57
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 12:36 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
That last statement is truly fatuous, Wandel. Does the NYT, the Toledo Blade, the ... provide you with representation? Why do you go on about WikiLeaks and say nothing about the other media that has this same info and is making tons of money off it?


In my (non-expert) opinion, it seems that news editors are more cautious than WikiLeaks.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 12:39 pm
@wandeljw,
They have to be - there's no question which jurisdiction they're subject to. Websites can be located anywhere and "move" very fast.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 12:49 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
I'm still interested about how you feel releasing a list of facilities the US finds economically critical is in the public's interest.


I'm still interested in how you can put forward this fatuous argument, actually, it's not the only one but for now?

The economic welfare of the USA is not the concern of WLs or of the people or countries that are not the USA. How such a simple fact could escape you is truly puzzling, FailuresArt.

The USA has never been above releasing copious lies in order to advance its economic interests, not to mention that this same USA has not ever been reluctant to murder those who would stand in the way, not of its economic interests, but of its attempts to steal the resources of other countries.

The facts supporting this are so much in evidence that it is unbelievably that you would have the temerity to even raise this issue. Not once but at least twice! Stunning hypocrisy, absolutely stunning!

Quote:
Isn't this the actual acknowledgment that this information can produce negative consequences?


Scares the **** out of you, doesn't it, Art? But the negative consequences that you are most concerned about are those that would befall the USA.

I wonder why you don't think of the positive consequences, say, ones that might lead to charges for the criminal misdeeds and war crimes of the Bush administration.

Quote:
You aren't disturbed with the causal[sic] nature in which he brushes off the dead and displaced? Isn't that the mentality he's professed to oppose?


Quote:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq:
We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)


Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).

But a Dow Jones search of mainstream news sources since September 11 turns up only one reference to the quote--in an op-ed in the Orange Country Register (9/16/01).

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084


I think the parts in bold [mine] gives us an example of the kind of openness that Art thinks WikiLeaks should aspire to.

Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 12:51 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
msolga wrote:

Secondly, the carefully chosen media recipients of the Wikileaks (NYT, Guardian, De Spiegel, etc) have also acknowledged that they have been very selective about the information published & not published. For the same reasons.

Selective? Therein lies the paradox msolga. What qualifies any of these sources or WL as having the discretion?

Their past records of coming across classified documents, and of publishing them responsibly.

failures art wrote:
I want to know how you define "responsibly handled." How would WL demonstrate poor handling of sensitive material?

I define "responsibly handled" as striking a good balance between informing citizens about what their governments are doing and not getting people killed or injured in the process. No procedure will ever maximize both sides of the balance at once, and one can always debate what intermediate is "good". But the decades-old records of the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Spiegel all qualify in my personal opinion.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 12:57 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
There's been speculation that this could be the lead-up to more severe prosecution--certain American politicians have called for prosecuting Assange for "treason," apparently not realizing or caring that Assange is an Australian national-


Gee, what a shocker, the US government releasing nonsensical ideas like this to what end. Wait, don't tell me, it's their efforts, prodigious as always, at truth seeking.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:01 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
This blog comment makes more sense than any of the breast-beating by the Sec State and assorted buffoons we currently got in office:


"assorted buffoons". Do you consider that the response wouldn't have been equally comical or even more so if this had happened during the Bush regime?

Always good to hear your propagan, umm your comments, Lt Col Flagg.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:05 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
Cycl - some time ago saw you posting you'll be using 2 names in order to thumb up your posts. They were Cycl and FA. Has schizophrenia set in?


Isn't the first rule of propaganda that you make your missives coherent?

You are due for a demotion, Flagg.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:08 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
In my (non-expert) opinion, it seems that news editors are more cautious than WikiLeaks.


What you mean is that they kowtow to the government, they hide the crimes of government. Hell, JW, everyone knows that. You don't have to be an expert.

