Export thread

This last batch of wikileaks was pretty incredible. I would say the depth and secrecy of them is unprecedented. Have they gone too far? Have they caused more harm than good? Or are they providing the necessary level of transparency to governments that refuse to do it themselves?

Necronic said:

This last batch of wikileaks was pretty incredible. I would say the depth and secrecy of them is unprecedented. Have they gone too far? Have they caused more harm than good? Or are they providing the necessary level of transparency to governments that refuse to do it themselves?

Click to expand...

Too far. There's a reason government's need to keep thing out of the public eye. This last batch of wikileaks is irresponsible and dangerous.

WAY too far. If North Korea starts WWIII it could very well be because of these dipshits.

I'm so glad other people feel this way. I'm pretty outnumbered on the irc haha.

I think the wikileaks people are irresponsible and should be ashamed.

Ashamed?!? They should be tried and convicted!

Where is Wikileaks based?

I have no idea. But if they convict them of any thing all the people who think it's great* will just cry government oppression or something.

*the people with no sense of cause and effect I guess.

Never mind. They are hosted in Sweden.

I guess they have to send 4chan.

I keed.

I was discussing this with and uber liberal friend of mine, and she's under the assumption that all governments should be open to the public etc...

That unfortunately is NOT how the world works. Governments have secrets that they need to keep from the public eye. These secrets are eventually declassified by people who know what they're doing. There's a reason why our government -in particular- hires genius level mathematicians to its think-tanks. These people calculate and weigh out the risks and benefits of declassifying information.

Now on certain issues, I will get pinko-liberal on. When governments violate human rights those issues need to be exposed, as they'll never be declassified. I do not agree, however, with the disclosure of acts of war on civilians. It's war. People (yes, civilians) will die. The whole helicopter gunner bullshit that was spun by wikileaks months ago was a mess of hindsight idealism.

Kiff said:

I was discussing this with and uber liberal friend of mine, and she's under the assumption that all governments should be open to the public etc...

That unfortunately is NOT how the world works. Governments have secrets that they need to keep from the public eye. These secrets are eventually declassified by people who know what they're doing. There's a reason why our government -in particular- hires genius level mathematicians to its think-tanks. These people calculate and weigh out the risks and benefits of declassifying information.

Now on certain issues, I will get pinko-liberal on. When governments violate human rights those issues need to be exposed, as they'll never be declassified. I do not agree, however, with the disclosure of acts of war on civilians. It's war. People (yes, civilians) will die. The whole helicopter gunner bullshit that was spun by wikileaks months ago was a mess of hindsight idealism.

Click to expand...

I agree. In that instance it was proven that there were weapons present and the whole thing was unfortunate but as much the fault of the insurgents who LOVE to work from populated areas.

I'm open to hearing a good defense of these guys, but so far I haven't heard anything that justifies this kind of leak. So if anyone has a good, rational, non-crazy defense of these kinds of actions I would love to hear them.

Dave said:

WAY too far. If North Korea starts WWIII it could very well be because of these dipshits.

Click to expand...

I would argue that if North Korea starts World War 3, it's because...

- It's run by a madman who brainwash his military and citizenry into doing whatever he wants.

- Their leader uses acts of aggression against it's neighbor in order to keep it's own people in line.

- China let them do whatever they wanted because they worked as a useful buffer.

- No one has punished them for anything they've done, making them believe they can get away with anything.

- They've become desperate to be accepted as an actual nation and not as the red headed stepson of China.

... and not because some papers got released by a website, telling them something they should have expected a long time ago.

-has no idea what was leaked, doesn't really feel like going to wikileaks, hopes someone posts a synopsis-

It doesn't even look like they are trying to expose some horrible thing the government did. They're just saying "Hey, look at all this cool classified stuff we got!" All they are doing is hurting the relationships we have with other countries, and putting the lives of those that have supplied us with information at risk. Hopefully he gets shut down for good.

Wikileaks is a wretched hive of scum and villainy...

I really just can't fathom how they feel that their volunteer journalists are up to the tasks of SAFELY declassifying information that was stolen in the first place and never meant for public distribution.

Jiarn said:

-has no idea what was leaked, doesn't really feel like going to wikileaks, hopes someone posts a synopsis-

Click to expand...

*makes coffee and waits with Jiarn

AshburnerX;456018][QUOTE=Dave said:

WAY too far. If North Korea starts WWIII it could very well be because of these dipshits.

Click to expand...

I would argue that if North Korea starts World War 3, it's because...

- It's run by a madman who brainwash his military and citizenry into doing whatever he wants.

- Their leader uses acts of aggression against it's neighbor in order to keep it's own people in line.

- China let them do whatever they wanted because they worked as a useful buffer.

- No one has punished them for anything they've done, making them believe they can get away with anything.

- They've become desperate to be accepted as an actual nation and not as the red headed stepson of China.

... and not because some papers got released by a website, telling them something they should have expected a long time ago.[/QUOTE]

Understand that Kim Jong Il is delusional enough that he actually might have thought China still had his back. He suffers from delusions of grandeur, and his political advisers and cabinet are all simply 'yes-men'. There is no committee discussion with him. His citizens are all driven by fear of N.K. police and military, and brainwashing. This is a bad analogy and I'm sorry for it, but it's akin to George Lucas's new trilogy. Everyone was on board with George and "okey'd" everything he suggested. He had no check or balance. When the final films came out and the audiences hated them, George finally realized how shitty a director he was. I don't know if he's irate over it, or if he's accepted it, but Kim Jong Il is going to be pissed.

Disconnected;456037][QUOTE=Jiarn said:

-has no idea what was leaked, doesn't really feel like going to wikileaks, hopes someone posts a synopsis-

Click to expand...

*makes coffee and waits with Jiarn[/QUOTE]

Basically they're making available around 250,000+ communications between US diplomats from the last 40 years. It's pretty much their assessments of foreign leaders, and intelligence they have gathered or are trying to gather. Along with some back room deal making stuff.

Kim's crazy, not stupid, and one of the smartest things he's ever done was feed into the fear that his people have for him. He knew full well that China was going to back down eventually and he's been preparing for it since the 80's, if not longer. It's one of the reasons he's been going after nukes: He needs the power to decimate a city if he ever wants to achieve his ambitions of unifying Korea under the North..

Aye. Up until now it seems that China has given nothing publicly but support for KJI. This may be the first time he's heard they don't like him.

Espy said:

I'm open to hearing a good defense of these guys, but so far I haven't heard anything that justifies this kind of leak. So if anyone has a good, rational, non-crazy defense of these kinds of actions I would love to hear them.

Click to expand...

Glenn Greenwald does a pretty good job. Though to be clear, he doesn't so much defend Wikileaks (and doesn't seem particularly enthused about the latest leak) as castigate all pundits who try to credibly suggest that leaking government misbehavior is worse than the misbehavior itself.

This last leak does not sound like misbehavior but just the language used in back room dealings.

Now I guess he needs to get ready for his rape case defense.

I support what they did for one reason only- they offered to have the U.S. do redaction's of things which would put people in harms way, and the U.S. refused. In essence, I compare it to many whistle blowers in the history of the United States. Issues like Watergate, the attempts on Castro's life by the CIA, or the toppling of dictators and replacing them with America friendly leaders would never come to the light of day if we just accepted the government story presented to us. In all these cases the only reason we know about it is because someone somewhere broke the secrecy rules to present that information.

