Where is the wikileak-thread?

Assange claims that by revealing these secrets Wikileaks is doing a service. His ultimate maxim, as he has said on several occasions, is that if money and resources are being spent on keeping something secret, then the reasons must be insidious. Nations have secrets for many reasons, from protecting a military or intelligence advantage to seeking some advantage in negotiations to, at times, hiding nefarious plans. But it is difficult to imagine a state — or a business or a church — acting without confidentiality. No business could do that, nor could any other institution. Note how vigorously Wikileaks hides the inner workings of its own organization, from how it is funded to the people it employs.

Assange’s claims are made even more interesting in terms of his “thermonuclear” threat. Apparently there are massive files that will be revealed if any harm comes to him. Implicit is the idea that they will not be revealed if he is unharmed — otherwise the threat makes no sense. So, Assange’s position is that he has secrets and will keep them secret if he is not harmed. I regard this as a perfectly reasonable and plausible position. One of the best uses for secrets is to control what the other side does to you. So Assange is absolutely committed to revealing the truth unless it serves his interests not to, in which case the public has no need to know.

It is difficult to see what harm the leaks have done, beyond embarrassment. It is also difficult to understand why Wikileaks thinks it has changed history or why Assange lacks a sufficient sense of irony not to see the contradiction between his position on openness and his willingness to keep secrets when they benefit him. But there is also something important here, which is how this all was leaked in the first place.

The real issue is who had access to this mass of files and what controls were put on them. One of the reasons to be casual is that this was information that was classified secret and below, with the vast majority being at the confidential, no-foreign-distribution level. This information was not considered highly sensitive by the U.S. government. Based on the latest trove, it is hard to figure out how the U.S. government decides to classify material. But it has to be remembered that given their level of classification these files did not have the highest security around them because they were not seen as highly sensitive.

Still, a crime occurred. According to the case of Daniel Ellsberg, who gave a copy of the Pentagon Papers on Vietnam to a New York Times reporter, it is a crime for someone with a security clearance to provide classified material for publication but not a crime for a publisher to publish it, or so it has become practice since the Ellsberg case. Legal experts can debate the nuances, but this has been the practice for almost 40 years. The bright line is whether the publisher in any way encouraged or participated in either the theft of the information or in having it passed on to him. In the Ellsberg case, he handed it to reporters without them even knowing what it was. Assange has been insisting that he was the passive recipient of information that he had nothing to do with securing.

Now it is interesting whether the sheer existence of Wikileaks constituted encouragement or conspiracy with anyone willing to pass on classified information to him. But more interesting by far is the sequence of events that led a U.S. Army private first class not only to secure the material but to know where to send it and how to get it there. If Pfc. Bradley Manning conceived and executed the theft by himself, and gave the information to Wikileaks unprompted, Assange is clear. But anyone who assisted Manning or encouraged him is probably guilty of conspiracy, and if Assange knew what was being done, he is probably guilty, too. There was talk about some people at MIT helping Manning. Unscrambling the sequence is what the Justice Department is undoubtedly doing now. Assange cannot be guilty of treason, since he isn’t a U.S. citizen. But he could be guilty of espionage. His best defense will be that he can’t be guilty of espionage because the material that was stolen was so trivial.

I have no idea whether or when he got involved in the acquisition of the material. I do know — given the material leaked so far — that there is little beyond minor embarrassments contained within it. Therefore, Assange’s claim that geopolitics has changed is as false as it is bold. Whether he committed any crime, including rape, is something I have no idea about. What he is clearly guilty of is hyperbole. But contrary to what he intended, he did do a service to the United States. New controls will be placed on the kind of low-grade material he published. Secretary of Defense Gates made the following point on this:

“Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.
“Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.”

I don’t like to give anyone else the final word, but in this case Robert Gates’ view is definitive. One can pretend that Wikileaks has redefined geopolitics, but it hasn’t come close.
 
City Council of Oakland, Ca to vote tonight on declaring the actual leaker a Hero.

George I think you meant Berkley City Council.;-)

BERKELEY, Calif. – The Berkeley City Council Tuesday night indefinitely delayed a vote on whether to bestow hero status on a soldier who allegedly released classified information to Wikileaks.
Some council members in this famously liberal city said they were concerned about the way the resolution was written and wanted more time to investigate. Others said it was premature to hail Pfc. Bradley Manning a hero when he has not admitted to being the source of the leaks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101215/ap_on_re_us/us_wikileaks_berkeley

Berkley also proposed a resolution proclaiming Marine Recruiters as "unwanted intruders".

You mean finished whining in the way you guys are about Wikileaks, Assange and "the world is against/hates/is jealous of us" BS we have to hear every time you lot don't get what you like?