That's not caution, that's complicity.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:14 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

failures art wrote:
msolga wrote:

Secondly, the carefully chosen media recipients of the Wikileaks (NYT, Guardian, De Spiegel, etc) have also acknowledged that they have been very selective about the information published & not published. For the same reasons.

Selective? Therein lies the paradox msolga. What qualifies any of these sources or WL as having the discretion?

Their past records of coming across classified documents, and of publishing them responsibly.

By sources, I was referring to the people supplying the information, not media outlets. Sorry if that was confusing.

In other words, If it had been you sitting in front of the computer with a blank CD-R with "Lady Gaga" written on it, how would you know if you were doing the correct thing? Certainly nobody believe that Manning read every document that he leaked. Doesn't that strike anyone else as reckless? HE gave information that he himself did not fully understand. He gave it to someone who hordes it and make "thermonuclear" "poison pills" who is beyond reproach lest you be branded an enemy of open society and transparency.

I'm also not scolding the NYT or Der Spegial et al for not sharing it all. I think their restraint has been well thought through. The fact that un-redacted copies of this information is within sir-gap however is problematic and in that case no promises can be made to protect any information in these files numerous in the hundreds of thousands now.

Thomas wrote:

failures art wrote:
I want to know how you define "responsibly handled." How would WL demonstrate poor handling of sensitive material?

I define "responsibly handled" as striking a good balance between informing citizens about what their governments are doing and not getting people killed or injured in the process. No procedure will ever maximize both sides of the balance at once, and one can always debate what intermediate is "good". But the decades-old records of the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Spiegel all qualify in my personal opinion.


And here is where I think WL is not the problem or the solution. It's the symptom. In this case that we lack a better mechanism for real transparency. I believe that a government (not just the USA) should be able to be trusted to maintain that balance of responsibility handling sensitive information. Our failures on this is not a license for Assange to declare himself an authority.

A
R
T
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
and viewing classified docs on an unclassified network/system (like my laptop) has always been a security violation
You are being disingenuous here...the violation has been PUTTING of classified info on a unclassified laptop, not the viewing of classified documents on the internet. The rule re not looking at Wiki was made because the forbidding of this activity was not covered under standing rules.

You are incorrect about this policy. One does not need to move documents to have a security violation.

A
R
T
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:36 pm
@failures art,
As far as I know the people who are now involved in Wikileaks website are not US citizens or working from US soil so how in the hell are our laws going to apply to them?

Now we can go the extra legal route and seized them and bring them to the US as we did with Noriega but short of that I hopefully can not see any government handing them over to us under these set of facts.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:45 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
In other words, If it had been you sitting in front of the computer with a blank CD-R with "Lady Gaga" written on it, how would you know if you were doing the correct thing? Certainly nobody believe that Manning read every document that he leaked. Doesn't that strike anyone else as reckless? HE gave information that he himself did not fully understand. He gave it to someone who hordes it and make "thermonuclear" "poison pills" who is beyond reproach lest you be branded an enemy of open society and transparency.


One word, United States of America.

Quote:
And here is where I think WL is not the problem or the solution. It's the symptom. In this case that we lack a better mechanism for real transparency. I believe that a government (not just the USA) should be able to be trusted to maintain that balance of responsibility handling sensitive information. Our failures on this is not a license for Assange to declare himself an authority.


Why would the government of the USA hire such an incompetent to provide its propaganda?

I guess even poorly worded propaganda has some value.

Quote:
I believe that a government (not just the USA) should be able to be trusted to maintain that balance of responsibility handling sensitive information.


You obviously don't live in the real world.

The 9/11 Commission was a farce, according to the very people who ran it. There are two illegal invasions still going on, war crimes being committed time out to remind you, Art that a lot of people have died in those illegal invasion; you know, your argument about hiding/releasing information causing unnecessary deaths.

The list of things that show that these governments are not to be trusted is endless. And your quixotic ideas will not begin to uncover two centuries of
lies, lies that have been perpetrated in order to hide horrendous crimes.

You describe a situation wherein you'd have us believe that the Mafia is misunderstood, that they are just this one big happy family, churchgoers all, community organizers, builders of playgrounds, ... .