I feel as though in the last 15 years or so whistle blowing has become something which makes people unpatriotic, anti-American, or just plain vindictive. I personally prefer to think of the actions as important in keeping the government honest. We talk about how we want transparency and accountability in our government, but whenever actions come to light that would embarrass the U.S., that person is labeled as a terrorist or evil.

I'm not saying anything in these cables is on the level of the stories I listed above. I'm saying that there is a reason that in our society Deep Throat didn't admit who he was until his death bed.

Keeping governments honest... I just can't read that with a straight face.

Why, do you have Bell's Palsy?

That makes no sense to me. The US shouldn't have to make redactions in documents that should not be shared AT ALL. The entire "leak" should have been redacted.

Whistle blowing that puts people in danger may not be unpatriotic but it is both irresponsible and stupid. Sharing information with the public just for the sake of sharing information is absurd. Besides satisfying intellectual curiosity what has any of this done to help or better people's lives or how the government functions?

On one hand, I applaud wikileaks for what it is trying to do - get secret information into the hands of people hat may be able to put it to good use.

For this reason, I don't really expect them to interpret the material, or figure out if it should be leaked.

On the other hand, it's obviously dangerous for some of this information to be published.

So let's try a thought experiment:

They obviously got the information rather easily from persons with access.

The "bad guys" (for some values of "bad") can presumably get the same information just as easily.

Is it better for the information to be hidden to the public, and only accessible to the gov't and the bad guys, or is it better that if it's possible for it to be leaked, then everyone should have equal access?

Further, it will become far easier to catch the people who are giving this information out if the gov't can monitor the output of the wikileaks machine.

Add a watermark for each individual access of information, whether it's a text watermark, image watermark, etc. Some piece of information that is added on demand that codes (in a hidden fashion) who accessed a given document and when. Then scour wikileaks for these watermarks and you immediately discover who it is that's providing the information and you stop the leaks.

The "bad guys" won't give you the documents back so you can figure out who leaked them.

There are ways to defeat some watermarks, and it will form a sort of arms race will result, but one may improve one's own security very quickly this way.

Further, wikileaks will now become a source for disinformation. Yes, the gov't now has a chunk of information on there.

But let's perform another thought experiment:

China doesn't want to come out against north korea in public. The US wants to find out China's mind on the matter. We can send request after request - all ignored, or we can "leak" a little information that suggests one way or another amidst a flood of other information which really has limited value, and force China to either stand by what it has said privately, or publicly call out their position in order to refute the "leaks".

I'm not suggesting this was done in this case, but keep in mind that governments have used "leaks" for centuries to force others into a disadvantage. Companies do this regularly - as an example, Apple carefully leaks information to quell or build up hype, prepare stockholders and the public (such as Job's illness), etc.

As "dangerous" as wikileaks is, if wikileaks isn't around someone else will be, and it can be used to significant advantage if managed properly.

I wish those who were leaking information would do their jobs and keep their agreements and oaths, except in the face of egregious human rights and international "law" violations.

So, for my part, I'm not against wikileaks, and if the gov't's are smart they'll use them to their advantage to root out moles, and use them as a channel for misinformation and propaganda.

What is it they are trying to expose? I agree that there are times where exposing government secrets can be a good thing. I just don't see how releasing this stuff does any good at all. It seems like he is just doing it to embarrass the US, or hurt our relationships with other countries. That is the difference between the previous leaks from others and this one.

When the sole purpose of disclosing secrets is to try to hurt the US, and not expose corruption or some injustice, there should be consequences.

Krisken said:

I support what they did for one reason only- they offered to have the U.S. do redaction's of things which would put people in harms way, and the U.S. refused.

Click to expand...

Please give us the exact messages that were sent in this exchange. If they actually contacted someone who could do something about it, did they then say that it would be OK for the US to take a few years analyzing the documents and redacting as much as they wanted to in them, or did they say, "The US refused to comply with our 'offer' that they could redact as much as they wanted as long as it wasn't more than 10% of the words and as long as they did it within 2 weeks." or some similar demand?

My guess is that they are only playing at being nice, and their real reason to release this information is because, like the 15 year old hacker that makes a game crack on release day, they want to have all the glory for such a successful capture of secret information.

---------- Post added at 01:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

Shakey said:

What is it they are trying to expose?

Click to expand...

Wikileaks is explicitly not in the business of figuring out whether a leak is "worth" releasing or not, or understanding and deciding whether it's dangerous to do so.

As far as they are concerned, they are merely a clearinghouse, and it's up to others to decide whether the information is useful or even interesting. They believe that by not filtering information as it comes in, they are legally less liable, and instead would rather be seen as lady liberty - blindly publishing everything and letting the world decide.

Note that they don't publish information on their home country, and their home country is known as a haven for people who are publicly hurting other countries.

Shakey said:

What is it they are trying to expose? I agree that there are times where exposing government secrets can be a good thing. I just don't see how releasing this stuff does any good at all. It seems like he is just doing it to embarrass the US, or hurt our relationships with other countries. That is the difference between the previous leaks from others and this one.

When the sole purpose of disclosing secrets is to try to hurt the US, and not expose corruption or some injustice, there should be consequences.

Click to expand...

Well... Wikileaks isn't own/operate in the U.S. so why should they care what damage they do to the U.S?

Maybe their goals is to make U.S. look bad in the public eyes.

First Lady Puffinstuff;456078][QUOTE=Shakey said:

What is it they are trying to expose?

Click to expand...

Wikileaks is explicitly not in the business of figuring out whether a leak is "worth" releasing or not, or understanding and deciding whether it's dangerous to do so.

As far as they are concerned, they are merely a clearinghouse, and it's up to others to decide whether the information is useful or even interesting. They believe that by not filtering information as it comes in, they are legally less liable, and instead would rather be seen as lady liberty - blindly publishing everything and letting the world decide.

Note that they don't publish information on their home country, and their home country is known as a haven for people who are publicly hurting other countries.[/QUOTE]

I don't really care what their business is. Blindly publishing that kind of information can be dangerous, and should be stopped.

Shakey said:

I don't really care what their business is. Blindly [selling] that kind of [food] can be dangerous, and should be stopped.

Click to expand...

"Can be" is very different from "is." Your argument might equally apply to McDonalds, as demonstrated above.

So "What their business is" does matter, doesn't it?

I agree that if the ONLY outcome of publishing this information is death and destruction, then yes - stop them.

But are you willing to say that even if the outcome is only occasionally worse than mild embarrassment, then we should stop them?

In that case, we should also stop the KKK from publishing information that may lead to people being harassed.

Unless, of course, you don't believe that leaks and whistleblowing may have some possible shelter under the concept of free speech.

Chibibar said:

Well... Wikileaks isn't own/operate in the U.S. so why should they care what damage they do to the U.S?

Maybe their goals is to make U.S. look bad in the public eyes.

Click to expand...

They shouldn't. But we shouldn't lump these guys in with others who have done the legwork to expose corruption and illegal behavior that has happened in governments.

First Lady Puffinstuff;456078][QUOTE=Krisken said:

I support what they did for one reason only- they offered to have the U.S. do redaction's of things which would put people in harms way, and the U.S. refused.

Click to expand...

Please give us the exact messages that were sent in this exchange.[/QUOTE]

Here: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/11/wikileaks-and-state-department-correspondence/

Click on the PDFs links and read 'em, the cliffnotes-like titles can be misleading.

