Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

145791040

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Julian is answering questions put to him in the Guardian article:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

    It's still updating so keep refreshing every few minutes.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has hailed the young American soldier suspected of passing classified US documents to his whistleblowing organisation as an "unparalleled hero".

    Mr Assange praised US Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, 23, who lived in Wales as a teenager, without confirming he was the source of the leaks that have deeply embarrassed Washington and its allies.

    In an online question and answer session on The Guardian's website, Mr Assange also said WikiLeaks' actions had since April been dictated by the moves of "abusive elements of the United States government" against the group.

    The 39-year-old Australian former computer hacker, who is believed to be in England, is wanted for questioning in Sweden over rape allegations.

    Manning was charged by the US Army in July with mishandling and leaking classified data and putting American national security at risk. He has not been charged over the release of the US diplomatic cables but is suspected of being the source of the latest leaks.

    During the Q&A session, Mr Assange wrote: "For the past four years one of our goals has been to lionise the source(s) who take the real risks in nearly every journalistic disclosure and without whose efforts, journalists would be nothing.

    "If indeed it is the case, as alleged by the Pentagon, that the young soldier - Bradley Manning - is behind some of our recent disclosures, then he is without doubt an unparalleled hero."

    The WikiLeaks founder said his organisation was "a little behind schedule" and had "much more work to do".

    "Since April of this year our timetable has not been our own, rather it has been one that has centred around the moves of abusive elements of the United States government against us," he wrote.

    Referring to the death threats he and his colleagues have received, he said: "The threats against our lives are a matter of public record, however, we are taking the appropriate precautions to the degree that we are able when dealing with a superpower."

    http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/wikileaks-founder-hails-soldier-2447437.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Notice how the Independent didn't mention this little tidbit:
    Assange wrote:
    (Question put to Assange in bold)
    Tom Flanagan, a [former] senior adviser to Canadian Prime Minister recently stated "I think Assange should be assassinated ... I think Obama should put out a contract ... I wouldn't feel unhappy if Assange does disappear."
    How do you feel about this?

    It is correct that Mr. Flanagan and the others seriously making these statements should be charged with incitement to commit murder.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

    I expect to see Manic_Moran furiously criticizing the Independent for
    editorializing Assange's speech in the same way he ceaselessly criticizes
    wikileaks for publishing both an unedited & edited version of collateral
    murder :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭Gunsfortoys


    I love what these guys are doing. They have the most powerful government in the world under the thumb and outclassing and outrunning them at every angle.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    I love what these guys are doing. They have the most powerful government in the world under the thumb and outclassing and outrunning them at every angle.
    Maybe - but would you want Russia's secret police hunting you down at the same time?

    Yikes!!! :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭Gunsfortoys


    Biggins wrote: »
    Maybe - but would you want Russia's secret police hunting you down at the same time?

    Yikes!!! :eek:

    If I was able to expose secrets of corruption perpetrated by the bastards of this world I wouldn't care to be honest.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    Biggins wrote: »
    Maybe - but would you want Russia's secret police hunting you down at the same time?

    Yikes!!! :eek:

    No more afternoon tea in London for Mr Assange anyway.:eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    I would say that the US/alliance secrecy promotes things like Wikileaks.
    Assange is a hero, as are all the people supplying information to him.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Mrmoe wrote: »
    No more afternoon tea in London for Mr Assange anyway.:eek:
    Indeed - and as was the last case of deadly afternoon tea, it was supposedly by someone that was close to the last victim of such a poisoning.

    Mr Assange better steer clear of anyone carrying an umbrella too!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,967 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    Biggins wrote: »

    The 24 hour delay in closing it down was due to leagal reasons. Wikileaks were/are intitled by law to 24 hours notice. This they got once Amazon got contacted by Joe Lieberman - and then service was pulled.

    It appears that when the Republican party makes demands, they get what they want and Amazon cave!

    Maybe I've misread your post

    Lieberman is a Democrat


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    They cant kill him... it would martyr him and trigger an explosion in internet leaks sites. One is enough to contain, imagine 100... 1000....


    Mr Assange is physically safe but none the less they will try a number of dirty tactics (like pressuring Amazon... muddying the water with the rape allegations etc).