Okay, fair enough, you've bought into it. Just don't try to parade this nonsense you offer as some sort of workable scenario.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:48 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
As far as I know the people who are now involved in Wikileaks website are not US citizens or working from US soil so how in the hell are our laws going to apply to them?

Now we can go the extra legal route and seized them and bring them to the US as we did with Noriega but short of that I hopefully can not see any government handing them over to us under these set of facts.


These admissions of US war crimes really seem out of character for you, Bill; honesty never seemed to be your strong point but you gotta appreciate it wherever it comes from.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:51 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Why hold back?


There are several good reasons to do so, not the least of which being that there is a far greater societal impact when data is trickled out, then when it is poured out in a flood. Assange learned this from the newspaper business - literally, the NYT and other newspapers have been counseling him regarding the proper way to release this information.

Show me the societal impact. Show me the raised public participation in civic duty.

Newpapers trickle information for their interests to keep readers coming back day after day. They aren't the model in which I'd base giving people an open society.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Second, I believe there is a period of internal review, where their team searches for things that actually would be harmful to be released.

If you later argue that what happens after they release information cannot be their fault, why bother?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Third, it's strategically better for him to keep some information close to the vest. Wikileaks isn't doing a single thing different than any paper would or should do. But they aren't an established, long-standing news institution; instead it's an organization that is in its' infancy, susceptible to attacks on all sides. They have a right and obligation to defend themselves from malicious attacks from corporations and governments, who are afraid of what will be revealed.

"better for him."

I thought this was about public interest. If Assange can make this justification, he's no different than those who abuse the restriction of information.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm sure that DoD and IC people ARE very upset about this, but not because it's an 'incomplete picture' that makes them look like a bunch of bumbling jerks. They are upset because their entire industry, way of life, and never-ending stream of cash and connections relies upon the public never, ever finding out what is really going on. Ever. Wikileaks - and the entire idea Assange is setting up - is pernicious, not to our society, but to certain interests within our society which profit greatly from secrecy. Usually to the detriment of everyone else.

I assure you there are legitimate reasons beyond balding fat warhawks throwing their fists in the air yelling "curses!"

Here's another example: Manning was in the Army. He got a hold of many Military docs. However, now we are talking about docs from the State Dept. Ever think it is odd that this low level Army personnel had access to State Dept docs? Ever wonder why? One of the things that has been awful in the DoD and IC is that people have been slow to open up and share with each other. Letting others on their protected networks has not been easy. So now as we are getting to the point where agencies can share information and the government can start consolidating responsibilities (read: shrink Defense and make it more efficient), we have people pissed and wanted to close off their networks and stop sharing. There is a lot of politics in Defense about getting actionable intel to people who need it and that includes sharing with our allies.

Things are not as simple as the DoD and IC just wanting to keep secrets forever and ever. I promise you.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm one of those who cheers Assange on as a hero. He's just the tip of the iceberg, FA; in the new internet era, old ideas of secrecy are already dead and gone. They just don't know it yet. We would all be better served to be pushing for a far more open society and government.

This I cannot argue with. The same blogs I read on my network express the same opinion. So as an old generation of DoD and IC people are retiring and newer gens are stepping up, how do you protect information?

Also, how are we more open because of this? Give me something measurable. I don't see anything new.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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?


Are you saying the people in Kenya would have been better off never knowing their election was rigged? Those who chose to revolt based on the truth made their choice as adult humans. Assange didn't force them to revolt. Blaming him for what happens after the truth is revealed is misplaced.

I don't need to blame him. He takes credit for it. As stated above, why bother looking into if information could do harm?

Are things for the better or worse? Stay tuned. I don't expect most things will be as dramatic as Kenya.

Something still worth thought is that not all states are like the US where the "state" is representative of the people. Certainly such is the case in places like Saudi Arabia. There the state represents the royal class. Part of the dynamic about wikileaks is that not all leaks should be considered equal, nor that all states have the capacity to do anything with the information. Certainly this is the case in China, and regrettably in the USA as well.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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?


