Happy Atheist Forum

No thread on WikiLeaks yet?

In case you haven't heard already, WikiLeaks (http://wikileaks.org/) is a controversial website which "publishes and comments on leaked documents alleging government and corporate misconduct."

Here is the founder at a TED Talk arguing why the world needs WikiLeaks:

[youtube:bh2tnvjo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNOnvp5t7Do[/youtube:bh2tnvjo]

I'm curious to hear your answer to the question "should WikiLeaks be stopped?" What are the dangers of allowing WikiLeaks to stay open or the risks of shutting it down? Is it protected by the First Amendment? Or is it encouraging treason?
 

EDIT: You know what, this probably belongs under 'Media'. My apologies....

Did you follow the reaction to this on Pharyngula?  It was one of those posts I got sucked into reading the comments for.

I think transparency is a good thing.

Quote from: "Sophus"I'm curious to hear your answer to the question "should WikiLeaks be stopped?"

Is it possible to stop WikiLeaks?  It isn't US based.
You can counter false information with facts.
I don't think you can silence anything once it is on the web.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Did you follow the reaction to this on Pharyngula?  It was one of those posts I got sucked into reading the comments for.

I think transparency is a good thing.

Thanks ! -I missed that one but just read through a good portion of it. Interesting stuff... (a couple of loons too) That argument - that releasing some of these files will jeopardize soldiers lives - is one I hear often from people in the military. How exactly would that work? Perhaps I'm ignorant of it because I haven't been through every single WikiLeaks file. I don't understand how people will die because of this. What I have seen is this. Civilian Afghan lives could be in danger. (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20100811wikileaks_urged_to_censor_leaked_files/)

I'll be very dissapointed if they did in fact "fan the flames" on Climategate. This is all their page (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009) concerning those emails read, however,

QuoteThis archive presents over 60MB of emails, documents, code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.
The CRU has told the BBC that the files were obtained by a hacker 3-4 days ago (at the time of this submission).
This archive includes unreleased global temperature analysis computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.
The archive appears to be a collection of information put together by the CRU prior to a FoI redaction process.

In what way did they supposedly "fan the flames"?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Is it possible to stop WikiLeaks? It isn't US based.
You can counter false information with facts.
I don't think you can silence anything once it is on the web.

Absolutely true (as far as retrieving already released files go). Yet that hasn't stopped the Pentagon from demanding them to be "returned".

Wikileaks is both hero and troublemaker, but above all it's necessary. People often complain about the corporate media, the fact that it's profit driven, it has numerous conflicts of interest when it comes to honestly reporting the news. I couldn't agree more. The only way to remove as many conflicts as possible is to remove the connections between the money and the news. While public news is a good start, PBS and Democracy Now, they don't have the resources to gain access to a lot of the big stories. What Wikileaks does is create an army of reporters and informants, all anonymous, so that the infrastructure of the news organization is massive and extensive and no worry about corporate money influencing the story.

Here are some stories broken by Wikileaks that were not discovered or released by other news organizations:

- Standard Operating Procedures for Guantanamo Bay, along with the fact the Red Cross was denied access to the prisoners/kidnapping victims
- Scientology OT level scamming
- Sarah Palin's emails revealing she was trying to evade public record laws
- Austrailian internet censorship lists
- Petrogate in Peru
- Toxic dumping in Africa
- Collateral murder
- Afghan war diary

At the very least it should be there to show that anything can be 'outed' in the end.

The risking lives excuse is always a hollow one I feel. The ego of any military is usually rather fragile. Normal instinct is to cover up things which go wrong, or 'deal with internally'.. I've always felt the US top brass have a method of blanket secrecy whatever the secret and anyone breaking this rule is a villain, no matter the motive for whistle blowing.

In short, Wiki leaks is a thorn in the side of any government or military and is a direct threat to their self imposed status quo. Because of this I think wiki leaks is fantastic. No entity should be above challenge or questioning. All secrecy is, is the method by which governments and organisations stay unaccountable for their actions.

At least the people in charge will start to question their own decisions in the knowledge that they might one day be held accountable for them.

If they stop WikiLeaks, another organization of the same type will probably replace it.

As long as the leaks are truthful, and verifiable, I think they are a great thing.

I have mixed feelings about this.

