Wikileaks Update

FionnMatthew · 29-11-2010 01:17AM

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 01:20AM

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 01:25AM

It wins back hearts and minds....

DeV.

themadhair · 29-11-2010 01:29AM

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 01:30AM

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 01:58AM

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 06:16AM

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 06:23AM

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 06:34AM

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 08:29AM

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 09:46AM

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 09:48AM

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 09:55AM

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 02:50PM

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 01:41AM

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 05:45PM

He doesn't have a notion..

Wikileaks Update

Comments