I've seen him praising Manning as a hero, so I'm not sure where you saw that quote.

I'm still trying to find the link for MsOlga. I've read so many. Googling "Manning collateral" gets plenty of hits but it is always of the "collateral murder" gunship video so I'm having to try and read backwards through a few weeks of articles. Stand by.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Re: who elected him to this role? He elected himself, and that's all the justification any of us need.

Not true. If the cops aren't keeping your streets safe and are corrupt, you can't make yourself Sheriff. I think if this is as important to people as their outrage presents itself, then they should advocate real measurable steps in transparency.

Think about Valerie Plame. It seems like it was pretty well understood only a few years ago how her being outed as a CIA operative undercover was a dangerous thing, and yet as these leaks are on magnitudes hundreds of thousands the size.

I've put forth my test. I've stated what will make this worth it or not. I think my criteria was fair. Do you agree?

A
R
T
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:54 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

As far as I know the people who are now involved in Wikileaks website are not US citizens or working from US soil so how in the hell are our laws going to apply to them?

The people who give information in the case of US leaks are. The law applies to them. I don't see any legal jurisdiction over Assange.

BillRM wrote:

Now we can go the extra legal route and seized them and bring them to the US as we did with Noriega but short of that I hopefully can not see any government handing them over to us under these set of facts.

I would not support that.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 02:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
It's a long-standing joke, based on an ex-members conviction that the two of us are in fact the same person.

But it is an interesting point, because how would you ever know for sure?


And now that Julian Assange is locked up we can't find out on wikileaks!
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 02:07 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
These admissions of US war crimes really seem out of character for you, Bill; honesty never seemed to be your strong point but you gotta appreciate it wherever it comes from.


Given that there is, no world government or international law in any real meaning of the term using extra legal means is not a crime for a nation to do.

I had no moral problem with seizing the Wikileaks people but for the problems it would cause us with other nations.

I do not see how any suggestions that other nations should allow us to apply our laws to non-citizens living out side out borders will fly with them however.

Also it is my opinion we should had just had agree with the Russians after WW2 and just line up whoever we had cared to do so to and shoots them not had a play theatre concerning war crimes or crimes against mankind.

By doing so, we gave people like you a tool to cry war crimes and international laws violations at the drop of a hat.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 02:09 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
Show me the societal impact. Show me the raised public participation in civic duty.


You really don't live in the real world!

Clearly, the impact has been great. But patience, young fella, let's give it more time.

Show me what Art's nebulous plans have done.

Quote:
Newpapers[sic] trickle information for their interests to keep readers coming back day after day. They aren't the model in which I'd base giving people an open society.


Blasphemy!

How come you didn't note that they trickle government propaganda? ... in much the same manner as you are doing here.

Quote:
I thought this was about public interest. If Assange can make this justification, he's no different than those who abuse the restriction of information.


Odd that you've never raised this issue before, Art, while the information that points to US war crimes and US terrorism sat undiscovered in government vaults.

Isn't it in the public's interest to find out that their governments are using their money and their reputations to have people tortured, raped and murdered by government trained proxies?

Isn't it in the public's interest to find out that their governments are using their money and their reputations to wage illegal invasions against innocent peoples, invasions based on lies?

Isn't it in the public's interest to find out that their governments are using their money and their reputations to LIE to them?

I think that you gotta get out of the job you're in. They've brainwashed you already and you're just a young fella, supposedly with some smarts.

Quote:
I assure you there are legitimate reasons beyond balding fat warhawks throwing their fists in the air yelling "curses!"

Here's another example: Manning was in the Army. He got a hold of many Military docs. However, now we are talking about docs from the State Dept. Ever think it is odd that this low level Army personnel had access to State Dept docs? Ever wonder why? One of the things that has been awful in the DoD and IC is that people have been ...

Things are not as simple as the DoD and IC just wanting to keep secrets forever and ever. I promise you.