This "risking lives" argument may be trumped up by the Pentagon for PR reasons, but it is still a legitimate argument, assuming the enemy takes the time to read this enormous pile of data.  And successful military operations do sometimes require secrecy, not to mention deception -- not that I think that's the case here, but you get my point.

On the other hand, secrecy is offensive to freedom, in the long run, and is too often used not to shelter sensitive data but to shelter officials from the fallout of their screwups.

But the people doing the leaking are doing so because they feel a lot of stuff should be public knowledge. They still have a job to do, though, and knowing what they do, are best suited to choose which information is revealed. I doubt any conscientious whistleblower would purposefully reveal launch codes, for example. I'm sure governments would start jumping a little bit harder were that the case.

WikiLeaks is great.  Bringing truth to the masses can only be a good thing.  I don't worry much about the military secrets angle.  I would think traitors would have a more direct way of getting info to enemies.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This "risking lives" argument may be trumped up by the Pentagon for PR reasons, but it is still a legitimate argument, assuming the enemy takes the time to read this enormous pile of data.  And successful military operations do sometimes require secrecy, not to mention deception -- not that I think that's the case here, but you get my point.

I keep hearing the risking lives argument, but these are professional soldiers that volunteered for service, and they're fighting in two unnecessary wars of aggression in countries that never attacked us. If anyone is guilty of risking the lives of our soldiers and the informants on the ground, it's the corporate contractors, the neoconservatives, the Pentagon, the House and Senate, and the White House. Wikileaks could never hope to put the soldiers in anywhere near as much danger as those actually responsible for the unnecessary wars.

If this was World War II, a war only gone to as a last resort to stop real, actual threats, I might be willing to put stock in the risking lives argument. That simply isn't the case, though.

Quote from: "Will"I keep hearing the risking lives argument, but these are professional soldiers that volunteered for service, and they're fighting in two unnecessary wars of aggression in countries that never attacked us.

Except that many of the lives risked aren't soldiers at all, but civilian workers whom the Taliban regard as traitors.

For the record, I was, and still am against the war in Iraq; however, I regard the war in Afghanistan as justified in its inception, and hardly a war of aggression; "war of vengeance" would appear to be a more-apt description.

QuoteIf anyone is guilty of risking the lives of our soldiers and the informants on the ground, it's the corporate contractors, the neoconservatives, the Pentagon, the House and Senate, and the White House. Wikileaks could never hope to put the soldiers in anywhere near as much danger as those actually responsible for the unnecessary wars.

Agreed.  As pointed out above, there are civilians at risk too.

QuoteIf this was World War II, a war only gone to as a last resort to stop real, actual threats, I might be willing to put stock in the risking lives argument. That simply isn't the case, though.

It does risk lives -- civilians who are simply trying to deliver vital services to their provinces; civilians who are trying to educate Afghani women; civilians who are trying to impose a semblance of order in a country that has been torn by war for two generations now.

I should note that I don't regard our military men as expendable, either.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Will"I keep hearing the risking lives argument, but these are professional soldiers that volunteered for service, and they're fighting in two unnecessary wars of aggression in countries that never attacked us.

Except that many of the lives risked aren't soldiers at all, but civilian workers whom the Taliban regard as traitors.

I'm not very caught-up on this story, so I'm wondering if you could give me a specific instance of a released document that would likely put soldiers or citizens in harms way.

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Will"I keep hearing the risking lives argument, but these are professional soldiers that volunteered for service, and they're fighting in two unnecessary wars of aggression in countries that never attacked us.

Except that many of the lives risked aren't soldiers at all, but civilian workers whom the Taliban regard as traitors.

I'm not very caught-up on this story, so I'm wondering if you could give me a specific instance of a released document that would likely put soldiers or citizens in harms way.

Here (http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/sort.category/meeting_0.html), here (http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/sort/category/meeting_security_0.html), and here (http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/sort/category/unexploded_ordnance_55.html) are reports that could cost the lives of civilians and/or soldiers.

Quote from: "Will"I keep hearing the risking lives argument, but these are professional soldiers that volunteered for service, and they're fighting in two unnecessary wars of aggression in countries that never attacked us.

