WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

You could perhaps make this arguments about the Mannings of the world, but not the Assanges and WLs. There is nothing about WLs itself that is inherently needed.

..I'm not investing in some self-appointed gatekeeper of information. Did you elect Julian Assange? Do you have more or less say on his actions when compared to your own government?

It would be no more difficult.

... WLs isn't the catalyst to transparency that many believe it is. It does many things, but it does everything retroactively. You cannot really argue that WLs makes us more informed for the future, only the past. It is a good thing to see into the crimes of the past, but do not mistake this as a means to make an informed decision about what comes next.

Why you emphasize the fact he was a Private is totally irrelevant. Manning would have been able to give full substance, which does matter.

We are talking about electronic documents. It's not like if he choose the wrong one, he would have missed his only chance. If he gave it to a group that buried it, he would still have amble options for groups that would not. Obviously these large newspapers took an interest in publishing the cables.

You write about info when you get it. It seems an odd criticism of these groups to say that they should have wrote about things they did not yet know about or could prove. The fact that they did when WLs gave them the cables, only proves this point.

You just said that they would not publish it if Manning brought it to them. Further, Assange and WLs didn't do ground work, Manning did. If we are to believe Assange, Manning approached WLs, not the other way. This is an important detail for legal reasons, and for the purposes of comparing Assange to investigative journalists.

And yet, when these groups published them, they granted authenticity to the cables to a public that would otherwise question the validity of a website they may or may not have heard of.

I don't think that's fair, MsOlga.

Wandel is posting opinions from outside the US. It's been repeated thoroughly in this thread that the US's criticism of the unredacted releases is nothing more than hypocrisy. You yourself called one story a "hatchet job."

What's I've yet to hear is an acknowledgement from those here eager to defend WL, is that other people outside the US also criticize the unredacted releases.

The Guardian has been accused of 'cable cooking'
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/02/25/cable-cooking-and-the-war-on-assange/

Here's what I think:
If a person posts lengthy quote, after lengthy quote, on a particular thread, it suggests to me that that they consider the material they've posted is relevant.

It also suggests that they believe that information contained in those quotes is worthy of discussion by the participants of the thread. Which it often has been.

What I was saying (fairly politely, I think) to wandel was that it was disappointing that he did not participate in the ensuing discussion himself, having "set the agenda" for the discussion.

I am mostly interested in what has been developing with the organization itself and reactions to what they are doing. In other words, I am more interested in information than discussion.

That was a long post, Art.
I am not going to spend ages responding to every single comment you've made because I've already posted information & my own opinions (often at considerable length) on many of the comments you've raised.

Quote:

You could perhaps make this arguments about the Mannings of the world, but not the Assanges and WLs. There is nothing about WLs itself that is inherently needed.

I argued that I received information via Wiklileaks that I would not have received otherwise.
Much of that information was published by the likes of the NYT, the Guardian, the BBC, the Age newspaper, ACC news, etc, etc ...
Tell me, how would they have been in any position to publish information contained in official US embassy cables if Manning , through Wikileaks, had not supplied that material to them?
Do you think their investigative journalists might have gained access to information contained in US government cables by using similar methods as Manning to gain it?

Quote:

..I'm not investing in some self-appointed gatekeeper of information. Did you elect Julian Assange? Do you have more or less say on his actions when compared to your own government?

Well, hey, neither am I.
I have been posting information & my views on the subject of this thread. Same as you have, Art.
This is a subject I'm very interested in, as you might have noticed.
What exactly are you asking about his actions when "compared to my own government"?

Quote:

It would be no more difficult.

(for Manning to have negotiated an arrangement for publishing the leaked cables than for Wikileaks to do so)

Frankly I think it's pointless to speculate any further about why & how Manning passed on the US embassy cables to Wiklileaks.
Let's deal with what actually happened.
The fact is he chose to provide that information to Wikileaks.
That was a judgment he made.
That's what happened. We can't change any of it now.
I don't know why you keep going on about this point as if it's significant.
I've commented on it only because you brought it up in the first place, but I can't see much point of arguing about it it ad infinitum.
Because frankly I think it's irrelevant.

Quote:

... WLs isn't the catalyst to transparency that many believe it is. It does many things, but it does everything retroactively. You cannot really argue that WLs makes us more informed for the future, only the past. It is a good thing to see into the crimes of the past, but do not mistake this as a means to make an informed decision about what comes next.