We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or
dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. If you are genuinely
interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks
ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified
U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this
material from WikiLeaks’ databases.

Click to expand...

First Lady Puffinstuff;456090][QUOTE=Shakey said:

I don't really care what their business is. Blindly [selling] that kind of [food] can be dangerous, and should be stopped.

Click to expand...

"Can be" is very different from "is." Your argument might equally apply to McDonalds, as demonstrated above.

So "What their business is" does matter, doesn't it?

I agree that if the ONLY outcome of publishing this information is death and destruction, then yes - stop them.

But are you willing to say that even if the outcome is only occasionally worse than mild embarrassment, then we should stop them?

In that case, we should also stop the KKK from publishing information that may lead to people being harassed.

Unless, of course, you don't believe that leaks and whistleblowing may have some possible shelter under the concept of free speech.[/QUOTE]

Selling fast food that the government says is safe for consumption, and leaking information that the government says is not safe for wide spread release is completely different. As much fun as it is to apply one situation to another, it never works well.

Whistleblowing and leaks should be protected. As long as what they are doing is trying to expose some sort of corruption or illegal activity.

Shakey;456092][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

Well... Wikileaks isn't own/operate in the U.S. so why should they care what damage they do to the U.S?

Maybe their goals is to make U.S. look bad in the public eyes.

Click to expand...

They shouldn't. But we shouldn't lump these guys in with others who have done the legwork to expose corruption and illegal behavior that has happened in governments.[/QUOTE]

I am not lumping wikileaks to whistleblowers and such. I was answering the question on "why" wikileaks are doing it.

I'm just saying that one of the "why" (my guess) is that they want to make U.S. look bad.

Thanks Den, I was having trouble finding the link which explained the wikileaks/state department communication.

I'm still not convinced what they are doing is 'terrorist'. That kind of language gets thrown around a hell of a lot.

I'm not for Wikileaks being labeled a terrorist organization either. That seems a bit extreme. I don't think we should just sit around with a thumb up our butts and say "Hey, if you want to disclose our secrets all willy nilly go right ahead! You're doing us a favor by providing government transparency." We should do what we can to stop it.

They had to get these cables somehow. Whoever that is better run, and keep running. And hope the Feds catch him before any of a number of others catch up to them. If they're lucky, they can get sent up for life. Then they can say hello to the Walker family for me, and they can all rot in hell forever.

Wikileaks just got blocked in China. China thought it went too far. Lolololololol

DarkAudit said:

They had to get these cables somehow. Whoever that is better run, and keep running. And hope the Feds catch him before any of a number of others catch up to them. If they're lucky, they can get sent up for life. Then they can say hello to the Walker family for me, and they can all rot in hell forever.

Click to expand...

That is what I'm thinking. What I am wondering is that WHY IN THE HELL THESE DOCUMENTS ARE KEPT IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?!?!

And why in the heck are in the SAME place?? Have you notice that wikileaks are getting them in bulks (200k is a bulk to me) that is a lot of documents in electronic form (I doubt they got the actual documents)

Lawyer: Assange is being persecuted in Sweden - Yahoo! News

Interesting. The swedish government has issue international alert for his arrest BUT here is an interesting thing. There isn't an official formal allegation. (of course this is from the Lawyer which I'm sure the lawyer is following the rules) yea... the wikileak founder has gone a little too far, but I think this is a bit "fishy" I know the article said it is "not" related, but I'm sure my tin foil hat says so other wise

Assange is wanted on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The exact nature of the allegations aren't completely clear because formal charges have not been filed.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be formally charged to start the process. Further, these cases have been winding their way through the Swedish courts for months now. He's known of the allegations for some time (which is why he left Sweden to go to London) but the prosecutor has not yet filed charges for some reason (and there are lots of good reasons to wait some time before filing charges).

It may well be that the recent alerts in both London and Sweden are precipitated by the recent leaks, but the cases are ongoing investigations that started long before this latest set of leaks.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

Assange is wanted on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The exact nature of the allegations aren't completely clear because formal charges have not been filed.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be formally charged to start the process. Further, these cases have been winding their way through the Swedish courts for months now. He's known of the allegations for some time (which is why he left Sweden to go to London) but the prosecutor has not yet filed charges for some reason (and there are lots of good reasons to wait some time before filing charges).

It may well be that the recent alerts in both London and Sweden are precipitated by the recent leaks, but the cases are ongoing investigations that started long before this latest set of leaks.

Click to expand...

Yea. I was following it for a bit, it is kinda interesting that this surface much much later when the event occur. (I think it was like weeks later) which was interesting. normally this stuff get reported asap.

Are they STILL going after him on those bogus rape charges? He was having consensual sex with two women who freaked out and called rape when they found out he wasn't being faithful to ether one of them. That's why they haven't charged him with anything: They still don't know if they can make the charges stick, because it's legally unclear if he actually did anything wrong.

AshburnerX said:

Are they STILL going after him on those bogus rape charges? He was having consensual sex with two women who freaked out and called rape when they found out he wasn't being faithful to ether one of them. That's why they haven't charged him with anything: They still don't know if they can make the charges stick, because it's legally unclear if he actually did anything wrong.

Click to expand...

That is the only thing they got him on so far. That is why I think there is more to this "charge" The Swedish government doesn't want to officially charge him for the wikileaks (again.... my personal conspiracy theory) so they want him to be brought in physically and then go from there.

He should have just had sex with them both at the same time. That would have solved that.

Jiarn said:

He should have just had sex with them both at the same time. That would have solved that.

Click to expand...

Nah.... they would have called double rape!!

---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------

Julian Assange on Interpol's Most-Wanted List; WikiLeaks Founder Accused of Rape - Crimesider - CBS News

Is there such a thing as legal coercion??

Wikileaks, how far is too far?

Click to expand...

WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants - World Watch - CBS News

Too fucking far.

AshburnerX said:

Are they STILL going after him on those bogus rape charges? He was having consensual sex with two women who freaked out and called rape when they found out he wasn't being faithful to ether one of them.

Click to expand...

But their complaints stem from his condom use (or misuse, or lack thereof). If the allegations are true, there is a basis for a rape charge, even if they didn't immediately go to police, and even if they only did it after they found each other out, and even if the prosecutor is doing everything in their power to get the women to testify for whatever external reasons the prosecutor may have.

If it didn't happen, then the charges need to be dropped.

If it did happen, he needs to be prosecuted - a consensual act turned into a non-consensual act. Even if he's a high-profile character caught in the cross-sights of the US and other nations he has put into danger (the US is not the only country at the throat of wikileaks).

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

But their complaints stem from his condom use (or misuse, or lack thereof). If the allegations are true, there is a basis for a rape charge, even if they didn't immediately go to police, and even if they only did it after they found each other out, and even if the prosecutor is doing everything in their power to get the women to testify for whatever external reasons the prosecutor may have.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they can't prove he purposefully split that condom or mislead the other woman into think he was wearing one without a confession on his part... which means they really have no case at all. If they didn't need it, he'd have been charged. This seems more like a planned opportunity for INTERPOL to bring him to one of their facilities and then let the CIA/FBI wait outside to drag him to the US after they are done wasting his time.

I'll admit, my nerves go a little on end when I hear about new leaks from the site... luckily certain things haven't been exposed yet...

AshburnerX said:

I'm pretty sure they can't prove he purposefully split that condom or mislead the other woman into think he was wearing one without a confession on his part... which means they really have no case at all.