I thought your country was attacked by people harboured by and allied to the Taliban.
As I remember the Taliban were given the opportunity to expel them.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Will"For the record, I was, and still am against the war in Iraq; however, I regard the war in Afghanistan as justified in its inception, and hardly a war of aggression; "war of vengeance" would appear to be a more-apt description.

I agree on Iraq.
For Afghanistan vengeance could have been achieved from 25,000 feet or 1000s of miles away.
Some people who supported the Afghan war no longer do, but can't provide an honourable way out.

The value of some documented abuses in developing propaganda should be obvious.
Propaganda motivates retaliation and is likely to get people killed.
Ideally abuses wouldn't be perpetrated, but that's easier said than done,
even the UN has problems keeping civilian aid workers in line.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"For Afghanistan vengeance could have been achieved from 25,000 feet or 1000s of miles away.
Some people who supported the Afghan war no longer do, but can't provide an honourable way out.

I agree with the first sentence, and my position is fairly represented by the second.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Except that many of the lives risked aren't soldiers at all, but civilian workers whom the Taliban regard as traitors.

You mean the Afghan informants? Did I miss something? Were actual named published? When I checked on this a few days ago, it turned out the allegations wikileaks released names of informants were not backed up with evidence. If you have a link to actual names, please let me know so I can change my view accordingly.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"For the record, I was, and still am against the war in Iraq; however, I regard the war in Afghanistan as justified in its inception, and hardly a war of aggression; "war of vengeance" would appear to be a more-apt description.

We were not attacked by the Northern Alliance or the Taliban or the Afghan government. The Taliban made a temporary alliance with what we now call al Qaeda only as a part of their civil war to assassinate senior leadership of the Northern Alliance. After 9/11, the US government asked the almost nonexistent Afghan government to hand over Bin Laden. In accordance with the law, the Afghan authorities asked for evidence linking Bin Laden to the attacks. We supplied no such evidence and started bombing Taliban camps, a few of which had al Qaeda on them. Neither the civilians of Afghanistan nor the Taliban are responsible for 9/11. We were attacked by mostly Saudi militants, funded by Saudi money coming from Bin Laden's former fortune, who happened to train in Afghanistan as well as Germany and the United States.

We invaded Afghanistan to keep up the appearance that we have even the slightest idea of how to fight decentralized terror cells. The result of that unnecessary show of force can be measured in Afghan and coalition dead and wounded.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I should note that I don't regard our military men as expendable, either.

No human being is expendable. The reason we have war and murder is people's ability to rationalize giving their beliefs a higher regard than human life. Without that, we'd be at peace, not at war.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Except that many of the lives risked aren't soldiers at all, but civilian workers whom the Taliban regard as traitors.

You mean the Afghan informants? Did I miss something? Were actual named published? When I checked on this a few days ago, it turned out the allegations wikileaks released names of informants were not backed up with evidence. If you have a link to actual names, please let me know so I can change my view accordingly.

Actually, I've already posted them, above.  The first and second ones clearly name local collaborators.    Additionally, are you aware that names aren't necessary in order to determine an intelligence source?  The release of circumstantial information can provide decisive info as well.

QuoteWe were not attacked by the Northern Alliance or the Taliban or the Afghan government. The Taliban made a temporary alliance with what we now call al Qaeda only as a part of their civil war to assassinate senior leadership of the Northern Alliance. After 9/11, the US government asked the almost nonexistent Afghan government to hand over Bin Laden. In accordance with the law, the Afghan authorities asked for evidence linking Bin Laden to the attacks. We supplied no such evidence and started bombing Taliban camps, a few of which had al Qaeda on them. Neither the civilians of Afghanistan nor the Taliban are responsible for 9/11. We were attacked by mostly Saudi militants, funded by Saudi money coming from Bin Laden's former fortune, who happened to train in Afghanistan as well as Germany and the United States.

Would you please link to a source confirming that the US refused to provide evidence of AQ's involvement?  

Calling bin Laden's money "Saudi" is like calling my money "American" -- essentially meaningless in this context, as it was his personal (inherited) fortune and not Royal financing.

QuoteWe invaded Afghanistan to keep up the appearance that we have even the slightest idea of how to fight decentralized terror cells. The result of that unnecessary show of force can be measured in Afghan and coalition dead and wounded.

I agree that the US is ham-handed in dealing with the problem of terrorism.

