57
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
mysteryman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2010 06:18 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
if he really had courage, leave his job, and speak out about this record of deceit, war crimes/mass murder/... , instead of trying to confuse the issues and provide cover for , well, you know


So have you taken your own advice and quit your job?
Do you travel the country speaking out against all of the wrongs you perceive in the country?

Also, I have never denied that this country has made mistakes, but I dont dwell on it like you do.
I acknowledge the mistakes, and I also acknowledge all of the good this country has done.
You on the other hand, dont think this country has ever done anything good.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2010 06:36 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
Also, I have never denied that this country has made mistakes, but I dont dwell on it like you do.
I acknowledge the mistakes, and I also acknowledge all of the good this country has done.


Yes, you have frequently denied it, MM. You deny it every time you try to divert attention away from these horrendous crimes. You deny it with this " this country has made mistakes" bullshit. No, the USA hasn't made mistakes; they have actively, on numerous occasions set out to commit war crimes.

Reagan knew exactly what was happening in Nicaragua. The CIA produces torture manuals, sabotage manuals, and trains proxies in how to carry out these savage, inhumane acts and you talk of "mistakes".

Six million people, maybe closer to 8 or 9 million people don't die because the USA "has made mistakes", MM!

http://able2know.org/topic/14261-1

And the American, actually the only person who offered any comment was ButterFlyNet.

Quote:
You on the other hand, dont think this country has ever done anything good.


You keep mouthing this with nothing to support your contention.





Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2010 06:49 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
leave his job
Havent worked since joining the Old Folks home, have we JoinTalibanTerrorism ?

Quote:
speak out about this record of deceit, war crimes/mass murder/... , instead of trying to confuse the issues and provide cover for , well, you know.
Perhpas you will be speaking out about war crimes/mass murder/..., instead of trying to create a smoke screen by constantly attacking the USA and provide cover for the real war criminals.

Which embassy do you work in the propaganda dept of ? North Korea ? Iran ?

JTT is simply a hippy anti-Vietnam war protestors whose mind was destroyed by drugs and now senility has compounded the damage.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2010 06:55 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Look at all the dirty tricks that the USA/Canada/Australia have already put into practice.
Look at the open well fed society that the freedom loving people who worship the glorious selfless hero Kim Jong un have already put into practice.

Quote:
Think of the innumerable dirty tricks that just the CIA pulls off everyday
Think of who coined the term brainwashing when it was really the freedom loving people of North Korea merely explaining what you already chant a s a mantra.


We don't hear you registering your complaints about war criminals and their practices yet you have the temerity to whine about the USA.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2010 06:56 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
volumes of information that show that your government has committed war crimes/mass murder
Which is your government ? What embassy or government propaganda dept do you work for ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2010 07:00 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Six million people, maybe closer to 8 or 9 million people don't die because the USA "has made mistakes", MM!
I heard is what a quad trillion zillion. But the figure of 6 million does ring a bell, and I think it did involve war crimes from memory....does your memory still work, JoinTalibanTerrorism ?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 03:32 am
@failures art,
Quote:
The evidence is in Assange's own statements Re: poison pill. It is evident in the ratio of information had verses what has actually been released.

Of course you can ask. You can be answered as well.


I’ve done a bit of Googling to see what I can find out about the “Poison Pill” /“Doomsday files”. A lot more comment & speculation is available on blogs than via established media sources.

I couldn’t find a direct report of Julian Assange talking about the file. The closest source to Julian Assange I did find (who’d commented on the allegations) was one of his lawyers, Jennifer Robinson. (See video with CNN in link):

According to her, there are 250,000 existing documents.
Only 1000 have been released so far.
She says the threat of a “nuclear bomb of information” have been “highly exaggerated” and that the release of future documents will continue “unabated, as scheduled in an orderly fashion”
Whether by Julian Assange or by others within the Wikileaks organization.

www.worthynews.com/top/edition-cnn-com-2010-US-12-08-wikileaks-poison-pill-index-html-hpt-C1/

I guess you you’ll have to decide for yourself whether to believe her or believe other sources about the veracity of the claims.
In any case, this as much as I know.