Gee, that ought to make those slaughtered in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the myriad other countries where the US has meddled feel a lot better. And their living relatives, well now I'm sure that they will understand and feel great empathy for the DoD and the [oxymoronic ] IC.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 02:14 pm
@failures art,
Well, we don't know what the societal impact would be yet. This whole thing is still, like I said, in its' infancy. We'll have to wait and see if it brings about greater civic involvement and greater calls for openness. A large part of that will revolve around how our elected officials treat this release, and currently, I don't think it's going great for them.

Quote:
If you later argue that what happens after they release information cannot be their fault, why bother?


Because they want to. No greater justification is needed.

Quote:
"better for him."

I thought this was about public interest. If Assange can make this justification, he's no different than those who abuse the restriction of information.


If the project is destroyed in its' infancy, it's terrible for the public interest. And I disagree with your attempt to equivocate his actions with those who have done and ordered terrible things, and then try to hide it. There is no real comparison.

Quote:
So now as we are getting to the point where agencies can share information and the government can start consolidating responsibilities (read: shrink Defense and make it more efficient), we have people pissed and wanted to close off their networks and stop sharing. There is a lot of politics in Defense about getting actionable intel to people who need it and that includes sharing with our allies.

Things are not as simple as the DoD and IC just wanting to keep secrets forever and ever. I promise you.


Sorry, but I just don't believe that you can promise such a thing. You're not in a position to know the motives behind why people are against it. They may SAY they are against it for a certain reason, but I think my analysis of it is at least as likely to be true as yours.

I think that the culture of secrecy, and the pervasive desire to defend it - often times for personal financial or political gain - will be defended by those who use that system in that way at all costs. And they'll throw up bullshit reasons to justify it, in the same fashion as Republicans and their tax cuts for the rich...

Re: opening up of systems and intel, maybe that's not such a good idea after all, eh? This may be the ultimate lesson of Wikileaks: in the internet era you cannot keep things secret if you give wide-spread access to the info, period. This may suck for DoD plans but it's a fact. And I guarantee that this isn't the first time their systems have been compromised; if Assange gets ahold of this material, foreign spies have gotten it as well, you can bank on that.

Quote:

Not true. If the cops aren't keeping your streets safe and are corrupt, you can't make yourself Sheriff.


No, but you can patrol your own streets. It's called a Neighborhood watch and they've been successful.

Not only that, but once again, Assange is committing no crime, legal or moral, in releasing this info. You can't compare him to a law-breaking vigilante.

Quote:
I've put forth my test. I've stated what will make this worth it or not. I think my criteria was fair. Do you agree?


Nope. I think that the truth deserves to be known in every single case, all the time. Always. It is a fundamental part of my philosophy. If releasing the truth is damaging to an individual, group or nation, the real problem isn't the release but the actions behind it.

The US isn't pissed that their cables got released; they are pissed that they got caught doing and saying embarrassing things. The State Department is pissed that they got caught ordering our diplomats to spy on - and collect DNA! - from UN officials and other countries' diplomats. The military is pissed that video of them murdering people is getting released. The WH is pissed because they can't afford to look weak on this issue, too many other problems going on right now. But that's too bad.

Maybe the solution would be to stop doing and saying embarrassing things, or to be open about the fact you are doing them, rather than going to these extreme lengths to protect ourselves from embarrassment.

The releases damage nothing. The original actions are the damaging part. It's really important to keep this clear.

Just like they said in Sneakers long ago: No more secrets. It's long past time that we started demolishing the security and secrecy state. No elected US politician seems inclined to do anything about it, so I don't give a **** if it's done by an outside group - with a axe or a scalpel.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 02:15 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Quote:
It's a long-standing joke, based on an ex-members conviction that the two of us are in fact the same person.

But it is an interesting point, because how would you ever know for sure?


And now that Julian Assange is locked up we can't find out on wikileaks!


I have a file, called 'identity.docx' that is set to be decrypted if I'm ever banned.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/02/2023 at 04:08:40