QuoteNo human being is expendable. The reason we have war and murder is people's ability to rationalize giving their beliefs a higher regard than human life. Without that, we'd be at peace, not at war.

Personally, there are things I am willing to die for -- or kill for -- in a given set of circumstances.

Quote from: "Will"unnecessary show of force can be measured in Afghan and coalition dead and wounded.  

Hasn't helped the economy either.

Quote from: "Will"No human being is expendable. The reason we have war and murder is people's ability to rationalize giving their beliefs a higher regard than human life. Without that, we'd be at peace, not at war.

Those are worthy sentiments, but I think governments a long way off adopting such an attitude.
I would like to see some discussion allowed before wars are started.
If someone says no this is a bad idea, it will cost lives and treasure, they shouldn't be called a traitor.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Actually, I've already posted them, above.  The first and second ones clearly name local collaborators.    Additionally, are you aware that names aren't necessary in order to determine an intelligence source?  The release of circumstantial information can provide decisive info as well.

I'm seeing district governors, police... not seeing informants. What I'm seeing here are medium to high ranking members of police and government. As far as I know, it common for all governors to regularly meet with coalition forces and it's very common for local police to work with them. I don't have time to go through 16 pages each with 50 reports right now. I'd appreciate it if you'd actually post a link to the report in question. Maybe I've missed it.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Would you please link to a source confirming that the US refused to provide evidence of AQ's involvement?

On September 21st, Afghanistan's then ambassador, speaking for the government of Afghanistan at the time, said they would not hand over Osama bin Laden without being presented with evidence (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml). The Bush administration rejected the request (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban), and tried to dishonestly frame the request for evidence as a negotiation for a terrorist instead of international law. That was the last Afghanistan heard from us before the October 7 bombings of not just al Qaeda targets, but Taliban targets as well. (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/gen.america.under.attack/)

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Calling bin Laden's money "Saudi" is like calling my money "American" -- essentially meaningless in this context, as it was his personal (inherited) fortune and not Royal financing.

That's not entirely accurate. Saudi Arabia, the government, helped to finance al Qaeda and allowed the organization to start and grow within its borders. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm) Unfortunately, the extent to which al Qaeda was funded and aided by Saudi Arabia especially pertaining to 9/11 wasn't made public by the 9/11 Commission, so I can't be more specific than "Saudi money".

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Personally, there are things I am willing to die for -- or kill for -- in a given set of circumstances.

It's your business what you're willing to die for. It's your life to do with as you wish, after all. But when it comes to taking someone else's life, it's less cut and dry.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Those are worthy sentiments, but I think governments a long way off adopting such an attitude.
I would like to see some discussion allowed before wars are started.
If someone says no this is a bad idea, it will cost lives and treasure, they shouldn't be called a traitor.

That must be what it's like to live in countries that don't go to war very often. Sounds kinda nice.

Quote from: "Will"I'm seeing district governors, police... not seeing informants. What I'm seeing here are medium to high ranking members of police and government. As far as I know, it common for all governors to regularly meet with coalition forces and it's very common for local police to work with them. I don't have time to go through 16 pages each with 50 reports right now. I'd appreciate it if you'd actually post a link to the report in question. Maybe I've missed it.

What did you expect to see listed as occupation?  "Informant"?

QuoteOn September 21st, Afghanistan's then ambassador, speaking for the government of Afghanistan at the time, said they would not hand over Osama bin Laden without being presented with evidence (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml).

Wrong.  His translator added the qualification, according to the second paragraph.  Also, he did not offer to turn bin Laden over; he said he "would be ready for bin Laden's trial", without specifying where said trial would occur.  As will be seen later, this was not an offer to turn him over to America upon receipt of evidence.

Also, in the 10th paragraph of your link, this Taliban ambassador explicitly threatens with violence those who sympathize with the enemy.  This rather supports exactly what I'm saying.

QuoteThe Bush administration rejected the request (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban), and tried to dishonestly frame the request for evidence as a negotiation for a terrorist instead of international law.

In this link, the Taliban didn't offer to turn bin Laden over to America, contrary to your claim; they offered to try him in Afghanistan under Sharia'a.  I'm sure he would've gotten a fair trial.

