining a site to keep up under high accessing at times), it would take something or some(s) definitely more serious in intention and by skill/tools use, to achieve such a hack upon their system.

Inverse to the power of one! · 28-11-2010 07:20PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

That isn't accurate. The official, albeit redacted, investigation into the incident was actually released (Complete with the photographs from the camerman's retrieved camera of the US patrol that was in the area) the day after the leak. There was no subsequent re-opening of the case, it was pretty open-and-shut.

I can't think of a single investigation by any country which has resulted from a valid leak. Even Abu Ghraib was under investigation when the photos were leaked. The only thng Wikileaks has thus far managed to advance is Wikileaks and the causes of those who oppose the US. (I put 'valid' in, because a couple of British soldiers were invesigated for what turned out later to be fake photos)

NTM

But by no means would they have been guaranteed to release the associated materials. Think about the difference in impact between the release of the photos of AG, and had the investigation simply been been revealed as a press release, in media terms a gulf of universal proportions.

Even if the leak is what is expected to come out anyway, the introduction of a third party ensures transparency against those involved and naturally the interests they represent.

Will · 28-11-2010 07:24PM

This just out - http://www.guardian.co.uk/ explore for yourselves :eek:

Pauleta · 28-11-2010 07:24PM

Sky News are saying Saudi Arabia were pressing the U.S for military action on Iran. Thats pretty big.

Nodin · 28-11-2010 07:24PM

They've stuff up on The Guardian now....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Biggins · 28-11-2010 07:29PM

Will wrote: »

This just out - http://www.guardian.co.uk/ explore for yourselves :eek:

Among scores of other disclosures that are likely to cause uproar, the cables detail:
• Grave fears in Washington and London over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme
• Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime.
• Devastating criticism of the UK's military operations in Afghanistan.
• Claims of inappropriate behaviour by a member of the British royal family.

Prince Charles marries a horse?

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Comments