    DeV.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Maybe I've misread your post
    Lieberman is a Democrat

    Indeed, that was something I didn't make further clear, on my part.
    According to a number of media reports, Lieberman approached Amazon to do something but it wasn't till the Republican Party applied additional pressure was it that Amazon finally decided to bow to said pressure. Huckabee leading the charge apparently from his side, for Amazon to do something - and they did...


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,900 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    No, what they are doing is not illegal.

    The Attorney General of the United States would beg to disagree. I think he probably has better legal qualifications than most of us on here.
    So i heard on Sky last night that there is a super encrypted file that wikileak users can download that is being used as an insurance policy, has anyone got link or know how to download?

    Here's what I don't get about that concept.

    Wikileaks is priding itself on making public 'game-changing' or otherwise 'important' pieces of information. If this insurance file is so astonishing that it works as 'insurance', then why haven't they released it as part of their openness campaign? Do they not care enough about their goal to do so?
    I expect to see Manic_Moran furiously criticizing the Independent for
    editorializing Assange's speech in the same way he ceaselessly criticizes
    wikileaks for publishing both an unedited & edited version of collateral
    murder

    My first criticism on that page is to Mr Assange himself for the way he responded, or should I say, failed to respond, to the question posed by a British diplomat, which was quite possibly the best question on that page.

    As regards the quote itself, I don't see how I can accuse the Guardian (I presume that's what you meant) for editorialising when they appear to have just taken direct questions and responses from others. I have no doubt that they chose which questions to forward and print, but without some basis of comparison and frame of reference (as was available to us in the gunship footage) on cannot make a meaningful statement. However, credit to the Guardian for printing the question by the diplomat and its response, it does seem to be evidence of even-handedness.

    NTM


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    The Attorney General of the United States would beg to disagree. I think he probably has better legal qualifications than most of us on here.

    Fox news had a segment on this with one of their pundits Judge Napolitano. In his view what they are doing is not illegal. Basically what he said was that there is legislation dating back to 1917 but that it was overturned by the US Supreme court due to first amendment rights citing freedom of the press from prosecution particularly dating back to the Nixon and Clinton eras.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    Mrmoe wrote: »
    Fox news had a segment on this with one of their pundits Judge Napolitano. In his view what they are doing is not illegal. Basically what he said was that there is legislation dating back to 1917 but that it was overturned by the US Supreme court due to first amendment rights citing freedom of the press from prosecution particularly dating back to the Nixon and Clinton eras.

    Well if anything I'd say they could be done for encouraging Brad Manning and any other sources they had who broke the law, even if the actual publishing is not illegal.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,900 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I think Mark might be on the mark, there (no pun intended). There are differences between protection for the whistleblower and the publisher.

    For example, the whislteblower protection laws will protect someone who goes to the police with evidence of illegal activity. They will not give the same level of protection to someone who goes utterly public by releasing information to the press, it comes down to just what information is made available. For example, the FBI may need to know Coca Cola's trade secret information for the investigation, but that doesn't result in Coke's intellecual property being transmitted to Pepsi.

    Further, the ability for the press to keep their sources confidential is a different issue to immunity for those sources themselves. It's like saying I have the right to remain silent to prevent my saying anything which will land me in jail. This is true, but if the police are able use other sources to land me in jail, my right to silence is irrelevant. The press may not be compelled to identify who leaked them the information, but if the police can find out and prove by other means, that's not going to be good for the leaker.

    [edit. Whistle blower protection will also be more likely if the blow is for illegal activity. What is illegal about saying that the italian pm parties a lot which requires protection for the leak?

    NTM


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Here's what I don't get about that concept.

    Wikileaks is priding itself on making public 'game-changing' or otherwise 'important' pieces of information. If this insurance file is so astonishing that it works as 'insurance', then why haven't they released it as part of their openness campaign? Do they not care enough about their goal to do so?

    I think that's obvious. Assuming the insurance file contains everything
    related to these latest files then releasing the major file would give away
    every bit of info unfiltered. That means the names will not be redacted
    & then they've committed another sin. That is assuming the file is not
    just pure nonsense or the latest Batman film. I don't know how that
    isn't the most obvious aspect of the insurance file to anyone & I'm
    pretty sure it's not the first time I've read you state that, but I could
    be wrong on that. Still I think it's completely obvious why they haven't
    given away the contents of it unless you just want to use anything you
    can grab & use it against them.
    My first criticism on that page is to Mr Assange himself for the way he responded, or should I say, failed to respond, to the question posed by a British diplomat, which was quite possibly the best question on that page.