QuoteThat was the last Afghanistan heard from us before the October 7 bombings of not just al Qaeda targets, but Taliban targets as well. (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/gen.america.under.attack/)

Seems apparent that they cast their lot in with him.

QuoteThat's not entirely accurate. Saudi Arabia, the government, helped to finance al Qaeda and allowed the organization to start and grow within its borders. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm) Unfortunately, the extent to which al Qaeda was funded and aided by Saudi Arabia especially pertaining to 9/11 wasn't made public by the 9/11 Commission, so I can't be more specific than "Saudi money".

Fair enough.  It seemed to implicate the Saudi government there.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

QuoteIt's your business what you're willing to die for. It's your life to do with as you wish, after all. But when it comes to taking someone else's life, it's less cut and dry.

Indeed it is.  'Tis why I prefer to think these things through.

When I first heard the story about the soldier who leaked information to Wikileaks, I viewed him as a traitor, but now I am not so certain.  

Was he genuinely trying to uncover inappropriate and unjust conduct in the government?  If so, should he not be commended?

The media, which Benjamin Franklin called the fourth estate, is supposed to be a watchdog over the government, but I cannot get any good information from FOX, CNN, ABC, or any other slanted, biased source.  

I cannot fault the Economist, however.  If you want to find out what is going on the the world, subscribe to the Economist.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"What did you expect to see listed as occupation?  "Informant"?

I expected to see actual informants. Regional governors and police routinely cooperate with the coalition forces, so publishing their names doesn't put them in any more danger today than they were in yesterday.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Wrong.  His translator added the qualification, according to the second paragraph.  Also, he did not offer to turn bin Laden over; he said he "would be ready for bin Laden's trial", without specifying where said trial would occur.  As will be seen later, this was not an offer to turn him over to America upon receipt of evidence.

You're suggesting the ambassador's professional translator spoke out of turn, making up an important point during a highly important press conference about the people responsible for one of the most spectacular terrorists attacks in history against the world's last military superpower? I see no evidence of that. More likely the translator was clarifying a translation from earlier. And it does make sense. The ambassador needed to appear reasoned so as not to be as easily associated with radicals. His position would be made stronger by asking for evidence.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, in the 10th paragraph of your link, this Taliban ambassador explicitly threatens with violence those who sympathize with the enemy.  This rather supports exactly what I'm saying.

In typical Bush-like fashion, the President had threatened the Taliban before seeking out a diplomatic solution. From the 9th paragraph [Bush speaking]: "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate." That was a serious threat, so of course the Taliban postured right back.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"In this link, the Taliban didn't offer to turn bin Laden over to America, contrary to your claim; they offered to try him in Afghanistan under Sharia'a.  I'm sure he would've gotten a fair trial.

I never said they did, though I implied they would eventually. The Taliban are many things, but they're not stupid. If the US made public some of the evidence they had on Bin Laden, enough to be convincing but not so much as to give away sources, the entire international community instead of a select coalition of the willing would have born down on them, including Afghanistan's neighbors. Back in 2001, the US had a much better relationship with Pakistan and the Taliban were nowhere near as powerful. It's highly likely, had the US gone the diplomatic route, we would have either ended up with Bin Laden ourselves, or more likely he would have been turned over to a third party. Or, perhaps, we would have found out the Taliban didn't have the ability to get Bin Laden, and we could have simply gone an entirely different route.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Seems apparent that they cast their lot in with him.

They owed him a bit for the assassinations he helped them with, but their alliance was shaky at best. The singular goal of the Taliban has always been to install a fundamentalist Afghan government in place (and now in Pakistan, too). As long as the West didn't get involved, they didn't care about America. In fact, it was in the Taliban's best interest to never do anything to get too much American attention because we would have given the Northern Alliance, the Taliban's enemies, a great deal of help in response. al Qaeda, on the other hand, was/is all about attacking the West, specifically the US and the UK. Their aims were only temporarily aligned as al Qaeda could help fight the NA. As soon as al Qaeda became more trouble than they were worth, which was at about 9 AM Eastern time on 9/11/01, it was no longer in the Taliban's best interest to ally themselves.

Also, if I remember correctly, wikileaks withheld some 15,000 articles to preserve privacy (of soldiers, I think, but maybe informants as well.)