Well how could Wikileaks (or any other media outlet, for that matter) publish material from the future, which does not even yet exist?
I am arguing that the Wikileaks provided us with information about what our governments have actually done, information that we would otherwise not have had access to.
On the basis of what I now know about what our governments have done & didn't tell us about, or have lied to us about .... I certainly can make some informed deductions about events that may happen in the future! And the reasons for them happening. Absolutely.
It may even make our governments more careful about what they actually do in the future (like cooperate with "extraordinary renditions", for example) if there's the possibility we might find out about it.
Or alternately it might make them even more secretive than they have been.
I guess your view on that depends on whether you're an optimist or a pessimist.

Quote:

Why you emphasize the fact he was a Private is totally irrelevant. Manning would have been able to give full substance, which does matter.

What do you mean by "full substance"?

Quote:

We are talking about electronic documents. It's not like if he choose the wrong one, he would have missed his only chance. If he gave it to a group that buried it, he would still have amble options for groups that would not. Obviously these large newspapers took an interest in publishing the cables.

As I've said, I see absolutely no point in further speculating about what Bradley Manning did or didn't do in the past.
That is history, we can't change any of it.
It makes absolutely no difference to to events as they stand now.

I am much more interested in what is happening to Bradley Manning now .... how the US government deals with with its own dissidents like him.
What is your opinion on that, Art?

Do you think it's reasonable that he should have been locked up in a military prison for so long without a trial?

Quote:

You write about info when you get it. It seems an odd criticism of these groups to say that they should have wrote about things they did not yet know about or could prove. The fact that they did when WLs gave them the cables, only proves this point.

The fact is, if they had been performing their investigative function properly, they could have supplied us with much of the information we learned through their own efforts without relying on Wiklieaks for it. (eg UN officials being spied on, secret drone attacks in Yemen, ASIO naming 23 Australian Muslims to the US authorities as risks to US interests in Australia, etc, etc, etc ..)
But they didn't do that groundwork themselves.
Were they asleep at the wheel?
What stopped them from doing that groundwork?
Where were their Bob Woodwards?
It is not as if these things weren't happening during the time they didn't investigate & report on them.

Quote:

You just said that they would not publish it if Manning brought it to them. Further, Assange and WLs didn't do ground work, Manning did. If we are to believe Assange, Manning approached WLs, not the other way. This is an important detail for legal reasons, and for the purposes of comparing Assange to investigative journalists.

Manning AND Wiklileaks did the "groundwork".
Together.
Without either of them the information in the cables would not have been available to be published at all.
That's how it happened.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by your comment about legality & comparing Julian Assange investigative journalism?

In my opinion Manning & Wikileaks were a damn sight more "investigative" than these newspapers were at the time.
The NYT, Guardian, etc, simply published the information that Manning & Wikileaks provided for them, gratis, without taking any of the huge risks to acquire that information themselves.
While patting themselves on the back for being so brave & enlightened for doing it.
While profiting financially as a result of the interest in the material they were provided with & published.

Quote:

And yet, when these groups published them, they granted authenticity to the cables to a public that would otherwise question the validity of a website they may or may not have heard of.

How did they grant "authenticity" to the cables?
The cables were "authentic" US government embassy cables.
Publishing them or not publishing would not have made them any more or less "authentic" than they actually were/still are.

You're reinforcing my point. You're praising the middleman. You owe Manning, not WLs for the information you have. You seem to have bought into this idea that without WLs none of this could have been possible, which is exactly what WLs likes to promote about itself.

If you asked WLs to release the cables, the answer had been:

"When we feel like it."

What I'm trying to explain is that WLs didn't give the information to the public, they held on to it. Their stated objectives, and actions contradict themselves. Or at best are not as congruent as they are promoted.

I think you're over-complicating the process to make WLs a more intuitive and logical step.

Dan Mitrione had built a soundproofed room in the cellar of his house in Montevideo. In this room he assembled selected Uruguayan police officers to observe a demonstration of torture techniques. Another observer was Manuel Hevia Cosculluela, a Cuban who was with the CIA and worked with Mitrione. Hevia later wrote that the course began with a description of the human anatomy and nervous system Soon things turned unpleasant. As subjects for the first testing they took beggars ... from the outskirts of Montevideo, as well as a woman apparently from the frontier area with Brazil. There was no interrogation, only a demonstration of the effects of different voltages on the different parts of the human body, as well as demonstrating the use of a drug which induces vomiting-I don't know why or what for-and another chemical substance. The four of them died.