Quote:
You replied to my post about WL infallibility, but in your own reply you failed to identify what would qualify poor handling.

This is what I said, Art:
Quote:
I am not going to respond to your request to demonstrate examples of “poor handling” of the Wikileaks material when I don’t believe it was poorly handled. Surely it’s up to you to do that?

I think that’s fair enough.

For the record, is what I said about "infallibility"

Quote:
Of course Wikileaks is fallible.
Every single organization which supplies information is fallible.
No one here has argued that that Wikileaks is any more perfect in this respect.
What has been said here is that Wikileaks & the newspapers to which were supplied the information made every effort to protect innocent people by removing names & not publishing some of the material.
The Wikileaks we have had access to are only tiny proportion of the material available.
I totally reject your perspective that "unless you believe there is no way for this information to be mishandled, you do have an answer."
Wikileaks supplies the information. It does not proscribe how that information is used or editorialize about the material. That is up to people who receive the information to do for themselves. And what is wrong with that?
The point is, if the there was not so much government secrecy, that would be much less need for the information provided by an organization like Wikileaks.
To say that the possibility of the information being "misused" is to deny the people the right to information that they should have had access to anyway. The real issue is why is there so much secrecy by our governments.


One last thing: If I wanted to be nit-picky, Art, I could also say that you have failed to convince me with a number of your arguments during our exchange. And haven’t responded to a number of questions & clarifications I’ve requested of you. We could go over & over what we’ve both (& others) have posted, finding flaws in arguments posted, pages back. But I seriously am not interested in going there. I'm happy to let what I've said stand.


msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 03:53 am
I found this article while Googling today

Google having it both ways on Wikileaks..

Denying access while making a buck at the same time. :


Quote:
Adding insult to injury? Amazon selling excerpts of WikiLeaks cables in e-book
December 10, 2010 9:31AM
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/12/10/1225968/787784-amazon-macmillan.jpg
Amazon's Kindle e-book reader. The online store is selling excerpts of the WikiLeaks cables in an e-book. Source: AP

PORTIONS of the diplomatic cables contained in WikiLeaks are available for sale on Amazon's UK website, an odd twist after the company ousted the whistleblower group from its web servers.

Excerpts from some of the 250,000 sensitive documents were contained in a Kindle e-book self-published by an author listed as Heinz Duthel.

The book isn't available in the US. People in the UK can buy it for £7.37 pounds ($11.60). ....


http://www.news.com.au/technology/insult-to-injury-amazon-selling-wikileaks-cables/story-e6frfro0-1225968789244
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 04:04 am
@msolga,
Google isn't Amazon Olgs - but that doesn't detract from the bizarreness of this story.

I thought it was pretty interesting that The Library Of Congress has blocked access to Wikileaks - I would have thought someone in Congress would have found it useful to do some research before speaking out or making legal recommendations on Wikileaks - probably naive of me.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 04:17 am
@hingehead,
By golly, you're right, hinge!
What a stupid mistake!
Please correct that to "Amizon having it both ways on Wikileaks.."
Thank you! Smile
Too much Googling today, obviously! Neutral
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 04:33 am
@msolga,
I wonder how long before a google search for wikileaks doesn't show wikileaks. Even now it's only the third in the ranked list (the wikipedia entry is first) but that's probably just because of the wikileaks.org dns entry is now directing to a mirror - very weird.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 04:44 am
... another article I found when I was Googling this afternoon...
(actually I found far too many, but this is the last I'm going to post tonight.. I promise! Wink )

... was this one in the Guardian newspaper, written by Jemima Khan.