Quote from: "Will"You're suggesting the ambassador's professional translator spoke out of turn, making up an important point during a highly important press conference about the people responsible for one of the most spectacular terrorists attacks in history against the world's last military superpower? I see no evidence of that.

I'm just reporting your evidence that you provided.  I'm making no "suggestion"; I am reading your link:

Quote from: CBS News"The rejection came in a statement by Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. Asked whether the Taliban would hand over bin Laden, Zaeef said, "No."  But his translator said, "No, not without evidence."

Now, it's entirely possible that the ambassador forgot to qualify his flat rejection, and that his interpreter caught the error.  But it isn't clear that that is the case

QuoteMore likely the translator was clarifying a translation from earlier. And it does make sense. The ambassador needed to appear reasoned so as not to be as easily associated with radicals. His position would be made stronger by asking for evidence.

I'm just reading the link you provided as support.  It is clear from the context [quoted above] that the translator was translating in real time, and not clarifying an earlier statement.

QuoteIn typical Bush-like fashion, the President had threatened the Taliban before seeking out a diplomatic solution. From the 9th paragraph [Bush speaking]: "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate." That was a serious threat, so of course the Taliban postured right back.

And yet that comment came after the Taliban stated that they would try him in Afghanistan.  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"In this link, the Taliban didn't offer to turn bin Laden over to America, contrary to your claim; they offered to try him in Afghanistan under Sharia'a.  I'm sure he would've gotten a fair trial.

Quote from: "Will"I never said they did, though I implied they would eventually. The Taliban are many things, but they're not stupid. If the US made public some of the evidence they had on Bin Laden, enough to be convincing but not so much as to give away sources, the entire international community instead of a select coalition of the willing would have born down on them, including Afghanistan's neighbors. Back in 2001, the US had a much better relationship with Pakistan and the Taliban were nowhere near as powerful. It's highly likely, had the US gone the diplomatic route, we would have either ended up with Bin Laden ourselves, or more likely he would have been turned over to a third party. Or, perhaps, we would have found out the Taliban didn't have the ability to get Bin Laden, and we could have simply gone an entirely different route.

Your implication, then, seems to be contrary to the Taliban's own statement of intent.  

Additionally, given the long and close ties between Pakistan's ISI (and that agency's power in the Pakistani govt) and the Taliban, the idea that Pakistan would take action against Afghanistan is dubious at best (even with the best evidence), especially once you consider that Pervez Musharraf  already had serious credibility problems amongst Pakistan's Muslims, who would have only seen him as further being an American lackey.  Also, the Taliban themselves would fain have surrendered him at any rate, because such an action would violate tribal/cultural norms.  Not only that, the Taliban's long history of disdaining world opinion undermines this argument of yours as well.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Seems apparent that they cast their lot in with him.

QuoteThey owed him a bit for the assassinations he helped them with, but their alliance was shaky at best. The singular goal of the Taliban has always been to install a fundamentalist Afghan government in place (and now in Pakistan, too). As long as the West didn't get involved, they didn't care about America. In fact, it was in the Taliban's best interest to never do anything to get too much American attention because we would have given the Northern Alliance, the Taliban's allies, a great deal of help in response. al Qaeda, on the other hand, was/is all about attacking the West, specifically the US and the UK. Their aims were only temporarily aligned as al Qaeda could help fight the NA. As soon as al Qaeda became more trouble than they were worth, which was at about 9 AM Eastern time on 9/11/01, it was no longer in the Taliban's best interest to ally themselves.

And yet they refused to divest themselves of this liability while they had the perfectly blameless opportunity?  It doesn't add up.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm just reporting your evidence that you provided.  I'm making no "suggestion";

I'm proposing the most likely explanation for the ambassador's translator saying that is that he was communicating the intent of the translator. Do you think there's a more likely explanation?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm just reading the link you provided as support.  It is clear from the context [quoted above] that the translator was translating in real time, and not clarifying an earlier statement.

So then you are suggesting the translator answered the question him or herself, instead of clarifying and/or translating a point made by the ambassador. That's what I meant.  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Your implication, then, seems to be contrary to the Taliban's own statement of intent.