Click to expand...

Various articles suggest that at some point during the act the woman told him to stop due to the condom issue, and he did not. While the condom usage may have been the reason for saying stop, the fact that she did not want him to continue and he refused to stop constitutes rape. It appears that both women had a similar experience in this regard.

While they may not have a strong case, that is no reason to give up on the case.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

Various articles suggest that at some point during the act the woman told him to stop due to the condom issue, and he did not. While the condom usage may have been the reason for saying stop, the fact that she did not want him to continue and he refused to stop constitutes rape. It appears that both women had a similar experience in this regard.

While they may not have a strong case, that is no reason to give up on the case.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the fact that they haven't charged him still shows that they lack faith in their case. I doubt they'd even be doing it if he wasn't making waves.

AshburnerX said:

the fact that they haven't charged him still shows that they lack faith in their case.

Click to expand...

All it shows is that they want to question him prior to charging him. True, if they had a very strong case then they'd charge him right now, but the lack of formal charges does not indicate guilt or non-guilt, nor even the strength of their case. There are good reasons to delay formal charges even with a strong case - especially in situations where you expect the criminal to flee once formal charges are made.

Interpol Puts WikiLeaks Founder On Wanted List : NPR

Hmm, I find it rather interesting that a man with no prior criminal offenses is all of a sudden a wanted rapist/sexual deviant.

From that article it looks like the USA is going to try and charge him with espionage... between that and the Interpol alert... this dude is in trouble (honestly... what did he expect?)

Azurephoenix said:

From that article it looks like the USA is going to try and charge him with espionage... between that and the Interpol alert... this dude is in trouble (honestly... what did he expect?)

Click to expand...

The U.S. may charge him for espionage, but probably going to wait until he shows up in Sweden and get hand over by the Swedish government.

Kiff said:

Interpol Puts WikiLeaks Founder On Wanted List : NPR

Hmm, I find it rather interesting that a man with no prior criminal offenses is all of a sudden a wanted rapist/sexual deviant.

Click to expand...

believe it or not that happens with every person that commits a crime.

I'm guessing he'll never be brought in but will die in an accident sooner or later.

In any case, wikileaks is going too far, but I must admit, it is interesting stuff to read. Gives a new/better insight in how governments act.

Covar said:

Wikileaks, how far is too far?

Click to expand...

WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants - World Watch - CBS News

Too fucking far.

Click to expand...

Some conflicting information, including a statement from Robert Gates.

Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks | McClatchy

Gates on Leaks, Wiki and Otherwise - NYTimes.com

EDIT: Oh, and because folks were interested in a non-crazy direct defense of Wikileaks (unlike the more nuanced Greenwald post I linked before). Overseeing state secrecy: In defence of WikiLeaks | The Economist

SpecialKO said:

EDIT: Oh, and because folks were interested in a non-crazy direct defense of Wikileaks (unlike the more nuanced Greenwald post I linked before). Overseeing state secrecy: In defence of WikiLeaks | The Economist

Click to expand...

Interesting point of view.

And so it begins: Radio show host offers $50,000 for the capture of Wikileaks Founder.

I think this crosses the line. We can argue all we like over what Julian actually is, but I'm sure we can all agree that he doesn't deserve a price on his head. That's equating him to ACTUAL terrorists... you know, the kind that willfully and intentionally try and kill people?

That will do a lot of good, he isn't the only reason wikileaks exist and without him I doubt it would die so it would solve nothing except maybe getting them more press.

AshburnerX said:

I'm sure we can all agree that he doesn't deserve a price on his head. That's equating him to ACTUAL terrorists... you know, the kind that willfully and intentionally try and kill people?

Click to expand...

There are those who believe that the leaks earlier this year naming civil informants in Afghanistan is just as bad.

Kiff said:

Interpol Puts WikiLeaks Founder On Wanted List : NPR

Hmm, I find it rather interesting that a man with no prior criminal offenses is all of a sudden a wanted rapist/sexual deviant.

Click to expand...

Or when the women saw his face all over the news and internet, the recognized him and asked the police to press charges again.

Most rape cases along these lines are he said, she said, nightmares and there are a few guys in prison because of just one victim's testimony.

First Lady Puffinstuff;456723][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:

I'm sure we can all agree that he doesn't deserve a price on his head. That's equating him to ACTUAL terrorists... you know, the kind that willfully and intentionally try and kill people?

Click to expand...

There are those who believe that the leaks earlier this year naming civil informants in Afghanistan is just as bad.[/QUOTE]

So let me get this straight... you believe that the guy who accidentally revealed the names of civil informants in Afghanistan due to an honest oversight (and he's admitted that it was a mistake not to redact those) is as bad as the guys who train, finance, arm, and order extremist groups to kill Americans, Israelis, and anyone who stands in their way? That's not just dishonest... that's insane.

AshburnerX;456752][QUOTE=First Lady Puffinstuff;456723][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:

I'm sure we can all agree that he doesn't deserve a price on his head. That's equating him to ACTUAL terrorists... you know, the kind that willfully and intentionally try and kill people?

Click to expand...

There are those who believe that the leaks earlier this year naming civil informants in Afghanistan is just as bad.[/QUOTE]

So let me get this straight... you believe that the guy who accidentally revealed the names of civil informants in Afghanistan due to an honest oversight (and he's admitted that it was a mistake not to redact those) is as bad as the guys who train, finance, arm, and order extremist groups to kill Americans, Israelis, and anyone who stands in their way? That's not just dishonest... that's insane.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying that a person who aids and abets terrorists by providing them the means of eliminating spies is better than the terrorist that uses that information?

Sure, everything is on a scale, but your argument seems to suggest that the person who does that should not come under condemnation.

There's a difference between an "honest mistake" and releasing classified materials that directly results in murder of those trying to help us. At best he was grossly negligent.

It isn't an issue of standing idly by while a mugger kills their victim. He acted of his own accord to push information that leads the mugger to kill their victim.

Saying that he's sorry, and that he didn't really mean to release some of that information doesn't absolve him of the fact that his actions helped terrorists more than they helped anyone else.

First Lady Puffinstuff;456760][QUOTE=AshburnerX;456752][QUOTE=First Lady Puffinstuff;456723][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:

I'm sure we can all agree that he doesn't deserve a price on his head. That's equating him to ACTUAL terrorists... you know, the kind that willfully and intentionally try and kill people?

Click to expand...

There are those who believe that the leaks earlier this year naming civil informants in Afghanistan is just as bad.[/QUOTE]

So let me get this straight... you believe that the guy who accidentally revealed the names of civil informants in Afghanistan due to an honest oversight (and he's admitted that it was a mistake not to redact those) is as bad as the guys who train, finance, arm, and order extremist groups to kill Americans, Israelis, and anyone who stands in their way? That's not just dishonest... that's insane.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying that a person who aids and abets terrorists by providing them the means of eliminating spies is better than the terrorist that uses that information?

Sure, everything is on a scale, but your argument seems to suggest that the person who does that should not come under condemnation.

There's a difference between an "honest mistake" and releasing classified materials that directly results in murder of those trying to help us. At best he was grossly negligent.

It isn't an issue of standing idly by while a mugger kills their victim. He acted of his own accord to push information that leads the mugger to kill their victim.

