55
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:20 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
An outcry about what, specifically? That only one of the 3 million folks who had access to these things thought they should be leaked? Or that the security was so lax that someone could grab this much documentation and submit it for publication?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:21 pm
@JPB,
The latter. (Or perhaps both Wink )
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:21 pm
@JPB,
Funny -

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/16/assange.dating.profile/index.html?hpt=T1

Quote:
Loving a leakster: Assange's apparent online dating lifeBy Ashley Fantz, CNNDecember 16, 2010 1:53 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- In the winter of 2006, Julian Assange was apparently looking for a date.

He had just launched WikiLeaks, a little online operation with big ambitions. Assange hoped it would exemplify a value he held high: All information should be public, no matter how sensitive or embarrassing. Only then could justice be served and corruption end.

All in all, he seemed to think he was a pretty good catch.

So that December, Assange, then 36, evidently created a profile on the free dating site OkCupid.com.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:30 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Straw man . . . i've never even remotely suggested that her allegations were a part of a conspiracy.

I don't recall saying that you did suggest such a thing. When I initially brought it up in the thread wandel had already breached the topic after many comments had been made about the legitimacy of these allegations. How you feel about these allegations is unknown to me. The idea that they are a part of a conspiracy has been brought up here though. It's not a strawman. I've also not said the allegations are true, only that we should not assume too much from their creation or in the case of one woman, the allegations being dropped.

Setanta wrote:

You need to address such remarks to anyone here who you can reasonably charge with making such an assumption.

You're just who I was talking to. I did not project this onto you. I'm offering my commentary on some of the reactions to the allegations.

Setanta wrote:

I cannot agree at all that "we should be assuming much about either Assange or these women."

What then should we be assuming given what we are privy to?

A
R
T
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:35 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I thought about that, but then he is making assumptions about these women, and apparently thinks he's justified.

What am I assuming?

I can think of perhaps one assumption: That women who make sexual based allegations experience intimidation. This is reflective of the American legal system and culture for sure. One need only look at sexual based offenses and the rate of reporting along with conviction rates. I've admitted that this may be different in Sweden, but I haven't seen anything to believe that this assumption would be radically false. Why should I assume it's so different in Sweden? Either way, this is an assumption on the system itself, less the women (rather, the woman). I'll reserve my judgment on the case once it has actually been made.

A
R
T
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:35 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I think it's called fear biting in the dog world..
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:37 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I don't know... apathy in general, I guess. How many Americans are there on A2K and how many are active on this thread? I pulled a quote from an article early on in this thread that talked about the lax security of the USG intranet. That seems to be where the finger should be pointed by those who think this information never should have been leaked.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:56 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
How you feel about these allegations is unknown to me.


In which case, it is a straw man for you to mention such a conspiracy in a response to my post. You should address such remarks to those to whom it applies, and not to me. Offer your commentary where is applies, not to me.

Given that we are not privy to any of the evidence beyond what is alleged in the press, we would do well not to assume anything.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:58 pm
@failures art,
Why should you make any assumptions? Once again, unless you have evidence which has not been aired here, there is no good reason to make any assumptions. If you have such evidence, do us a favor and provide it.
hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:14 pm
@failures art,
As I posted forever ago on this thread - Sweden has an appalling reporting AND conviction rate for sexual abuse crimes against women - to the point where it was censured by Amnesty International.

I agree that if a crime it was committed it should be prosecuted (I see it as irrelevent to the Wikileaks issue) and that the accusers should be afforded every protection and courtesy.

However the circumstances of this investigation and the resources it is taking given Sweden's particularly appalling record of successfully prosecuting what we (other western nations) codify as rape does make you question what is motivating the Swedish prosecutorial forces.

Remember the extradition is solely for the task of questioning Assange - who made himself available for questioning on this matter in Sweden months ago and was ignored by the prosecutors.

It may be that because of the international attention on the accused they pulled out all the stops follow the letter of law (it's easier to hide your laxness on a case that isn't attracting media).

I hope and suspect it's nothing more sinister (diplomatic back scratching/intergovernmental conspiracies) because if it is that suggests to me that diplomats and politicians are massively stupid (or think we are), and there's nothing in the leaked cables that suggests that's true (except for the bit where they think we are stupid).

Quote:
I'll reserve my judgment on the case once it has actually been made.


That's wise but I think you'd agree that A2K would have a lot less posts if none of us speculated about possible legal actions until after the jury arrived at a verdict.

Surely you must concede that people have a reason to think something smells without conceding that it actually does?

wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:15 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Straw man . . . i've never even remotely suggested that her allegations were a part of a conspiracy.