    As regards the diplomat's question I mean you do know that by admitting
    it's the most important question gives away any pretences you can
    fall back on about wikileaks, it just totally highlights how you feel about
    them. This question is basically asking, 'Mr Assange are we to blame you
    for showing evidence that these people secretly hate each other & bad
    mouth each other behind their backs?
    '. It's not his fault that
    these people call each other X and think Y and talk openly about it in
    files. If they can no longer hide behind false pretenses because they
    just have to go off bitching behind people's backs I guess it's the person
    who highlights this deceit that's the bad person, not the ones doing
    it no. What a warped view of reality... Also I don't know how highlighting
    US espionage against the leader of the UN disrupts diplomacy seeing as
    this is not diplomacy at all rather just criminal acts.
    As regards the quote itself, I don't see how I can accuse the Guardian (I presume that's what you meant) for editorialising when they appear to have just taken direct questions and responses from others.

    I meant the Independent post that Biggin's posted right after the
    Guardian published the live discussion, they didn't include that
    prescient quote of Assange's about people openly calling for
    murder, I only mentioned it because they mentioned a weak &
    modified form of this at the end of the post, a lot like the way
    you accuse wikileaks of doing inversely similar things with regard to
    their edited & aptly named video.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68 ✭✭LetsThinkBIG


    Server and Domain have been moved:

    https://WikiLeaks.ch

    Or if all else fails, go the old fashioned way:

    http://213.251.145.96/

    This isnt working.. I amnt getting any closer to getting at the files :(

    Anyone else have ideas ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    The IP address works for me


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Mark200 wrote: »
    The IP address works for me
    Same here.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 450 ✭✭taytothief


    Does anyone know a way to download all the documents released without having to o it one by one?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Foreign Office stands accused of misleading the public over the plight of thousands of islanders who were expelled from their Indian Ocean homeland to make way for a large US military base.
    A secret US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks suggests the Foreign Office has privately admitted its latest plan to declare the islands the world's largest marine protection zone will end any chance of them being repatriated.
    The admission is at odds with the public position of the Foreign Office that the proposed park does not prejudice or have any effect on the the islanders' right to return. The islanders have claimed the marine park was a ploy to block their return, saying it would make it impossible for them to live there as it would ban fishing, their main livelihood.
    Roberts, admitting the government was "under pressure" from the islanders, told the US of the plan to set up the marine park on 55 islands around Diego Garcia, known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). "Roberts stated that, according to [Her Majesty's government's] current thinking on a reserve, there would be 'no human footprints' or 'Man Fridays' on the BIOT uninhabited islands," according to the American account of the meeting. The language echoes that used in 1966 when Denis Greenhill – later the Foreign Office's most senior official – described the inhabitants as "a few Tarzans and Man Fridays".
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-diego-garcia-uk

    Lovely.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    taytothief wrote: »
    Does anyone know a way to download all the documents released without having to o it one by one?
    They haven't released the whole lot yet.
    What they have released is the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

    Here is an interesting article on the situation: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335244/WikiLeaks-given-100-000-encrypted-versions-secret-files-insurance.html

    Amid a number of points that stick out in it, is this one:
    ...Meanwhile, France has become the first country to contemplate banning Wikileaks.
    The country's Industry Minister Eric Besson pledged to 'remove' the whistle-blowing website from people's computers.

    Make of that, what could be down the road for others...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    The country's Industry Minister Eric Besson pledged to 'remove' the whistle-blowing website from people's computers.

    I knew politicians were stupid but I don't think it's too much to ask that they have a basic understanding of the internet in this day and age.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,305 ✭✭✭yoshytoshy


    This isnt working.. I amnt getting any closer to getting at the files :(

    Anyone else have ideas ?

    I went to wikipedia and used the alternate link at the bottom of the wikileaks page. It's probably the same as the http://213. address though.
    They also have a facebook page that may have links.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,900 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I think that's obvious. Assuming the insurance file contains everything related to these latest files then releasing the major file would give away every bit of info unfiltered. That means the names will not be redacted & then they've committed another sin.

    Agreed, the thought had occurred. If that is the case, there's a certain irony in Wikileaks using hostages.
    That is assuming the file is not just pure nonsense or the latest Batman film.

