57
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 11:56 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
The Guardian (et. al.) published published (parts of) those cables already in December.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 08:30 am
Quote:
Biting the hand that leaks to them, editors turn on Julian Assange
(Caroline Overington, The Australian, January 31, 2011)

THEY say things move quickly in the internet age and so it seems.

Not three months ago, Julian Assange was being touted as a possible "Man of the Year".

Time readers wanted him on the cover of their magazine; and girls, even Bianca Jagger, were banging on the side of his prison van, saying "I love you" or demanding his release.

The same Julian Assange was in the news again last week but, no longer a man whose freedom might be sacrificed for your right to know, he was being described as lanky and volatile and, whatever his current level of hygiene, once turned up to a meeting stinking like he hadn't bathed in days.

The New York Times will publish this week an e-book about its collaboration with Assange and his media organisation WikiLeaks. The book, Open Secrets: WikiLeaks, War and American Diplomacy, will be available for download for about $US6. It's a first for the Times and, if its instincts are right and the public's appetite for this story is insatiable, it should make quite a bit of money.

The Guardian, which also worked with Assange on the WikiLeaks cables, is also planning to publish a book about its interactions with him.

Neither is likely to present a flattering portrait of the young Australian, who started public life as a convicted computer hacker.

Indeed, The Times' Bill Keller gave a taste last week of what's to come, describing Assange as a vain man "transformed by his outlaw celebrity".

Keller makes it clear that although his reporters approached the WikiLeaks cables with cool maturity expected of a responsible media organisation, Assange was more like a child.

"One night, when they (Assange, and Times reporters) were all walking down the street after dinner, Assange suddenly started skipping ahead of the group. (They) stared, speechless. Then, just as suddenly, Assange stopped, got back in step with them and returned to the conversation," Keller wrote.

But Keller really sank the knife when he said Assange was not, in his opinion, a proper journalist.

"Julian Assange has been heard to boast that he served as a kind of puppet master, recruiting several news organisations, forcing them to work in concert and choreographing their work," he wrote.

"This is characteristic braggadocio or, as my Guardian colleagues would say, bollocks. Throughout this experience we have treated Assange as a source."

Keller said also that he would "hesitate" to describe what WikiLeaks does as "journalism".

That is potentially devastating for Assange.

He believes the Americans are trying to have him extradited to the US, to face charges under the Espionage Act (1917). One thing that might have saved him was recognised status as a journalist.

There is little doubt as to what Assange was trying to achieve, when he decided to do business with the Times, and the Guardian.

His own media organisation, WikiLeaks, which is less than four years old, produced some cracker yarns last year but none had made much of a splash, because who, or what, was WikiLeaks? Just another website, or worse, another blog.

Assange aligned himself with newspapers because they have what WikiLeaks did not: credibility and authority.

But those things belong to newspapers only because they have proved, over and again, to be beholden to nothing and to no one, and that includes Assange.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 11:45 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
But those things belong to newspapers only because they have proved, over and again, to be beholden to nothing and to no one,


Ain't that a huge laugh. The NYT is not beholden to anyone. This, a newspaper, that sits on stories, all the while negotiating their position with their puppet masters, the US government.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 12:10 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
Biting the hand that leaks to them, editors turn on Julian Assange
(Caroline Overington, The Australian, January 31, 2011)


Assange aligned himself with newspapers because they have what WikiLeaks did not: credibility and authority.

But those things belong to newspapers only because they have proved, over and again, to be beholden to nothing and to no one, and that includes Assange.



good grief.

I'm not sure who is most naive, Assage or Ms. Overington.

Who believes that kind of malarkey about newspapers anymore?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 12:21 pm
@ehBeth,
Not me Beth. It's laughable.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 12:25 pm
@spendius,
And yet, there exists in most every post here at A2K, especially from Americans, that specific bit of tripe and the silence of you both [and others] is deafening.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 12:39 pm
@JTT,
It hardly seems worth commenting on JT, although I have done many times on the evolution threads, when it is so ubiquitous.

My deafening silence is a function of you not reading the evolution threads. It is obvious that I believe newspapers are beholden to anything which increases their profits. I don't mind. I take it for granted.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 01:24 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
It hardly seems worth commenting on JT, although I have done many times on the evolution threads, when it is so ubiquitous.


If it's worth commenting on for one issue, it's worth commenting on for all.

Quote:
My deafening silence is a function of you not reading the evolution threads.