Saying that he's sorry, and that he didn't really mean to release some of that information doesn't absolve him of the fact that his actions helped terrorists more than they helped anyone else.[/QUOTE]

now Wikileaks has gone WAY WAY too far
WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security - Yahoo! News

He just basically release all the info where terrorist can use to disable the U.S.

Okay, if that's correct, that is definitely way past the point of political protest.

I'm just surprised that Julian Assange hasn't fallen down a flight of stairs onto some bullets, really.

Ok, that is over the line. That there puts people at risk.

Krisken said:

Ok, that is over the line. That there puts people at risk.

Click to expand...

I agree. Now I just read this (short article) from Yahoo news so I'm not sure if it is 100% accurate, but such a leak on location is bad. Now terrorist can attack these location and cause countless harms to many nations not just the U.S. Civilian lives are in danger now from possible attacks to these facilities.

There is a difference between transparency/open government, and providing a list of targets to an enemy.

There really is no excuse for releasing this particular type of information.

The only reason to release it is to cause, create, or aid in the downfall of the US - in other words it is an open declaration of war.

And how do we react to such threats?

>

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

There is a difference between transparency/open government, and providing a list of targets to an enemy.

There really is no excuse for releasing this particular type of information.

The only reason to release it is to cause, create, or aid in the downfall of the US - in other words it is an open declaration of war.

And how do we react to such threats?

>

Click to expand...

Shego + sniper rifle + government contract?

I'm beginning to suspect that these sites may have been in the rumored "Blackmail Package" that Assange said he had spread around, in case someone tried to have him killed/captured. Now the only question is if Assange told them to release it or if someone else in the organization did.

Does anyone know how much of this information has been verified? If I was in charge of the CIA/FBI, the first thing I would do would be deliberately "leak" a combination of embarrassing, but not critical information, and real documents with dates/places changed.

I think the priority would be finding the people leaking the information and stop it at the source, rather than shutting down WikiLeaks. Obviously Julian Assange is getting this information from someone, and those people should not be trusted with the positions they're in now. I would guess as far as espionage goes, it's much better for the info to end up on the internet, than secretly delivered to an enemy agent. At least this way they have a good idea of what the enemy knows.

Of course, all I know about espionage I learned from Jack Ryan, so I could be completely off base.

GasBandit said:

I'm just surprised that Julian Assange hasn't fallen down a flight of stairs onto some bullets, really.

Click to expand...

he's more valuable alive.

Covar;457785][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

I'm just surprised that Julian Assange hasn't fallen down a flight of stairs onto some bullets, really.

Click to expand...

he's more valuable alive.[/QUOTE]

Of Course. There might be a "life lock" type contingencies that if Assange dies, a whole lot of embarrassing stuff are spewed to the internet.

Failing to see how knowing that "The Panama Canal" is a site critical to US security is somehow more damaging than the rest of the cables already released. Honestly reading the list, it's kinda "duh". Hell, a lot of the North American ones are things already listed as possible terrorist targets from way back in 2001.

Now, if it listed the exact coordinates of secret military bunkers, I could see people having an issue with it. But no, there's none of that there. For example, a Danish insulin plant, a company making anti-snake venom in Australia and a Cobalt mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo are also included.

A bunch more yawn-inducing government over-reaction.

Chibibar;457790][QUOTE=Covar;457785][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

I'm just surprised that Julian Assange hasn't fallen down a flight of stairs onto some bullets, really.

Click to expand...

he's more valuable alive.[/QUOTE]

Of Course. There might be a "life lock" type contingencies that if Assange dies, a whole lot of embarrassing stuff are spewed to the internet.[/QUOTE]

He has been making some supervillain style threats about releasing data that would be the info-equivalent of a nuke if he's arrested or is killed. If this were a bad movie, James Bond (not one of the good ones, obviously) would have been all over that. That's what this is becoming - a dangerous farce.

Zappit said:

He has been making some supervillain style threats about releasing data that would be the info-equivalent of a nuke if he's arrested or is killed. If this were a bad movie, James Bond (not one of the good ones, obviously) would have been all over that. That's what this is becoming - a dangerous farce.

Click to expand...

"Tell us the no go code for the documents, Assange!" Demanded an inexplicably clown-suited Roger Moore.

tegid said:

Assange arrested

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, he surrendered himself via appointment. I's not like he was tracked down or anything.

Adammon said:

Failing to see how knowing that "The Panama Canal" is a site critical to US security is somehow more damaging than the rest of the cables already released. Honestly reading the list, it's kinda "duh".

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to him now that he surrendered himself.

BBC News - Wikileaks defended by Anonymous hacktivists

ok... I'm confuse..

So Anonymous hacker group is helping wikileaks by setting up mirror site AND attacking them with DOS attacks?

Anonymous isn't behind the DDOS attacks against Wikileaks (at least as far as that article is concerned).

A group called Anonymous has hit sites that have refused to do business with the controversial whistle-blowing site with a series of distributed denial-of-service attacks.

It mirrors similar attacks aimed at the Wikileaks site.

Click to expand...

This says that Anonymous is making DDOS attacks against certain websites... attacks that are similar the the DDOS attacks that have been hitting Wikileaks servers (and the perpetrators are currently unknown).

Azurephoenix said:

Anonymous isn't behind the DDOS attacks against Wikileaks (at least as far as that article is concerned).

A group called Anonymous has hit sites that have refused to do business with the controversial whistle-blowing site with a series of distributed denial-of-service attacks.

It mirrors similar attacks aimed at the Wikileaks site.

Click to expand...

This says that Anonymous is making DDOS attacks against certain websites... attacks that are similar the the DDOS attacks that have been hitting Wikileaks servers (and the perpetrators are currently unknown).

Click to expand...

ok.. I have to re-read it like 4 times. I think I understand now.
thanks for clearing it up

One of the women making accusations against Assange has ties to the CIA.

Is anyone actually surprised by this?

I can tell you with 100% certainty that Anon is in complete support of Wikileaks. The chaos, anarchy, and general disaster that the website generates is exactly what is craved by the group. They will be attacking and putting out of comission, anyone who threatens Wikileaks growth and livelyhood.

AshburnerX said:

One of the women making accusations against Assange has ties to the CIA.

Is anyone actually surprised by this?

Click to expand...

"In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange's honour at her flat after the 'crime' and tweeted to her followers that she is with the 'the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!'" he wrote.
"The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape," Catlin said.

Click to expand...

Not at all. It looks like it is a setup as more info are available.


also this

James D. Catlin, a lawyer who recently represented Assange, said the sex assault investigation into the WikiLeaks founder is based on claims he didn't use condoms during sex with two Swedish women.
Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called "sex by surprise" or "unexpected sex."

Click to expand...

so unprotected sex (consensual it seems at this point until we get more info) = rape?

What the hell does "sex by surprise" mean?

Surprise buttsecks, it's illegal in Sweden.

AshburnerX said:

One of the women making accusations against Assange has ties to the CIA.

Is anyone actually surprised by this?

Click to expand...

One of the women accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Click to expand...

Wow. Did I ever mention that I may have some stock in a company that invested in Apple in the 70s? Who knows! I may be a millionaire and not know it!

Six degrees of Kevin Bacon strikes again. If you look hard enough I'm sure you can tie me to an anti-american group in under 3 steps as well.

But it does make for a good story, and no doubt it will become part of Assange's conspiracy theories, if not used as a key part of his defense.

Krisken said:

What the hell does "sex by surprise" mean?

Click to expand...