I've go to say I'm really quite surprised at the source of the article, but this is a pretty good summation of the "pro" Julian Assange/Wikileaks case.:


Quote:
Why did I back Julian Assange? It's about justice and fairness
Jemima Khan
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 12 December 2010 00.01 GMT


Even my mother asked why I would stand surety for an alleged rapist. I was there because I believe this is about censorship

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2010/12/10/1291999585738/Jemima-Khan-leaves-Horsef-006.jpg
Jemima Khan leaves Horseferry Road magistrates court Jemima Khan leaves Horseferry Road magistrates court after Julian Assange was remanded in custody. The WikiLeaks founder was refused bail at an extradition hearing in central London over sex crime allegations Photograph: Felix Clay

Why did I offer to provide surety for an alleged rapist, a man I have never met? That's the question even my mother asked me after I appeared in court for Julian Assange.

That morning I had sent a spur-of-the-moment message of support by email to Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, when I read of his arrest. He immediately responded and asked if I would be prepared to come to court in the next hour to act as a surety for Assange. I was nervous about the inevitable media circus, but felt that it was the right thing to do after being convinced by Stephens that it could help.

Assange has not even been charged, let alone convicted. Swedish prosecutors do not have to produce any evidence that he committed the alleged sexual offences to justify the warrant. On the basis of the allegations that I heard read out in court, the evidence seems feeble, but I concede that I don't know the full facts. Neither does Assange. Stockholm's chief prosecutor, Eva Finne, who heard the evidence against Assange in August, threw the case out of court, saying: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

That is not the reason I was there. I was there because I believe that this is about censorship and intimidation. The timing of these rehashed allegations is highly suspicious, coinciding with the recent WikiLeaks revelations and reinvigorated by a rightwing Swedish politician. There are credible rumours that this is a holding charge while an indictment is being sought in secret for his arrest and extradition to the US. An accusation of rape is the ultimate gag. Until proved otherwise, Assange has done nothing illegal, yet he is behind bars.

There is a fundamental injustice here. There are calls for the punishment (execution even) of the man who has reported war crimes, but not for those that perpetrated or sanctioned them.

On the one hand, the US is proud of its First Amendment and its long-standing commitment to the freedom of speech. It was announced last week that the US is to host next year's Unesco World Press Freedom Day event, which champions in particular "the free flow of information in this digital age".

On the other hand, it is examining ways to take legal action against Assange, who is in effect editor of the world's first stateless (non-profit) media organisation.
It has blocked access to the WikiLeaks website and denied its citizens the ability to register protest through donations, all without a warrant. It has also successfully pressured Amazon, Visa, Mastercard and PayPal to withdraw their services from WikiLeaks, as well as the Swiss bank PostFinance, to close Assange's account.

WikiLeaks offers a new type of investigative journalism. I have my doubts about whether some cables should have been leaked – for example, the list of infrastructure sites vital to national security – and I share the concern that diplomacy could suffer as a result of others. But I feel passionately that democracy needs a strong and free media. It is the only way to ensure governments are honest and remain accountable.

WikiLeaks has revealed that we have been told a great many lies about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that there has been little accountability. How are the recent revelations regarding America's secret war in Yemen not in the public interest? Don't American citizens have the right to know that, contrary to official denials, they have paid for cruise missile attacks on Yemen, which have accidentally killed 200 civilians?

I have a personal interest in the revelations about Pakistan, which highlight what many of us have long feared: that contrary to assurances from Pakistan's leaders, the US is fully ensconced, with bases and special forces, that there have been unreported civilian deaths and that the unwinnable war in Afghanistan is spilling over the border into its weak, corrupt and nuclear neighbour. The best justification governments can find to shut down information is that lives are at risk. In fact, lives have been at risk as a result of the silences and lies revealed in these leaks.