I've read some of those threads but what on earth does my not reading some thread have to do with you not honestly addressing a thread you do participate in?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 03:17 pm
@JTT,
From Papal encyclicals to graffiti on a shithouse wall there is something being pushed. To comment on it everytime it happens would be pointless.

I do it from time to time on the evolution threads because articles from newspapers, magazines and blogs are often quoted in full. I even give the reasons why certain newspaper conglomerates, masquerading as local, support the teaching of evolution to a nation's adolescents. By which I mean how it will increase their profits. The dynamics of the process.

wande seems to be on one side on Wikileaks and the other on evolution teaching.

Some of us here call the Guardian the Grauniad. That is sufficient.

A newspaper is the mouthpiece of its owner/s. I don't expect it to be anything else. It has an agenda. Every story is checked against the agenda and the appropriate position taken and sent down the line. You might say that the owners are the mouthpiece of the segment of the class spectrum it sells to. That's why I stopped reading newspapers years ago. But they have their uses. I can think of two right away not counting for wrapping pots in transit.

Newspapers are an addiction. Reading one gives an appearance of doing something important and profound when sat in an armchair resting. And they are conversation prompters in those watering holes where the type who take a particular paper tend to gather. Even with fairly short sentences most people have forgotten the beginning when they come to the full stop. I trained that out of me with Proust. That's why my posts are consigned to the dustbin of the last page unread or uncomprehended. My "run-on" sentences they are called. Amongst other things. I have suspected that rat-a-tat series of short and stupid posts are designed to get one of my posts onto the previous page faster.

The amalgamation of newspapers under a few competing conglomerates is the real interesting story and I judge this story from that point of view. Assange threw his bread on the waters. And we know who took the bait.

Media has been the main scientific area of study for me ever since I went off the boil. I can barely simmer now. We are backward enough in the UK for me to have seen TV from the start and still be young enough to tell the tale. And it's a fantastic one. But I can say that a football match on a snowy 9 inch black and white screen was just as exciting as one is today on my new 47 incher assuming the partisanship is the same which I can get up for now by having a bet but was for real then.

The first TV I ever saw was in a shop window at night, the shop was closed and in darkness, on a street being heavily rained on and cold. There was a crowd stood there watching it. No sound. The light, the movement. Fascinating. A.A. Gill said that he thought women only watched TV for the colour and the movement. Anybody watching Dancing On Ice can't be watching for any other reason.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 05:12 pm
How alarming!

Two of my favorite people, Julian Assange and Bill Keller, are pissing on each other's shoes!

This can only be bad news for The Truth.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 06:29 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
One couple in Dancing On Ice performed tonight, so hopelessly that it was embarrassing, in Union Jack costumes. They came last and were voted off. Good. I can't stand people who hide total incompetence behind the flag.

Their "programme" lasted 52 seconds which with 10 couples comes to about 9 minutes skating in a two hour feechewer. The rest is blather, lies, advertising breaks and seemingly endless and repetitive guidance as to which number to ring to vote for one of the couples.

Whoever it is who manages the production must have a contempt for the viewer that knows no known lower limit.

I would like to see his confidential memos leaked.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 06:36 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
claps for Finn.
Ok, quiet now.

I still didn't finish the Keller article, reading as I was this book about byzantine politics, The Bellini Card, no link. Bunch of foo, but interesting enough to read all the way.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 06:50 pm
I just caught the last bit of Assange on 60 minutes streaming - anything interesting come out of it? The bit about the poison pill was vaguely intriguing.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 07:03 pm
@hingehead,
Oops

Actual 60 minutes piece:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/26/60minutes/main7286686.shtml?tag=breakingnews

background guff
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20029950-10391709.html
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 08:00 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

How alarming!

Two of my favorite people, Julian Assange and Bill Keller, are pissing on each other's shoes!

This can only be bad news for The Truth.


When Assange found out that The Guardian passed a copy of the cables database to The New York Times, he accused them of "theft" and "criminal" behavior.
0 Replies
 
MJA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 08:13 pm
@JPB,
"Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Barak Obama

=
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 05:08 am
@MJA,
If the law defines the transparency all he said was "I'm not an anarchist".
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 05:15 am
Will the drama never end ? Is no-one safe ? I was thinking of asking Wiki-leaks where my missing socks are.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRwYIFP4ep0
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 06:20 am
using the magicians greatest trick, diversion, we have this news report released right in the middle of a captivating global incident
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/01/AR2011020106549.html?wpisrc=nl_natlalert

Mental health Specialist Recommended WikiLeaks Suspect Not Be Deployed To Iraq
By Greg Jaffe and Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 2, 2011; 12:47 AM

A mental health specialist recommended that the Army private accused of leaking classified material to the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks not be deployed to Iraq, but his immediate commanders sent him anyway, according to a military official familiar with a new Army investigation.