    That thought had occurred as well.
    I don't know how that isn't the most obvious aspect of the insurance file to anyone & I'm pretty sure it's not the first time I've read you state that, but I could be wrong on that.

    I don't recall ever typing about the insurance file before.
    Still I think it's completely obvious why they haven't given away the contents of it unless you just want to use anything you can grab & use it against them.

    That's just it, though, why haven't they used it? If it's so Earth-Shattering, surely releasing that information would be Numero Uno on Wikileaks' Mission Statement. If it's being withheld out of a concern that it's too dangerous to release, maybe to informants or something, then it's too dangerous to release if Wikileaks is taken down as well: I'm sure the informants wouldn't be best pleased at such an act of lashing out.

    Of course, all this is speculation.

    Frankly, I don't think this insurance file is going to have any effect on the actions of governments or other agencies. If the information is out, it's out. For the insurance file to fulfill its deterrence purpose the government would have to conclude that an organisation which has as its purpose the breaking of secrets would actually keep whatever documents they are a secret. If they even believe that there are documents in the file, that is. Further, even if it was a concern do you think the various agencies are really willing to be held hostage indefinitely on the matter? They may as well try for the closedown now rather than later.
    As regards the diplomat's question I mean you do know that by admitting it's the most important question gives away any pretences you can
    fall back on about wikileaks, it just totally highlights how you feel about
    them. This question is basically asking, 'Mr Assange are we to blame you
    for showing evidence that these people secretly hate each other & bad
    mouth each other behind their backs?
    '. It's not his fault that
    these people call each other X and think Y and talk openly about it in
    files. If they can no longer hide behind false pretenses because they
    just have to go off bitching behind people's backs I guess it's the person
    who highlights this deceit that's the bad person, not the ones doing
    it no. What a warped view of reality... Also I don't know how highlighting
    US espionage against the leader of the UN disrupts diplomacy seeing as
    this is not diplomacy at all rather just criminal acts.

    You have completely missed the forest for the trees. I don't think anyone is particularly angry or surprised that various diplomats have unflattering opinions of other people, or that people are spying at the UN. However, I have not heard of a single diplomat that thinks that the breaking of the veil of internal confidence is not something which can affect the world stage for the worse.

    Copying my thoughts from the US Politics thread:

    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 in his reporting. 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) 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?

    Allow me to link to NewsWeek:

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/02/mideast-peace-talks-should-have-been-secret.html

    Extract below.
    But rarely have big public summits led to peace agreements in the Middle East. More often, deals (or their main principles) are hashed out in total secrecy by trusted emissaries in obscure venues. Take the process that led to the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, for example. It started with secret meetings between Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan and Egyptian Deputy Prime Minister Hassan Tuhami in Morocco, where the Egyptian side learned for the first time that Israel was ready to cede all of Sinai. The framework agreement between Israel and the PLO in 1993 followed months of secret talks by academics—and, later, deputies—in Oslo. Even the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty a year later was drafted mostly in secret meetings between the Mossad’s Ephraim Halevy and King Hussein.

    The secrecy allows vulnerable politicians (and Israeli and Arab politicians are almost always vulnerable) to explore sensitive topics without worrying that the negotiating process itself will jeopardize their political standing. Suppose, for example, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ready to dismantle most settlements in the West Bank—a necessity if he’s serious about getting an agreement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. A leak from the talks indicating as much might prompt an insurrection within Netanyahu’s right-wing government. The same goes for Abbas, who, sooner or later in talks with Israel, will have to concede the Palestinian demand for refugee repatriation. When he does, Abbas will face a sharp backlash from Hamas and from inside his own party, Fatah.

    There is an uncontrovertible requirement for secrecy in the diplomatic world. Yeah, you may laugh at the description of Sarkozy chasing a rabbit in one of the cables, but what if one of the cables actually did say that Nyetanyahu was willing to dismantle the West Bank settlements? Well, there goes that peace deal, because Assange and (Possibly) Manning wanted to get their names on the news.
    I meant the Independent post that Biggin's posted right after the
    Guardian published the live discussion, they didn't include that
    prescient quote of Assange's about people openly calling for
    murder, I only mentioned it because they mentioned a weak &
    modified form of this at the end of the post, a lot like the way
    you accuse wikileaks of doing inversely similar things with regard to
    their edited & aptly named video.