Actually, it was you in post #32
("You know it is precisely the attitude that "every one wants to be us, and they all resent us" that gets you attacked, if you recall much of the world waved goodbye about the time good ole George W came up with the "if you are not with us you are against us" statement.")
and Ted parroted you in post #37
("In many places, here in Europe and all over, people haven't forgotten the: you are with us or against us.")

who where whining.:lol:

The majority of Americans could give a rats a** what your opinion of us is.:smile:


He is a thought, if this was Iran, Russia or any other country you would be spouting on about how this would never happen in the USA because of all your perceived freedoms and how corrupt these "commie/Islamofacist" countries are but the second it happens to you its the greatest crime on earth.

Oh and WTF... "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire(1694 - 1778)... This is your signature, I think you need to look up irony...

Lets up date it, "I disapprove of what you say, but as long as it makes someone else look bad and not me I will defend to the death your right to say it." Chukpike(2010)

Voltaire's quote that I happen to agree with, and use as a signature, clearly states "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I have in no way told you to shut up or don't post or anything that violates that quote. So maybe you should not only read the quote but try understanding it.:roll:
Even China has an illegal immigration problem.

Yes, I understand North Koreans immigrate illegally to China and are shot.

"North Korean refugees and Illegal Immigrants have been crossing over into China for a number of years. If there is any country on Earth that dosn’t need more people, it’s China. Faced with the alternative of starving to death, many North Koreans see it as the only way to save their lives, and escape the repressive regime of Kim Il Jung. Of course, if they are caught, there is no Immigration Hearing, back they go !!
As always, where ever there is human misery, there will be those who would take advantage of it.
The Chinese recently captured 13 people and tried them for “”Human Smuggling”".
Remember Now !! This is a Chinese Court…so, in my western mind, I have to wonder if ALL were guilty, or, was somebody just trying to help somebody ??
In any case, being the hospitable folks that the Chinese are, they decided to take the convicted out for a nice ride in the country before they were to serve their sentences. They drove up to a nice scenic spot on a bridge, overlooking the Korean/ Russian border. Everybody got out and enjoyed the view….after which, the defendants were shot through the head.
Anyway !! That’s what happens to a “”Coyete”" in China…Guilty or not…"
http://wildmanhangout.com/wordpress/?p=464


Kinda makes you think that Arizona is not so bad after all.:lol:
 
G
Actually, it was you in post #32
("You know it is precisely the attitude that "every one wants to be us, and they all resent us" that gets you attacked, if you recall much of the world waved goodbye about the time good ole George W came up with the "if you are not with us you are against us" statement.")
and Ted parroted you in post #37
("In many places, here in Europe and all over, people haven't forgotten the: you are with us or against us.")

who where whining.:lol:

The majority of Americans could give a rats a** what your opinion of us is.:smile:

I am glad you agree with me although had you chosen to read all of post#32 you would have noticed the following 3 lines below what you chose to "quote".

If you travel the world you will discover that for the most part no body mentions the USA just like while I was in the USA; New Zealand wasn't on the tip of peoples tongues and I think I know why... People the world over have far better things to occupy themselves with than you or me, they have their own daily problems to deal with.

So want to cycle around in circles some more or maybe look for grammar and spelling mistakes because so far you have said nothing that isn't a rehash of what others have told you and then claimed as your own.


Voltaire's quote that I happen to agree with, and use as a signature, clearly states "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I have in no way told you to shut up or don't post or anything that violates that quote. So maybe you should not only read the quote but try understanding it.:roll:

Clearly you have no idea what Voltaire is trying to say or you wouldn't be here crying about what Wikileaks and Assange are saying.

But thanks for playing anyway.
 
Lol, I wonder when Assange will do a China-special on wikileaks :) ALthough Chinese diplomacy is rougher at the edges already.

I assume it will be as soon as a Chinese soldier is suicidal enough to give him Chinese documents.
 
Clearly you have no idea what Voltaire is trying to say or you wouldn't be here crying about what Wikileaks and Assange are saying.

You really have a very keen lack of ability to understand the written word. Please show where I have cried about Wikileaks or Assange.

I have said:
"Because of the 1St Amendment the US government has little recourse towards Wikileaks. While US government officials may wish it would go away, Wikileaks is protected. Like any representative of the press if they were found to have received the material by a illegal means they could be prosecuted. But, Wikileaks is an organization not just Julian Assange."
"Julian Assange legal difficulties have little to do with the US."
"I sincerely doubt that the US has anything to do with Julian Assange's problems. That is probably some unhappy European governments. Let's face it Assange may not be a choirboy, but Wikileaks will continue to operate, with or with out him."


As far as this topic is concerned I believe:
1. The 1ST Amendment of US constitution protects Wikileaks right to publish the information they received.
2. Julian Assange may be the mouth piece for Wikileaks but the organization will continue with or with out him.
3. Julian Assange is really not an issue. If European governments want to hassle him that is their problem. If the world press thinks who Assange is shagging, is more news worthy than the leaks, kinda tells you how important the leaks are.:smile:
4. I would hope in releasing the information to the public that Wikileaks acts responsibly and tries to protect individuals whose comments might draw reprisals.

Monty, I know when you have to read out loud and follow the print with your finger, it can be difficult for you to keep up. But do the best you can.

After reading the comments about Immigration, Assange's sex live, and Bradley Manning. I would ask the original question in the title of the thread.