The recommendation by the specialist at Fort Drum, N.Y., did not disqualify Pfc. Bradley E. Manning from being sent to Iraq. The final decision on whether a soldier is fit to go to a war zone rests with his immediate commanders.

But an Army investigation has concluded that the commanders' decision not to heed the specialist's advice and their failure to properly discipline Manning may have contributed to one of the most high-profile classified military network breaches in decades, the military official said.

Manning, 23, an intelligence analyst, has been accused of downloading classified State Department and Pentagon files onto his personal computer. Last summer, he was charged with transmitting classified material to an unauthorized person.

The Army investigation, which is separate from an ongoing criminal inquiry, found that Manning's immediate supervisors did not follow procedures for overseeing the secure area where the classified information was kept, greatly increasing the risk of a security breach, the official said.

The investigation, which was conducted by Lt. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, the senior Army commander at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., was ordered by top Pentagon officials to determine how the breach occurred and whether broader institutional failings allowed Manning to allegedly download the documents.

Caslen is expected to relay his findings to the Army secretary this week and to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in mid-February, military officials said.

"There were serious leadership failures within the unit chain of command and gross negligence in the supervision of Pfc. Manning in Iraq," said a second official who is familiar with the Army probe.

The defense officials were not authorized to speak about the inquiries. An Army spokesman declined to comment on the criminal investigation of Manning or on Caslen's investigation of how the leak took place.

Manning lived in Potomac before joining the Army in 2007. The military was facing a shortage of intelligence analysts in Iraq when he was deployed there in 2009.

The internal Army investigation did not fault Manning's recruitment to the Army or the initial decision to grant him a security clearance, said the official familiar with the probe.

"Something happened in his personal life after he joined the Army," the official said.

A source familiar with Manning's mental health records indicated that the stress that led the soldier to seek help was caused primarily by a faltering personal relationship.

At Fort Drum, Manning balled up his fists and screamed at higher-ranking soldiers in his unit, said the official familiar with the Army inquiry. In Iraq, a master sergeant who supervised Manning was so concerned about the private's mental health that he disabled Manning's weapon in December 2009, the private's attorney, David E. Coombs, previously said. Also in Iraq, in May 2010, Manning was demoted a rank for assaulting a fellow soldier, the Army said.

If the concerns in the report are accurate, "this clearly demonstrates the failure of the Army to take care of the soldier," Coombs said.

The master sergeant charged with overseeing Manning's day-to-day activities kept extensive records of the private's alleged outbursts and shortcomings as a soldier, but did not discipline him properly or compel him to get help, said the military official familiar with the non-criminal Army investigation. "He wrote memos and kept records, but that is no replacement for positive leadership," the official said.

The investigation, some aspects of which were previously reported by McClatchy Newspapers, also concludes that Manning's company commander should have taken more decisive action following the soldier's disciplinary issues at Fort Drum and in Iraq. It is not clear whether the final version of the report will recommend disciplinary action against Manning's immediate commanders or the sergeants who oversaw him on a daily basis.

The Army investigation faulted Manning's immediate supervisors for running a lax Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility, or SCIF, an area that holds computers capable of accessing the classified Internet system used by the Pentagon and State Department. Soldiers were allowed to bring compact discs into the area to listen to music, military officials said. Manning allegedly used such discs to download classified information, they said.

The faulty security at the classified facility in Baghdad is likely to be raised by the defense in a prospective court-martial. If proper security procedures had been in place, the acts Manning is accused of committing would have been impossible, the second official said.

Manning attested to the lax security in online chats that he reportedly had with Adrian Lamo, a former computer hacker in whom Manning allegedly confided last May.

At one point, Lamo asked Manning why the server that contained classified material was not secure, according to a copy of the chat logs Lamo shared with Wired.com.

Manning replied: "You had people working 14 hours a day . . . every single day . . . no weekends . . . no recreation . . . people stopped caring after 3 weeks . . . there was no physical security."

He added: "Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis . . . a perfect storm."

Manning is confined in a Marine detention facility at Quantico, Va., awaiting a possible trial.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 08:12 am
@djjd62,
I raised that matter early in the thread dj. It was ignored of course. This thread is all about what the bolted horses are doing and not about the bolts on the stable door.

Still--if it gives us all a chance to pose and preen and strut our credentials I am the last to complain.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/04/2025 at 03:52:27