    I'm not sure I'd consider the CollateralMurder version of the video a 'weak' edit.

    NTM


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68 ✭✭LetsThinkBIG


    Biggins wrote: »
    Same here.

    I can get at the website. I can view (and just downloaded colateral murder) but when it comes to the Cablegate, it says the materials are not available :(

    Ideas


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    I can get at the website. I can view (and just downloaded colateral murder) but when it comes to the Cablegate, it says the materials are not available :(

    Ideas

    WikiLeaks now available at:

    http://wikileaks.de/
    http://wikileaks.fi/
    http://wikileaks.nl/

    See can you try those and have some luck


    The Guardian Questions today
    Fwoggie
    I'll start the ball rolling with a question. You're an Australian passport holder - would you want return to your own country or is this now out of the question due to potentially being arrested on arrival for releasing cables relating to Australian diplomats and polices?


    Julian Assange:
    I am an Australian citizen and I miss my country a great deal. However, during the last weeks the Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, and the attorney general, Robert McClelland, have made it clear that not only is my return is impossible but that they are actively working to assist the United States government in its attacks on myself and our people. This brings into question what does it mean to be an Australian citizen - does that mean anything at all? Or are we all to be treated like David Hicks at the first possible opportunity merely so that Australian politicians and diplomats can be invited to the best US embassy cocktail parties.

    girish89
    How do you think you have changed world affairs?
    And if you call all the attention you've been given-credit ... shouldn't the mole or source receive a word of praise from you?


    Julian Assange:

    For the past four years one of our goals has been to lionise the source who take the real risks in nearly every journalistic disclosure and without whose efforts, journalists would be nothing. If indeed it is the case, as alleged by the Pentagon, that the young soldier - Bradley Manning - is behind some of our recent disclosures, then he is without doubt an unparalleled hero.

    Daithi
    Have you released, or will you release, cables (either in the last few days or with the Afghan and Iraq war logs) with the names of Afghan informants or anything else like so?
    Are you willing to censor (sorry for using the term) any names that you feel might land people in danger from reprisals??
    By the way, I think history will absolve you. Well done!!!


    Julian Assange:
    WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time there has been no credible allegation, even by organisations like the Pentagon that even a single person has come to harm as a result of our activities. This is despite much-attempted manipulation and spin trying to lead people to a counter-factual conclusion. We do not expect any change in this regard.

    distrot
    The State Dept is mulling over the issue of whether you are a journalist or not. Are you a journalist? As far as delivering information that someone [anyone] does not want seen is concerned, does it matter if you are a 'journalist' or not?


    Julian Assange:
    I coauthored my first nonfiction book by the time I was 25. I have been involved in nonfiction documentaries, newspapers, TV and internet since that time. However, it is not necessary to debate whether I am a journalist, or how our people mysteriously are alleged to cease to be journalists when they start writing for our organisaiton. Although I still write, research and investigate my role is primarily that of a publisher and editor-in-chief who organises and directs other journalists.

    achanth
    Mr Assange, have there ever been documents forwarded to you which deal with the topic of UFOs or extraterrestrials?


    Julian Assange:
    Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules.
    1) that the documents not be self-authored;
    2) that they be original.
    However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.

    gnosticheresy
    What happened to all the other documents that were on Wikileaks prior to these series of "megaleaks"? Will you put them back online at some stage ("technical difficulties" permitting)?


    Julian Assange:
    Many of these are still available at mirror.wikileaks.info and the rest will be returning as soon as we can find a moment to do address the engineering complexities. Since April of this year our timetable has not been our own, rather it has been one that has centred on the moves of abusive elements of the United States government against us. But rest assured I am deeply unhappy that the three-and-a-half years of my work and others is not easily available or searchable by the general public.

    CrisShutlar
    Have you expected this level of impact all over the world? Do you fear for your security?


    Julian Assange:
    I always believed that WikiLeaks as a concept would perform a global role and to some degree it was clear that is was doing that as far back as 2007 when it changed the result of the Kenyan general election. I thought it would take two years instead of four to be recognised by others as having this important role, so we are still a little behind schedule and have much more work to do. The threats against our lives are a matter of public record, however, we are taking the appropriate precautions to the degree that we are able when dealing with a super power.

    JAnthony
    Julian.
    I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the
    protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
    In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.
    My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.