Where is the Wikileak-thread? :wink:

Seems a lot of people commenting, are more interested in commenting on others opinions than discussing Wikileaks.
 
NBC News was trying the angle that the NY Times wasn't prosecuted because they recieved The Pentagon Papers from the Leaker & published them, where they were claiming Wikileaks could be because they were just a middle man & didn't publish.
 
Frankly, I am quite surprised that the whole wikileak-affair is about as lively as Grace Jones on this forum. Has it been dealt with on another thread or is there no interest to talk about it?
After some digging I found this interesting soundbite and personally think he getting to the point:


Why is, for example. Clinton so hard in her judgment? She was quoted, saying:

But whom does she mean when she says: innocent people? And what peaceful relations are sabotaged. The only thing which became obvious is that the corps diplomatique are gossiping like a bunch of school girls and get angry (instead of embarrassed) when their gossiping is out in the open... Why don't they write their reports as professionals instead of wannabe journalists of the Daily Telegraph? And the saddest part of all is that they want to crucify someone because their ego's got bruised.

I launched a specific wikileak thread on Nov 5th, or at least one with tags of wikileaks and leak here

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/largest-leak-us-military-history-t84930.html

The powerful establishments are under attack, and they don't like it, so they are trying to discredit him. Where are the Libetarians now when you need them, or are they just gun clubs, and Laissez Faire big business in disguise?
 
I suspect even Libertarians know there's stuff the general public has no need to know. All Governments do this sort of thing. It like Ms. Clinton was said @ a newsconfrence, saying she told a foriegn diplomat that it was a bit embarrasing to have her comments about them aired in public, & he replied "you should see what we say about you". That's on the diplomatic side & more so on releasing military stuff.
 
Some interesting contrasts between the attitude to Assange and the Arizona massacre here:

In Mediaspeak, the word 'violence' actually refers to crimes committed by the 'bad guys' against the 'good guys', 'us'. 'We' do not commit violence, 'we' deploy 'assets' to 'neutralise' 'targets'. 'We' 'intervene' to bring 'security' and 'humanitarian relief'.

Because 'we' don't commit violence, it is fine for 'us' to non-violently kill 'our' enemies.

Thus, columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner wrote in the Washington Times last month:
"We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him."

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, pleaded:
"Why can't we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are? Why can't we disrupt and destroy WikiLeaks in both cyberspace and physical space, to the extent possible?"

The net hosts numerous articles with titles like '5 Reasons The CIA Should Have Already Killed Julian Assange.'

On the BBC website, Matt Frei praised Barack Obama's mollifying response to the Arizona massacre:

"The president kept it personal and poignant. He reined in the attack dogs on all sides and called for a more civil, gentle tone. The tragedy has allowed him to play the role of consoler-in-chief with conviction."

Perhaps not on all sides. The "consoler-in-chief" had nothing to say about the crosshairs hovering over Julian Assange.

http://medialens.org/index.php?opti...the-crosshairs&catid=24:alerts-2011&Itemid=68
 
It's just "The Pentagon Papers" all over again, the rats have been uncovered in the pantry and rather than doing something about the rats, we find it simpler to kill the person who reported the rats. Problem solved.
 
I suspect even Libertarians know there's stuff the general public has no need to know. All Governments do this sort of thing. It like Ms. Clinton was said @ a newsconfrence, saying she told a foriegn diplomat that it was a bit embarrasing to have her comments about them aired in public, & he replied "you should see what we say about you". That's on the diplomatic side & more so on releasing military stuff.

How do you reconcile this view with the call for smaller, transparent and less intrusive government?

If my military was getting away with what ever it liked and someone had the proof to expose it then I have no issues with them doing so, likewise even though we all know our politicians (on all sides) are self serving a-holes who would sell their grandmothers for 10 minutes of power they hide behind a smug "prove it" attitude and now someone has and all he gets for his efforts is "we should kill him".

If you want a return to smaller more honest government then the first thing you have to do is elect honest people and by exposing all their dealings is the only way you will achieve this.
 
How do you reconcile this view with the call for smaller, transparent and less intrusive government?

If my military was getting away with what ever it liked and someone had the proof to expose it then I have no issues with them doing so, likewise even though we all know our politicians (on all sides) are self serving a-holes who would sell their grandmothers for 10 minutes of power they hide behind a smug "prove it" attitude and now someone has and all he gets for his efforts is "we should kill him".

If you want a return to smaller more honest government then the first thing you have to do is elect honest people and by exposing all their dealings is the only way you will achieve this.

What if wikileaks exposed the closing down of Ma Gleesons sly grog on Auckland's dock, 10 years ago. 100 years years of flat-out supping thrown out with the bath water. How democratic was that? New year's eve 1951 confined to history; But I was there and remembering it for posterity.
Government encroaching too much wikileaks standing by helpless now when faced with real important stuff; ask the seamen of NZ and the seafaring nations of the world. Open the Gleeson One campaign. Prohibition strikes again.
 
Back
Top