Basically, one of the parties believed that a contraceptive was in use, but the other party did not oblige. I think it can also apply if a woman tells the man she's with that she's on the pill, but is not.

My only question is: How the hell do you prove that? I mean, I don't know how experienced these ladies are, but sex with a condom and sex without a condom feel distinctly different. You'd think it would come down to "Hey, you don't have a condom on, you really need one to go through that door".

AshburnerX;458092][QUOTE=Krisken said:

What the hell does "sex by surprise" mean?

Click to expand...

Basically, one of the parties believed that a contraceptive was in use, but the other party did not oblige. I think it can also apply if a woman tells the man she's with that she's on the pill, but is not.[/QUOTE]

Interesting reading around the web on this development. One ting I read is that if the sex was consensual, and the only problem was the use of STD protection and/or contraceptives, then while a crime may have been committed, if there are no damages (ie, STD or pregnancy) resulting from the crime, then even if the conviction is made (which is unlikely when the case is only about she said/he said) the punishment will not be great.

Interestingly it's a crime that only exists in Sweden, and the english version of their penal code is unavailable right now (perhaps being hit by every reporter in the US at the moment). Since it's not a crime in the UK, then extradition may require additional hurdles.

In any case, even if he's convicted of two counts of this crime, I can't imagine that the punishment would be huge.

First Lady Puffinstuff;458098][QUOTE=AshburnerX;458092][QUOTE=Krisken said:

What the hell does "sex by surprise" mean?

Click to expand...

Basically, one of the parties believed that a contraceptive was in use, but the other party did not oblige. I think it can also apply if a woman tells the man she's with that she's on the pill, but is not.[/QUOTE]

Interesting reading around the web on this development. One ting I read is that if the sex was consensual, and the only problem was the use of STD protection and/or contraceptives, then while a crime may have been committed, if there are no damages (ie, STD or pregnancy) resulting from the crime, then even if the conviction is made (which is unlikely when the case is only about she said/he said) the punishment will not be great.

Interestingly it's a crime that only exists in Sweden, and the english version of their penal code is unavailable right now (perhaps being hit by every reporter in the US at the moment). Since it's not a crime in the UK, then extradition may require additional hurdles.

In any case, even if he's convicted of two counts of this crime, I can't imagine that the punishment would be huge.[/QUOTE]

Yea, but I think this is the thing to get him out of hiding and hopefully "dispatch" him or slap him with something from the U.S. side.
Or "accidentally" land him in U.S. soil

Or "accidentally" slip on a bar of soap... or fall down some stairs... or trip onto a bullet with a knife on it...

Shegokigo said:

I can tell you with 100% certainty that Anon is in complete support of Wikileaks. The chaos, anarchy, and general disaster that the website generates is exactly what is craved by the group. They will be attacking and putting out of comission, anyone who threatens Wikileaks growth and livelyhood.

Click to expand...

...this will all end in tears. I just know it.

Assange's responses to these questions are more interesting in what they don't say, and how they are worded than the actual content.

I particularly like his dismissal of a valid question with, "If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention."

He's on a power trip, and enjoying it thoroughly. He is his own, and wikileaks, worst enemy.

Man this thread is boring, not nearly enough posting of the actual cables. The Guardian has an awesome breakdown of everything going on.

Here's a fun one about a Texas private security company helping cops in Afghanistan to get high and pimp little boys.

Cable Viewer
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

David Letterman and Desperate Housewives have done more to discourage extremism in Saudi Arabia than hundreds of millions of dollars of US propaganda.

WikiLeaks cables: Jihad? Sorry, I don't want to miss Desperate Housewives | World news | guardian.co.uk

The Lockerbie Bomber being freed had more to do with Libyan threats than compassion.

WikiLeaks cables: Lockerbie bomber freed after Gaddafi's 'thuggish' threats | World news | The Guardian

Saudi Arabian sex parties.

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi princes throw parties boasting drink, drugs and sex | World news | The Guardian

The vice president of Bolivia is maintaining a mirror of all the leaks relating to Bolivia.

Wikileaks - Vicepresidencia del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia

Mastercard Website DDoSed into oblivion by Anon. This also had the effect of taking down MasterCard's online payment verification because apparently they are run on the same server for some dumbass reason.

MasterCard site partially frozen by hackers in WikiLeaks 'revenge' | Media | guardian.co.uk

My favorite reaction to the whole situation by some guy on SomethingAwful:

In the past week the founder of Wikileaks has found himself facing sketchy Swedish rape charges on the eve of the release of a quarter million diplomatic cables that caused him to turn himself in to Scotland Yard. As this is happening financial institutions from Switzerland to the United States are fucking with his company's finances, which has met retaliation via the unexpected arrival of Anonymous, the anti-hero faceless hacker group that actually managed to bring down the Swiss bank's site and fucking Mastercard. As all this is happening, more and more cables are being released everyday, causing the global community to lose their minds and label him a traitor, a spy, a martyr, and a hero. Multiple legal and death threats have been sent his way, but the site's finger is on the trigger of a doomsday device that threatens unforeseen, drastic consequences for international politics. As this is happening and the US government is making every possible move it can to stifle Wikileaks, they announce a World Press Freedom Day in order to celebrate literally everything they are currently decrying.

One, did I miss anything, two, when the fuck did we start living in this movie, and three, how long can it possibly last before life gets boring again?

Click to expand...

These kinds of cables are what makes Wikileaks great. The other ones that are more dangerous is nature are the ones which we are decrying.

Dave said:

These kinds of cables are what makes Wikileaks great. The other ones that are more dangerous is nature are the ones which we are decrying.

Click to expand...

Which ones might those be, specifically?

Here's another really fun one. Shell executives boast that they have tendrils at every level of the Nigerian government.

WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed | Business | The Guardian

Whether or not this could use its own thread apparently anon is not happy with the treatment of wikileaks and is DDOSing Post-financial (the place where wikileaks had their money) which was frozen because they faked an address and you can't have an account with them without having an address in the country. Also they are attacking Visa and Mastercard because you can't use them to donate to wikileaks, and later when they get enough people are apparently going to attack paypal. Anon Twitter doubt it will stay up as the first one was already taken down.

I find these anarchist to be highly annoying, they are like a mule with a spinning wheel, no one knows how he got it and damned if he knows how to use it, in terms of if they actually some how succeeded in making world anarchy.

This is exactly what they complain about the censoring of wikileaks and the whatever else yet they respond with childish shit like this.

Here's a digest of what's been going on up to now, and a hilarious one at that.

What is news is that Anon actually affected mastercard transactions. Taking down a website is one thing, but affecting financial transactions is a whole 'nother ballgame (even though it's largely due to Mastercard's ineptitude in how they have their services set up).

Soon.... very soon....

Anon will actually probably succeed in killing net neutrality by showing that people shouldn't be allowed essentially free reign on the internet. Their fight is stupid and taking down these sites means nothing to the companies. The post finance thing was stupid because wikileaks lied to get that account anyway, and who cares what mastercard and visa do its not essentially your money. They have their choice, and they don't want to participate in funding a website they deem inappropriate.

It's quite amusing that you think Anon would even allow Net Neutrality to work. It's even more cute that you think Anon does all it's work "through the internet".

You think the only real life work done is some protests outside of Scientology Churches, playing Rick Astley and holding longcat signs?

If you think for a second that there isn't Anon in high ranking places, with control over alot more than the common person realizes. They've already won.