    Julian Assange:
    If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.

    cargun
    Mr Assange,
    Can you explain the censorship of identities as XXXXX's in the revealed cables? Some critical identities are left as is, whereas some are XXXXX'd. Some cables are partially revealed. Who can make such critical decisons, but the US gov't? As far as we know your request for such help was rejected by the State department. Also is there an order in the release of cable or are they randomly selected?
    Thank you.


    Julian Assange:

    The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it. The redactions are then reviewed by at least one other journalist or editor, and we review samples supplied by the other organisations to make sure the process is working.

    rszopa
    Annoying as it may be, the DDoS seems to be good publicity (if anything, it adds to your credibility). So is getting kicked out of AWS. Do you agree with this statement? Were you planning for it?
    Thank you for doing what you are doing.


    Julian Assange:

    Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.

    abbeherrera
    You started something that nobody can stop. The Beginning of a New World. Remember, that community is behind you and support you (from Slovakia).
    Do you have leaks on ACTA?


    Julian Assange:
    Yes, we have leaks on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a trojan horse trade agreement designed from the very beginning to satisfy big players in the US copyright and patent industries. In fact, it was WikiLeaks that first drew ACTA to the public's attention - with a leak.

    people1st
    Tom Flanagan, a [former] senior adviser to Canadian Prime Minister recently stated "I think Assange should be assassinated ... I think Obama should put out a contract ... I wouldn't feel unhappy if Assange does disappear."
    How do you feel about this?


    Julian Assange:
    It is correct that Mr. Flanagan and the others seriously making these statements should be charged with incitement to commit murder.

    Isopod
    Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous?
    This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated", "Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind Wikileaks, too.
    And this, in my opinion, makes Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much credit.


    Julian Assange:
    This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, "The Bourbaki". However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightening rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force.

    tburgi
    Western governments lay claim to moral authority in part from having legal guarantees for a free press.
    Threats of legal sanction against Wikileaks and yourself seem to weaken this claim.
    (What press needs to be protected except that which is unpopular to the State? If being state-sanctioned is the test for being a media organization, and therefore able to claim rights to press freedom, the situation appears to be the same in authoritarian regimes and the west.)
    Do you agree that western governments risk losing moral authority by
    attacking Wikileaks?
    Do you believe western goverments have any moral authority to begin with?
    Thanks,
    Tim Burgi
    Vancouver, Canada


    Julian Assange:
    The west has fiscalised its basic power relationships through a web of contracts, loans, shareholdings, bank holdings and so on. In such an environment it is easy for speech to be "free" because a change in political will rarely leads to any change in these basic instruments. Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on power, is, like badgers and birds, free. In states like China, there is pervasive censorship, because speech still has power and power is scared of it. We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction. The attacks against us by the US point to a great hope, speech powerful enough to break the fiscal blockade.

    rajiv1857
    Hi,
    Is the game that you are caught up in winnable? Technically, can you keep playing hide and seek with the powers that be when services and service providers are directly or indirectly under government control or vulnerable to pressure - like Amazon?
    Also, if you get "taken out" - and that could be technical, not necessarily physical - what are the alternatives for your cache of material?
    Is there a 'second line' of activists in place that would continue the campaign?
    Is your material 'dispersed' so that taking out one cache would not necessarily mean the end of the game?


    Julian Assange:
    The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable Gate archives is in the hands of multiple news organisations. History will win. The world will be elevated to a better place. Will we survive? That depends on you.

    That's it every one, thanks for all your questions and comments. Julian Assange is sorry that he can't answer every question but he has tried to cover as much territory as possible. Thanks for your patience with our earlier technical difficulties.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

    Don't forget, Wikileaks Twitter is here: http://twitter.com/wikileaks?from_source=onebox
    Its regularly updated.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68 ✭✭LetsThinkBIG


    the main header link wasnt working ..
    Side links do though..

    Schoolboy error :O


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    There is an uncontrovertible requirement for secrecy in the diplomatic world. Yeah, you may laugh at the description of Sarkozy chasing a rabbit in one of the cables, but what if one of the cables actually did say that Nyetanyahu was willing to dismantle the West Bank settlements? Well, there goes that peace deal, because Assange and (Possibly) Manning wanted to get their names on the news.

    What peace deal?


Advertisement
Advertisement