I don't recall saying that you did suggest such a thing. When I initially brought it up in the thread wandel had already breached the topic after many comments had been made about the legitimacy of these allegations. How you feel about these allegations is unknown to me. The idea that they are a part of a conspiracy has been brought up here though. It's not a strawman. I've also not said the allegations are true, only that we should not assume too much from their creation or in the case of one woman, the allegations being dropped.


Failures Art was commenting on the thread in general as background for his statement, Setanta.

There were many posts suggesting the charges were politically motivated. I mentioned that for the two women involved it was personal, not political. I was then told "that's not the point." Suggesting that everything involves a political conspiracy is unfair to some of the individuals involved. Even the corporations that were attacked for dropping Wikileaks could possibly have had individual moral reservations about what Wikileaks was doing rather than being part of a big political conspiracy.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:16 pm
I'm leaning in the direction of thinking Julian Assange is a creation of Andy Warhol.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:18 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
Even the corporations that were attacked for dropping Wikileaks could possibly have had individual moral reservations about what Wikileaks was doing rather than being part of a big political conspiracy.


On a scale of 1 (least likely) to 10 (most likely) how do you rate the probability of that?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:19 pm
@wandeljw,
Well, i note that you are not saying who has made this allegation, either. Whomever one alleges to be the culprit of promoting such an allegation, it was not i, and therefore it is a straw man to throw that up to me.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:21 pm
@dyslexia,
There is a similarity..
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:31 pm
@dlowan,
I don't think the choice is as stark as Naughton phrases it, but it does contemplate what I have been warning those who see WikiLeaks as the start down the road to total transparency about. It is just as likely, if not more so, that WikiLeaks will result in a further restriction of information flow, rather than greater disclosure, and wouldn't that be a "delicious irony."

The question of whether WikiLeaks is a good or bad thing (or something in between) should not be tied to Assange's guilt or innocence in the Swedish sex crime case, but there will be an unwarranted and unavoidable connection between the two. Should he be found guilty, there will be some who transfer his guilt to WikiLeaks and if he is acquitted, there will be some who insist that the verdict is somehow an exoneration of WikiLeaks as well as Assange.

For good or bad, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are, at the moment, inextricably intertwined. In fact, it is for this reason, some of his WikiLeak colleagues have split from him an attempting to start up a separate site/movement.

The question of Assange's guilt or innocence as respects the Swedish sex crime charges, however, goes directly to the question of whether or not Julian Assange is a good or bad person, and whatever good may be attributed to WikiLeaks should not be transferred to Assange in considering the sex crimes.

As it is, the charges fit very nicely in the narrative that has Assange being unjustly persecuted by powerful global forces, and if it turns out that he is guilty, the part about coordinated governmental decisions and actions will not necessarily be disproved. However, the fact will be that he is as guilty as the findings of a Swedish court can make one, and whether or not someone who is not Julian Assange could have committed the crimes without being charged will be immaterial as respects his guilt.

Eltham is understandably disturbed, particularly if he considers himself a liberal feminist, to find those whom he would have expected to take these charges seriously, instead making light of them.

This is yet another instance where self-described feminists reveal that politics transcend principle. The leftist political reflexes of Naomi Wolf draw her to whatever side lines up against the governments of Western free market economies, and in this case, that's Julian Assange. What is so disappointing, I'm sure, to Eltham though is not that she is siding with Assange but that in doing so she so easily assumes the conduct feminists roundly condemn in sex crime cases: disparaging the victims and minimizing their allegations.

If this came as a surprise to him, I guess he didn't follow the careers of Bill Clinton or Teddy Kennedy.


0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  5  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:38 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
There have been numerous expressions of outrage over the fact that one army private was, so easily, able to make off with so much classified information.

It doesn't exonerate Pvt Manning or Julian Assange, but the US military carries a tremendous degree of responsibility for this mess, and heads should role. Right now, of course, Assange is attracting all of the news coverage, but it will find its way back to the Pentagon.
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:45 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Quote:
Even the corporations that were attacked for dropping Wikileaks could possibly have had individual moral reservations about what Wikileaks was doing rather than being part of a big political conspiracy.


On a scale of 1 (least likely) to 10 (most likely) how do you rate the probability of that?


I am only saying that this possibility deserves to be considered. The alternative would be to believe that a grand conspiracy is behind everything that is negative to Wikileaks.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:58 pm
@hingehead,
Arm twisting by the US>?
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:59 pm
@wandeljw,
Wandel, please get real here for a moment: Mastercard and moral standards
is not something you'll find easily in one sentence. All credit card institutions for that matter, are only out for their own profits.

Corporate America has no morals - the long long history of immoral conduct by corporate America should be example alone.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 03:19:42