Adammon;458673][QUOTE=Dave said:

These kinds of cables are what makes Wikileaks great. The other ones that are more dangerous is nature are the ones which we are decrying.

Click to expand...

Which ones might those be, specifically?[/QUOTE]

The ones which are exposing closed doors discussions with diplomats from other countries. These will hamper if not completely halt diplomatic attempts with these countries. Granted, right now that may not be affecting very much, but there will be repercussions in the future.

Wikileaks is this generations Pentagon Papers.

Except in this day and age, it's 100x more volatile.

crono1224 said:

Anon will actually probably succeed in killing net neutrality by showing that people shouldn't be allowed essentially free reign on the internet. Their fight is stupid and taking down these sites means nothing to the companies. The post finance thing was stupid because wikileaks lied to get that account anyway, and who cares what mastercard and visa do its not essentially your money. They have their choice, and they don't want to participate in funding a website they deem inappropriate.

Click to expand...

1. Actually a lack of Net Neutrality would make it easier to take down certain sites, not harder.
2. Taking down these sites, even for a short while, can be pretty huge. Especially during the holiday season.
3. These services exist to send money electronically, and it totally is my money that I'm sending.
4. You can donate to the Ku Klux Klan using Visa and Mastercard, it's actually quite easy!

JONJONAUG;458934][QUOTE=crono1224 said:

Anon will actually probably succeed in killing net neutrality by showing that people shouldn't be allowed essentially free reign on the internet. Their fight is stupid and taking down these sites means nothing to the companies. The post finance thing was stupid because wikileaks lied to get that account anyway, and who cares what mastercard and visa do its not essentially your money. They have their choice, and they don't want to participate in funding a website they deem inappropriate.

Click to expand...

1. Actually a lack of Net Neutrality would make it easier to take down certain sites, not harder.
2. Taking down these sites, even for a short while, can be pretty huge. Especially during the holiday season.
3. These services exist to send money electronically, and it totally is my money that I'm sending.
4. You can donate to the Ku Klux Klan using Visa and Mastercard, it's actually quite easy![/QUOTE]

These sites are more of a minor inconvience their huge money maker is probably made other ways, notice how people were still able to make purchases in stores, taking down the face only serves to annoy the base who have a decent chance of simply being upset by you. It is equivilant to protesting something by not letting regular patrons in, it isn't acceptable and is illegal. Great way to revolt against something you deem wrong by violating millions of people. Also fuck anyone that says change credit cards, I get mine through my bank and it has nice everything I don't want to change.

It is not your money per se, you can send money other ways, by mail by your own personal carrier, these services exist to make sending money either. However they can still deny sending your money to illegal organisations or ones they deem not acceptable, it is then your decision to choose another service (much like I could change credit cards if i felt they were doing something wrong).

Forth Ku Kluk Klan is protected by the First Amendment, wikileaks shows illegally obtained classified information, there is a big difference. Don't try to fill the discussion with such emotionally charged but irrelevant stuff. Also they could have determined that less people are strangely against the Ku Kluk Klan than Wikileaks, or perhaps they just don't realize.

crono1224 said:

These sites are more of a minor inconvience their huge money maker is probably made other ways, notice how people were still able to make purchases in stores, taking down the face only serves to annoy the base who have a decent chance of simply being upset by you. It is equivilant to protesting something by not letting regular patrons in, it isn't acceptable and is illegal. Great way to revolt against something you deem wrong by violating millions of people. Also fuck anyone that says change credit cards, I get mine through my bank and it has nice everything I don't want to change.

Click to expand...

Oh god, internet sit-ins are violating me.

crono1224 said:

It is not your money per se, you can send money other ways, by mail by your own personal carrier, these services exist to make sending money either. However they can still deny sending your money to illegal organisations or ones they deem not acceptable, it is then your decision to choose another service (much like I could change credit cards if i felt they were doing something wrong).

Click to expand...

How is it not my money? I use Visa, so I should be able to use a service created to send money electronically to send money electronically. Visa and Mastercard have a virtual duopoly on an international scale, so I don't have much of an option here!

crono1224 said:

Forth Ku Kluk Klan is protected by the First Amendment, wikileaks shows illegally obtained classified information, there is a big difference. Don't try to fill the discussion with such emotionally charged but irrelevant stuff. Also they could have determined that less people are strangely against the Ku Kluk Klan than Wikileaks, or perhaps they just don't realize.

Click to expand...

Wikileaks is also protected by the first amendment, see New York Times Co. v. United States.

JONJONAUG;459138][QUOTE=crono1224 said:

These sites are more of a minor inconvience their huge money maker is probably made other ways, notice how people were still able to make purchases in stores, taking down the face only serves to annoy the base who have a decent chance of simply being upset by you. It is equivilant to protesting something by not letting regular patrons in, it isn't acceptable and is illegal. Great way to revolt against something you deem wrong by violating millions of people. Also fuck anyone that says change credit cards, I get mine through my bank and it has nice everything I don't want to change.

Click to expand...

Oh god, internet sit-ins are violating me.

crono1224 said:

It is not your money per se, you can send money other ways, by mail by your own personal carrier, these services exist to make sending money either. However they can still deny sending your money to illegal organisations or ones they deem not acceptable, it is then your decision to choose another service (much like I could change credit cards if i felt they were doing something wrong).

Click to expand...

How is it not my money? I use Visa, so I should be able to use a service created to send money electronically to send money electronically. Visa and Mastercard have a virtual duopoly on an international scale, so I don't have much of an option here!

crono1224 said:

Forth Ku Kluk Klan is protected by the First Amendment, wikileaks shows illegally obtained classified information, there is a big difference. Don't try to fill the discussion with such emotionally charged but irrelevant stuff. Also they could have determined that less people are strangely against the Ku Kluk Klan than Wikileaks, or perhaps they just don't realize.

Click to expand...

Wikileaks is also protected by the first amendment, see New York Times Co. v. United States.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough on the illegality, though it is still the credit cards choice.

They aren't telling you how to spend your money they are saying they won't allow you to use their services to finance something they deem inappropriate.

crono1224 said:

They aren't telling you how to spend your money they are saying they won't allow you to use their services to finance something they deem inappropriate.

Click to expand...

You don't think that sets a dangerous precedent? Reminds me when some Pharmacists were refusing to sell birth control pills because they opposed it on moral grounds.

Who are they to tell us what is and what is not inappropriate?

I doubt that mastercard, visa, paypal, etc woke up one morning and said, "Gee, I don't like those wikileaks people so much. I'mma gonna refuse to service them."

They were obviously sent requests by the state dept. or some other gov't entity to freeze the accounts associated with Wikileaks pending trials against them.

Keep in mind that these companies are making money hand over fist - they get 1-3% of all money that flows into wikileaks, and this is a cash cow for them. They did not choose to cease processing these transactions on their own. Chances are good it was under court order, and further it's a good chance that the court order requires that they don't talk about it.

If they did this on their own, however, it may be within their rights. Keep in mind that wikileaks is not based in the US. What country are they based in? Where's the jurisdiction?

In the same way the american gov't can screw some small country over by ceasing GPS satellite signals, cutting internet satellite access, and freezing financial services provided by american companies (ie, all things they can command corporations based in the US to do via court orders), they are able to do to entities such as wikileaks. Once they categorize wikileaks as dangerous to the united states, these actions are perfectly legal.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

I doubt that mastercard, visa, paypal, etc woke up one morning and said, "Gee, I don't like those wikileaks people so much. I'mma gonna refuse to service them."

