WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

How to feel about Assange's "warning shot" and "poison pill?" Is information for the people or is it to be used as leverage?

It seems clear after this week, that he hordes the most sensitive information. This is exactly what I was affraid of happening. I said before, and I mean it: This isn't transparency.

Asange himself talks about the human collateral damage in Kenya. A bogus election leaked, and a revolt sounds great until 1,300 are dead and over 200,000 are displaced. This isn't theoretical, and Assange himself takes credit for it--cooly citing the price in blood as "a statistic." Isn't this humans as numbers mentality the exact evil he's claims to fight?...
...a revolt sounds great until 1,300 are dead and over 200,000 are displaced.

Same goes for the Afghans who gave info to the US. Asange claims that he would love leaked info on AQ or the Taliban. He also claims to be a champion of the rights of the whistle-blowers. How can one resolve these contradictions? The informants who gave info on the Taliban to the US were whistle-blowers! Why does he not advocate for them? This point apparently caused internal conflict in the organization.

Manning is "unfortunate collateral" too according to another interview with the man. This is our moral police? Our champion of transpancy? He's the one supposed to guide us away from inhumanity? Who elected this man the arbiter of truth and transparency?

So here's my compass; here is how I will decide if the right information the wrong way is worth it: If WL actually causes public participation. Otherwise, it's just people pissed off sitting at their computer while others elswhere in the world are "unfortunate collateral." I'd like to see real transparancy in the form of giving more power to the Freedom of Information Act. I'd like to see Net Neutrality protected. In fact, Assange may have created the exact excuse for the GOP to push this further. Another reason I'm upset. But if people can only be bothered to surf the web, and not know their elected reps names (let alone write them a personal letter or call their phone), then there is a word for it.

For the record: I don't think that the site is illegal in any way. I don't think that the site is the issue at all. I'm just nauseated by the hero worship given to Assange. He waves the banner of transparency, for which I believe he has no claim to.

WikiLeaks: Jihad? Sorry, I don't want to miss Desperate Housewives
Robert Booth
December 9, 2010 - 10:38AM

Domestic diplomacy ... The cast of Desperate Housewives hold sway in Saudi Arabia.

WikiLeaks cables reveal the American celebrities wielding more influence over the Middle East than US-funded propaganda.

Satellite broadcasts of the US TV shows Desperate Housewives and Late Show With David Letterman are doing more to persuade Saudi youth to reject violent jihad than hundreds of millions of dollars of US government propaganda, informants have told the American embassy in cables published by WikiLeaks.

Broadcast uncensored and with Arabic subtitles alongside sitcoms such as Friends on Saudi Arabia's MBC 4 channel, the shows are being allowed as part of the kingdom's "war of ideas" against extremist elements. According to a secret cable titled "David Letterman: Agent of Influence", they have been proving more effective than Washington's main propaganda tool, the US-funded al-Hurra TV news channel.

Al-Hurra has shown lengthy interviews with US politicians, including George Bush, but has run into problems with locally hired journalists. On one occasion it broadcast a call to arms against Israel by Hezbollah, which was not the plan when the channel was launched across the Middle East in 2004 after the Iraq invasion.

Cooling agent ... David Letterman.

Diplomats said they believed the allure of actors such as Eva Longoria, Jennifer Aniston and David Schwimmer meant commercial TV had a far greater impact than al-Hurra which, according to one report, has cost US taxpayers up to $500m.

"It's still all about the war of ideas here, and the American programming on MBC and Rotana [a channel part-owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation] is winning over ordinary Saudis in a way that al-Hurra and other US propaganda never could," two Saudi media executives told a US official in a meeting at a Jeddah branch of Starbucks. "Saudis are now very interested in the outside world and everybody wants to study in the US if they can. They are fascinated by US culture in a way they never were before," the May 2009 cable says.

The popularity of the channels is particularly surprising given Rotana broadcasts Fox News, the rightwing News Corp channel that takes a hard line against Islamic radicalism and has strongly supported US military intervention in the Middle East.

Man of influence ... George Clooney in Michael Clayton.

A senior al-Arabiya news channel director said US programming on MBC 4 and MBC 5 had become the most popular in Saudi Arabia and "told us that this programming is also very popular in remote, conservative corners of the country, where he said 'you no longer see Bedouins, but kids in western dress' who are now interested in the outside world".

The diplomats told Washington that certain themes in American movies seemed to appeal to the Saudi audience: heroic honesty in the face of corruption (George Clooney in Michael Clayton), supportive behaviour in relationships (an unspecified drama that was repeated during an Eid holiday featuring an American husband dealing with a drunk wife who smashed cars and crockery when she wasn't assaulting him and their child), and respect for the law over self-interest (Al Pacino and Robin Williams in Insomnia).

In further evidence of the advance of US media in Saudi Arabia, the same cable revealed that one of Rupert Murdoch's sons held talks with the board of al-Eqtisadiah, a Saudi Arabian daily newspaper, about a deal to publish an Arabic version of the Wall Street Journal. The meeting was said to have been called at the behest of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire businessman and shareholder in News Corporation. The 35 per cent Bin Talal-owned SRMG media group, which owns al-Eqtisadiah, was also trying to win a contract to publish the International Herald Tribune uncensored in Saudi Arabia, the cable reveals.