In his book Hevia does not say specifically what Mitrione's direct part in all this was but he later publicly stated that the OPS chief "personally tortured four beggars to death with electric shocks''.

On another occasion, Hevia sat with Mitrione in the latter's house, and over a few drinks the American explained to the Cuban his philosophy of interrogation. Mitrione considered it to be an art. First there should be a softening-up period, with the usual beatings and insults. The object is to humiliate the prisoner, to make him realize his helplessness, to cut him off from reality. No questions, only blows and insults. Then, only blows in silence.

Only after this, said Mitrione, is the interrogation. Here no pain should be produced other than that caused by the instrument which is being used. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," was his motto. During the session you have to keep the subject from losing all hope of life, because this can lead to stubborn resistance. "You must always leave him some hope ... a distant light . "

"When you get what You want, and I always get it," Mitrione continued, "it may be good to prolong the session a little to apply another softening-up. Not to extract information now, but only as a political measure, to create a healthy fear of meddling in subversive activities. "

The American pointed out that upon receiving a subject the first thing is to determine his physical state, his degree of resistance, by means of a medical examination. "A premature death means a failure by the technician ... It's important to know in advance if we can permit ourselves the luxury of the subject's death.''

http://www.theassassinatedpress.com/adi2.htm

Well, to be frank, he broke a law. Breaking a law with a righteous heart may seem noble, but it doesn't change the fact that the law was broken. As I've stated, I think he acted irresponsibly. I'd not give up the cables if I didn't know what was in them, and there's no way he knew fully what he was giving up to WL and what the potential impact could be to both state and non-state parties.

So as long as the USA is evil to you, why should you give a damn?

You emotionally want Manning to have not broke a law. More specifically, you want your emotions to overrule the law. I'm sorry, this is not possible. In your world, the evilness of the victim justifies the violation of the law.

Moreover, it's disgusting that when others are caught up in this (like Afghan informants), you simply brush it off so casually.

In the mean time, keep your comments about me and my motives to yourself. you don't know a damn thing about either.

Wikileaks - Gossip-Mongering or Genuine Leaks?
(Bornwell Chakaodza, Harare Financial Gazette, September 9, 2011)

SHOCK, anger, disbelief and delight in some circles has characterised the diplomatic dispatches between the United States Harare Embassy and Washington (most of them dating back 10 years) involving public figures in Zimbabwe publicised by whistleblower website, WikiLeaks, and reproduced by the local media.

Trying to make sense of this bewildering world of WikiLeaks we find ourselves in is not so easy. But the bottom line is that we are essentially dealing and talking about leaks - nothing more, nothing less. And I do think that it is worth putting these confidential diplomatic dispatches into some kind of perspective. A number of questions naturally spring to mind.

As this is classified information, how do we know that we are not dealing with the well-travelled route of rumour-mongering and hearsay in today's brave new information world, where a few established "facts" are repeated and mixed with speculation, analysis, opinion and judgement? Could it not be a case of these diplomats seeing what they want to see rather than seeing the reality on the ground?.

It is common knowledge that American commentators and diplomats tend to latch onto certain notions because those notions fit their preconceptions of what democracy should look like in a country like Zimbabwe and the Third World in general. I am not saying here that values of freedom and democracy are Western values and that we in Zimbabwe do not care deeply about these values which are in fact universal. No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that these could be cases of more wishful thinking than a pragmatic assessment of our political situation here on the part of these Western envoys. It may be a good idea for people who have a political motive to dispatch certain types of diplomatic cables.

Leaked information is invariably published by the media - always. But as is common with leaks, they can either be incomplete or wholly inaccurate. Leaks should not always be seen as gospel truth.

In fact, I need to make the point I learnt early on in my journalistic career. That is that if people believe everything they are told, that is not healthy. But if they believe nothing, that is not healthy either. And I think that this point does get to the heart of the matter I am discussing this week.

In my view, there could have been a lot of sensationalism and speculation in these diplomatic cables dispatched to Washington by the United States Embassy in Harare.