They were obviously sent requests by the state dept. or some other gov't entity to freeze the accounts associated with Wikileaks pending trials against them.

Keep in mind that these companies are making money hand over fist - they get 1-3% of all money that flows into wikileaks, and this is a cash cow for them. They did not choose to cease processing these transactions on their own. Chances are good it was under court order, and further it's a good chance that the court order requires that they don't talk about it.

If they did this on their own, however, it may be within their rights. Keep in mind that wikileaks is not based in the US. What country are they based in? Where's the jurisdiction?

In the same way the american gov't can screw some small country over by ceasing GPS satellite signals, cutting internet satellite access, and freezing financial services provided by american companies (ie, all things they can command corporations based in the US to do via court orders), they are able to do to entities such as wikileaks. Once they categorize wikileaks as dangerous to the united states, these actions are perfectly legal.

Click to expand...

I think you are right FLP. I believe the U.S. Government is ordering these companies to stop service to Wikileaks.

I seem to recall some 5 years ago phone companies were told to spy on American's private phone conversations, too. It doesn't mean it is right just because the government requests it.

I can't speak to the authenticity, but this makes for an amusing 3 and a half minutes.

Krisken said:

I seem to recall some 5 years ago phone companies were told to spy on American's private phone conversations, too. It doesn't mean it is right just because the government requests it.

Click to expand...

IIRC, they were only allowed to get warrantless wiretaps for calls made into or out of the US to suspected terrorist elements. It was far-reaching, certainly, but it's hardly the specter people raise it to be.

But for these a judge was likely involved in signing the order to stop payment.

I suppose if you find it offensive, you could always lobby congress the write laws such that the gov't is not allowed to stop payment to organizations that act against the US, then the judges won't be able to sign such orders.

I assume from your defense, though, that you are in complete agreement with Wikileaks decisions to release all the documents they are releasing?

I'm on the fence, FLP. I think some of the stuff is fascinating, but most of it is pointless.

I also think that any information which is so current it can put our troops in harms way is an attack on the country. The habit of the United States to wait 30+ years to unclassify some information seems too long to me, but 6 months is too soon.

Wikileaks is the cartoon character of what investigative journalism used to be. It's the uncontrolled and unlimited distribution of information. There should definitely be limits to the information released, but they don't discriminate or separate what is important to keep governments from becoming cartoon characters themselves and what puts people in real danger.

Krisken said:

they don't discriminate or separate what is important to keep governments from becoming cartoon characters themselves and what puts people in real danger.

Click to expand...

The kicker here is that I don't think anyone can separate the two either.

If they have the US redact material, then they will essentially get a map of what the US considers important (because they have both the original and redacted versions). They aren't even citizens of the US, nevermind trustworthy people who have security clearance, so there's no way the US can do it.

They themselves can't possibly understand the importance of various pieces of information. They can guess at it, but there is likely information in there that appears tame which may be rather important once you fully understand the context (which can't always be understood from the documents alone) and vice versa.

The questions we should be asking:
- Are there situations where the government must operate in secret in order to carry out its primary mission of protecting and providing services for its own citizens?
- What about secondary missions, such as working with other leaders for peace (which indirectly impacts the primary mission)?

In other words, can a truly open government work, where every word uttered by anyone in any position paid for in part or fully with taxpayer money is up for review by the public?

If we cause a shift in how government works, such that secrets are no longer allowed, are we simply adhering to a "higher" law, or are we instead showing our hand too broadly to our enemies, such that we will ultimately lose? Are we playing a poker game with other world leaders?

---------- Post added at 01:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

I keep thinking I'm trying to describe a "sea change" unsuccessfully.

I guess what I'm getting at is - can we fundamentally change government in a way that they would simply not care what others knew about them?

The best encryption algorithms are strong not because they are secret - in fact their success depends on everyone understanding the algorithm, and knowing that it's secure even though you can see the skeleton of the machine that performs the encryption.

In the same way can we re-define how our leaders govern our nation such that it won't matter who sees what.

FOIA was a tiny step towards this idea - the concept being that critical information has a time limit, after which it really isn't useful to our enemies and can be safely released.

The next step might be to require that all information be created with a reasonable specific expiration date in mind, and barring future action to extend the expiration, all documents would eventually come into the public hands. Ideally the expiration would be on the order of days, not months or years.

I'm open to the idea of going further and having everything immediately available, but I can't see how it would work without, for instance, completely undermining our military strength. The order to drop a bomb somewhere has to be kept a secret until after the bomb has hit its target, otherwise our enemies would always be able to avoid it.

But going backwards - are there not long-term efforts that the diplomats are setting up now that, like knowing the coordinates of the next strike, would completely fail if their efforts were known?

Krisken;459150][QUOTE=crono1224 said:

They aren't telling you how to spend your money they are saying they won't allow you to use their services to finance something they deem inappropriate.

Click to expand...

You don't think that sets a dangerous precedent? Reminds me when some Pharmacists were refusing to sell birth control pills because they opposed it on moral grounds.[/QUOTE]

Honestly I'm not sure, but pharmacies aren't a third party or a middle man per se. You can't just do it yourself, like you could with donating to wikileaks, while it maybe highly impractical to fly to wherever they are located out of and give them cash, you can do that.

Now I am unsure how I feel about the choosing of who can get money or not, it is suprsing they would allow you to donate money to the KKK but not wikileaks (it very well could have been gov. pressure but who knows).

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

The questions we should be asking:
- Are there situations where the government must operate in secret in order to carry out its primary mission of protecting and providing services for its own citizens?
- What about secondary missions, such as working with other leaders for peace (which indirectly impacts the primary mission)?

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but you also need to ask if there are situations where the government will misuse the secrecy we allow it to have, by using it to perform actions that are not only unethical but also illegal. Considering we have had several such events brought to light in the past, it IS a reasonable assumption to believe our government may still be doing such things.

Ultimately, the entire Wikileaks issue comes down to whether or not each of us personally believes the government can be trusted with the secrecy it wields. If you do not, then you generally support Wikileaks. If you do, then you don't.

It looks like a few former Wikileaks employees are going to start a new site called OpenLeaks. They aren't going to be publishing the info themselves, but acting as an intermediary and releasing the info they receive to different news organizations. Seems like a much smarter way to go.

Not to mention significantly more profitable, as they will control the distribution of that information.

The most damning wikileaks release to date.

GasBandit said:

The most damning wikileaks release to date.

Click to expand...

Wow. I'm amazed that Assange has the balls to release that one! I mean, the US was going after him pretty hard, but he's in the UK - you'd think he'd steer clear of exposing their secrets, nevermind this cable that exposes the true nature of the US and UK "relationship."

He's gonna have a rough time in Guantanamo...

I'm confused as to why the Espionage Act keeps getting brought up in coverage about Assange's arrest. As an Australian living in Sweden, then in the UK, why would he be subject to American law?

Papillon said:

I'm confused as to why the Espionage Act keeps getting brought up in coverage about Assange's arrest. As an Australian living in Sweden, then in the UK, why would he be subject to American law?

Click to expand...

He HAS been on American soil before (he was on the Daily Show at least once). If it can be proven that he helped secure or release sensitive materials while there, he could be charged with it.

GasBandit said:

The most damning wikileaks release to date.

Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me...

This image made me laugh, so I thought I'd share (yes yes, oversimplification, but funny nonetheless).