Exposés have always been initiated by leaks. As Assange himself has said: "If journalism is good, it's controversial." Without illicit information President Nixon would not have been forced to resign, we would never have known about the abuse of detainees by US personnel at Abu Ghraib, nor that US intelligence was phone-tapping and looking at emails without warrants. Daniel Ellsberg has said that when he released the Pentagon papers during the Vietnam war he suffered similar attacks. He was put on trial for theft and conspiracy and stolen medical files were used to discredit him. Now he's viewed as a journalistic hero.

If WikiLeaks is a terrorist organisation, as New York congressman Pete King stated, and if its founder, Julian Assange, is prosecuted for espionage, the future of investigative journalism everywhere is in jeopardy, as is our right as citizens to be told the truth.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/11/julian-assange-jemima-khan
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 05:07 am
@msolga,
I think she was bored and wanted to be on telly. "Spur-of-the-moment" is a blurt. A gush. A lunge.

How many lives are at risk with a "weak, corrupt and nuclear" Pakistan?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 06:07 am
@msolga,
Excellent article, and I agree with it 100%. The government's role in intimidation and censorship is the very reverse of what our country is supposed to represent. Why is our constitution continually challenged by our government? It seems they are the we must fear. What ever happened to the freedom of the press and free speech?
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 06:46 am
@cicerone imposter,
The change from bows and arrows to nuclear weapons is what happened you silly moo. And from Pony Express to world ranging jet planes.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 07:37 am
@hingehead,
Quote:
The Library Of Congress has blocked access to Wikileaks - I would have thought someone in Congress would have found it useful to do some research before speaking out or making legal recommendations on Wikileaks - probably naive of me.


I would bet a large amount of money I could now go into the LC with my netbook fire up my tor software and get to any of the wikileaks sites by the way of their wifi connections.

A method I cheerfully now used to get around my public library filtering when needed.

The whole thing is silly beyond words.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:03 am
@msolga,
So...

1) WikiLeaks is not infallible.
2) When asked how WL could mishandle information, you reply that you believe they haven't.

I won't bother trying to convince you that the information has been handled recklessly, but it is not out of bounds for you to share how it could (future) be mishandled. Simply opining that it's not been mishandled give no insight into what standard you hold that WL could violate.

If part of your defense of WL is that they have responsibly redacted sources, how would you respond if the poison pill was the raw information?

It seems you are set to defend WL no matter what happens, and if so then you weren't being honest about it RE: infallibility in your eyes.

A
R
T
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:12 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
I've go to say I'm really quite surprised at the source of the article, but this is a pretty good summation of the "pro" Julian Assange/Wikileaks case.

It's a good summation of the legal defense of wikileaks being able to exist.

Just because I disapprove of of Assange, does not mean that I think he must go to jail. This article does nothing to say that WikiLeaks is necessary, only that it is not illegal.

Just because many governments are reacting poorly to this, does not mean that Assange is righteous. All players can behave poorly.

A
R
T
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:16 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

I wonder how long before a google search for wikileaks doesn't show wikileaks. Even now it's only the third in the ranked list (the wikipedia entry is first) but that's probably just because of the wikileaks.org dns entry is now directing to a mirror - very weird.

It's the first listing now. You're probably right about the DNS server switching playing into that.

Why make conspiracy out of this? Why would it not appear on Google? directory listing for the site, as you said, are patchy because of mirrors.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:22 am
@failures art,
Quote:
WikiLeaks is not infallible

No it isn't.
As I said, I believe no organization is infallible.
Can you give an example of one you believe is?

Quote:
When asked how WL could mishandle information, you reply that you believe they haven't.

Yup.
And if that's a line of argument you want to explore, it is a case for you to put, not me.
Why would I be explaining how Wikileaks could possibly mishandle information because you think I should? Confused

Quote:
I won't bother trying to convince you that the information has been handled recklessly.

You probably won't persuade me, but there's nothing wrong with you having a view opposite to mine & stating it.

OK, over to you if you want to pursue those ideas any further, Art.



 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/02/2023 at 03:03:08