Wikileaks Update

dr gonzo · 03-08-2010 07:44PM #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 07:55PM

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 08:47PM

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 08:53PM

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 09:00PM

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 09:06PM

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 09:11PM

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 09:11PM

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 09:17PM

Whats happening?

themadhair · 26-11-2010 09:25PM

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 09:33PM

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 09:36PM

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 09:41PM

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 09:50PM

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 09:55PM

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 09:58PM

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 05:33PM

"..…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 06:18PM

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 06:23PM

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 06:26PM

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 06:33PM

Julian Assange

Manic Moran · 28-11-2010 05:28AM

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 01:08AM

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 01:10AM

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 01:14AM

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 01:15AM

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

themadhair · 29-11-2010 01:16AM

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.

Wikileaks Update

Comments