GUARDIAN

failures art wrote:

Asange himself talks about the human collateral damage in Kenya. A bogus election leaked, and a revolt sounds great until 1,300 are dead and over 200,000 are displaced. This isn't theoretical, and Assange himself takes credit for it--cooly citing the price in blood as "a statistic." Isn't this humans as numbers mentality the exact evil he's claims to fight?...
...a revolt sounds great until 1,300 are dead and over 200,000 are displaced.

Are you suggesting that Wikileaks is responsible for these deaths?

When I try to question him about the morality of what he's done, if he worries about unleashing something that he can't control, that no one can control, he tells me the story of the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election".

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

Quote:

How to feel about Assange's "warning shot" and "poison pill?" Is information for the people or is it to be used as leverage?

What exactly do you mean by this comment?
Seriously, I can't figure out the meaning of your words.
Are they relevant, given what's transpired since, anyway?

Quote:

It seems clear after this week, that he hordes the most sensitive information. This is exactly what I was affraid of happening. I said before, and I mean it: This isn't transparency.

How did you come to the conclusion Julian Assange is "hoarding information"?
This is an entirely new suggestion to me. I have not come across such a suggestion before your post.

My understanding is that Julian Assange attempted to involve US officials prior to the release of any potentially damaging consequences. But they refused to be involved.

And (you'll have to take my word for this) I've been following the Wikileaks very closely.

Quote:

Asange himself talks about the human collateral damage in Kenya. A bogus election leaked, and a revolt sounds great until 1,300 are dead and over 200,000 are displaced. This isn't theoretical, and Assange himself takes credit for it--cooly citing the price in blood as "a statistic." Isn't this humans as numbers mentality the exact evil he's claims to fight?...
...a revolt sounds great until 1,300 are dead and over 200,000 are displaced.

Are you suggesting that Wikileaks is responsible for these deaths?

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

Quote:

Same goes for the Afghans who gave info to the US. Asange claims that he would love leaked info on AQ or the Taliban. He also claims to be a champion of the rights of the whistle-blowers. How can one resolve these contradictions? The informants who gave info on the Taliban to the US were whistle-blowers! Why does he not advocate for them? This point apparently caused internal conflict in the organization.

I'm not clear what you're saying here, exactly.
Could you clarify, please?
Wikileaks is not about "advocacy".

It is about releasing information in the public interest.

The public can then decide, for itself, what to make of the information supplied.

Quote:

Manning is "unfortunate collateral" too according to another interview with the man. This is our moral police? Our champion of transpancy? He's the one supposed to guide us away from inhumanity? Who elected this man the arbiter of truth and transparency?

Are you saying that Julian Assange considers him merely "unfortunate collateral" Where did you gain that impression from? Link, please.
He supplied information to Wikleaks.

Who knows what his motivations were?

Personally, I am grateful for the insight into my own government's workings as a result of the information he supplied to Wikileaks. There are things we now know which we didn't know before. Some of which are extremely concerning. I have spent the best part of today following the fallout from a mere two Wikileaks & participating in online discussions about what has been learned. And there are a heap of Australian-related Wikileaks to come!
Sadly, this is our only means of gaining some "transparency" on our dealings with the US government.

Quote:

So here's my compass; here is how I will decide if the right information the wrong way is worth it: If WL actually causes public participation. Otherwise, it's just people pissed off sitting at their computer while others elswhere in the world are "unfortunate collateral." I'd like to see real transparancy in the form of giving more power to the Freedom of Information Act. I'd like to see Net Neutrality protected. In fact, Assange may have created the exact excuse for the GOP to push this further. Another reason I'm upset. But if people can only be bothered to surf the web, and not know their elected reps names (let alone write them a personal letter or call their phone), then there is a word for it.

You don't appear to get it, Art.
Wikileaks is not about US internal politics at all.
It is about the US relations with other countries.

It reveals to us (non-US countries) what has actually gone on between the US & our countries' representatives.

And, whether you like it or not, Wikileaks is shedding some much needed information which we did not have access to before.

So, are you arguing that Kenyans didn't have the right to access to that Wikileaks information, wandel?
To make what they chose of it?
Do you think it was only Wikileaks information (including the 40,000 children a year dying of malaria) which caused such loss of life to occur?
Is staying mute, encouraging ignorance, any sort of sound defence against tyranny?

My understanding is that Julian Assange attempted to involve US officials prior to the release of any potentially damaging consequences. But they refused to be involved.

Assange seems very fond of the idea of his information causing political uprising, and thinks the ends justifies the means. The price after all is nothing he himself has to be concerned about.

Assange when asked recently about the fate of Manning said that he should be supported, but if he goes to jail it's simply the collateral.

Hence what I said: Some of the right information, but in the wrong way.

I don't applaud vigilante notions of justice. We may not cry for a murdered rapist, but we both know that is not justice.

Should Wikileaks have the power to decide moral dilemmas?

Quote:

Should Wikileaks have the power to decide moral dilemmas?

Crikey, wandel, who suggested that was Wikileak's role?
Wikileaks certainly didn't & neither did I.

Should Wikileaks decide that the right of information has priority over collateral damage?

Should Wikileaks decide that the right of information has priority over collateral damage?

. Are you able to share, without damaging your own positions of course, whether government employees are being given talking points and/or encouragement to discuss the WL situation with their non-government friends/families/contacts?

Wandel and FA, I'm glad you're both here. I'm curious about the tenor and directions coming from within the government over all of this. Are you able to share, without damaging your own positions of course, whether government employees are being given talking points and/or encouragement to discuss the WL situation with their non-government friends/families/contacts?

However, as a citizen, the government provides us with representation. Wikileaks provides no such representation