But they also reflect an awareness that things were not and are still not as they should be. In times of crisis, this is what naturally happens. And the news media are now taking the subject that has expired and keeping it alive so that it begins to build on itself.

The general public is interested in the misfortune of others and that, therefore, misfortune is a basic element of press coverage. Apart from the economic motive driving the press in terms of sales of newspapers, the misfortune element does underline the avalanche and excess of coverage of the WikiLeaks cable reports that we have been witnessing the whole of this week and we will no doubt see more of these stories being covered in the future. About this, there is no doubt!

Having said all what I have said, I want to conclude by giving a sense of perspective to the whole WikiLeaks phenomenon. The question can be asked: Are we better off as a country in particular and the world in general with WikiLeaks? Is Julian Assange the founder and his associates internet cowboys or are they driven by the desire to make governments worldwide accountable? How damaging can WikiLeaks be? A blessing or anarchy?

It is generally known that governments are secretive even in situations where secrecy is unwarranted. And it is also known that governments lie. Thanks to WikiLeaks and the new technologies, their ability to do all these things have been severely circumscribed and curtailed. It is now very difficult to keep private and confidential information private and confidential. WikiLeaks has now become the greatest threat to oppressive and repressive governments.

Clearly, on a global scale, WikiLeaks has strengthened and fortified the ability of citizens to bring their governments to account. So, corrupt and unaccountable governments beware!

Governments must be held to very high standards. Never mind the chilling effect on how honestly or otherwise diplomats report to their governments in the future, but I strongly believe that it is in the interest of citizens to know what is being done by their governments in their name. Had it not been for WikiLeaks, not much would have been known about the Iraqi war, for example. Even the discussions and the meetings that went on between the United States Harare Embassy officials and the Zimbabwean key political and economic figures, we would not have known about them, notwithstanding the wishful thinking contained in these dispatches.

There are also lessons to be learnt from WikiLeaks. People will now think twice about engaging diplomats. Everyone of us, including myself, has a public posture and a private behaviour. What we do and say in the dark or behind closed doors is something else! I guess we will all be careful in the future. It is a media age we live in and news itself is already a commodity, available almost free of charge to anyone who wants it.

However, those people who have been at the receiving end of WikiLeaks and genuinely feel and think that they are innocent can take heart from this saying I learnt from my mother when I was still a toddler: If you are not offended by somebody, then you are a nobody!

Don't lecture about a distinction JTT.

You lack the perspective on the distinction.

As long as a person agrees with you, they are one part, and if they think otherwise or simply fail to fulfill the degree of outrage (in a manner you approve) they are the other. How convenient.

Simply put, I have no more time for your one note song. Who the **** are you?

If you asked WLs to release the cables, the answer had been:

"When we feel like it."

What I'm trying to explain is that WLs didn't give the information to the public, they held on to it. Their stated objectives, and actions contradict themselves. Or at best are not as congruent as they are promoted.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's former right-hand man has irrevocably destroyed 3500 unpublished files leaked to the whistleblower site including the complete US no-fly list, five gigabytes of Bank of America documents and detailed information about 20 neo-Nazi groups.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who left WikiLeaks last year after a falling out with Assange, revealed the document destruction in an interview with Der Spiegel.

WikiLeaks has hit back, accusing Domscheit-Berg of being in bed with US intelligence agencies and of jeopardising the leaking of “many issues of public importance, human rights abuses, mass telecommunications interception, banking and the planning of dozens of neo-nazi groups”. ...

....

The Media Watch item drew attention to a story by Philip Dorling, published in The Age and the SMH last May, about the Australian Government's secret attempts to weaken the provisions of an international convention banning cluster munitions. We asked why the US cables on which the story was based - cables that Dorling admitted came from WikiLeaks - had still not been published four months later, despite the desperate pleas of a lobby group, the Cluster Munitions Coalition.

We pointed out that WikiLeaks specifically claims on its website that "we don't hoard our information; we make the original documents available with our news stories. Readers can verify the truth of what we have reported themselves"......

That is not quite the case, Art.

To the best of my knowledge, based on a pretty close watch on Wikileaks developments via the mainstream media, all of the available US embassy cables have now been released.

but I'll observe and comment later on if it's an improvement on Wikileaks or not.

Quote:

but I'll observe and comment later on if it's an improvement on Wikileaks or not.

When are you going to comment on all the issues that you are studiously avoiding, Art?