Their intent wasn't 100% clear, though we can assume certain attempts based on what we know of them.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Additionally, given the long and close ties between Pakistan's ISI (and that agency's power in the Pakistani govt) and the Taliban, the idea that Pakistan would take action against Afghanistan is dubious at best (even with the best evidence), especially once you consider that Pervez Musharraf  already had serious credibility problems amongst Pakistan's Muslims, who would have only seen him as further being an American lackey.  Also, the Taliban themselves would fain have surrendered him at any rate, because such an action would violate tribal/cultural norms.  Not only that, the Taliban's long history of disdaining world opinion undermines this argument of yours as well.

I didn't say Pakistan would take action against anyone. What I'm suggesting is that local powers would be better suited to put pressure on the Taliban. Pakistan was just an example of a possible local power we could use.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"And yet they refused to divest themselves of this liability while they had the perfectly blameless opportunity?  It doesn't add up.

Sure it does. He wasn't 100% liability. The Taliban found themselves in possession, supposedly, of one of the most valued terrorists in history. Bin Laden made for a hell of a bargaining chip. I'm not sure if the Taliban expected the response the US provided in bombing al Qaeda AND Taliban camps. At that point, there was no going back.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm just reporting your evidence that you provided.  I'm making no "suggestion";

I'm proposing the most likely explanation for the ambassador's translator saying that is that he was communicating the intent of the translator. Do you think there's a more likely explanation?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm just reading the link you provided as support.  It is clear from the context [quoted above] that the translator was translating in real time, and not clarifying an earlier statement.

So then you are suggesting the translator answered the question him or herself, instead of clarifying and/or translating a point made by the ambassador. That's what I meant.  

There is an alternate explanation: that there was one line of policy to be promulgated for international consumption, and another line of policy to actually be implemented.  Given the tensions of the times, it would obviously be impolitic for the Taliban to refuse to turn bin Laden over.  Under what must have been a bit of a stressful spot, the Ambassador let slip the policy to be implemented, rather than the cover of "we're asking for evidence."  The translator realized the error.  This is, of course, speculation -- but no more so than your scenario.

Quote

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Your implication, then, seems to be contrary to the Taliban's own statement of intent.

Their intent wasn't 100% clear, though we can assume certain attempts based on what we know of them.

Given their history of thumbing their noses at international opinion, how can you justify assuming that they would about-face and attempt to mollify world opinion?

QuoteI didn't say Pakistan would take action against anyone. What I'm suggesting is that local powers would be better suited to put pressure on the Taliban. Pakistan was just an example of a possible local power we could use.

If not Pakistan, then who?  Iran?  Despite the fact that they too detest both the Taliban and AQ, I doubt they'd do us such a favor, if for no other reason than Realpolitik  Perhaps  Turkmenistan?  Doubt they'd have the force to make any pressure credible.  Ditto the Uzbeks.

QuoteSure it does. He wasn't 100% liability. The Taliban found themselves in possession, supposedly, of one of the most valued terrorists in history. Bin Laden made for a hell of a bargaining chip. I'm not sure if the Taliban expected the response the US provided in bombing al Qaeda AND Taliban camps. At that point, there was no going back.

I think they'd play it a bit smarter than that, particularly given that we'd already bombed AQ training camps in Afghanistan after the Embassy bombings, and that, as you pointed out earlier, Dubya made it perfectly clear that they would "share their [AQ's] fate".

For the reasons above, I stand by my assessment of your argument.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"There is an alternate explanation: that there was one line of policy to be promulgated for international consumption, and another line of policy to actually be implemented.  Given the tensions of the times, it would obviously be impolitic for the Taliban to refuse to turn bin Laden over.  Under what must have been a bit of a stressful spot, the Ambassador let slip the policy to be implemented, rather than the cover of "we're asking for evidence."  The translator realized the error.  This is, of course, speculation -- but no more so than your scenario.

You're suggesting that it's just as likely the ambassador let it slip a secret plan as my explanation where a translator translated?

Quote

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Given their history of thumbing their noses at international opinion, how can you justify assuming that they would about-face and attempt to mollify world opinion?

Thumbing their noses regarding internal Afghan matters is one thing. Thumbing their noses at the US about 9/11 is something completely different.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"If not Pakistan, then who?  Iran?  Despite the fact that they too detest both the Taliban and AQ, I doubt they'd do us such a favor, if for no other reason than Realpolitik  Perhaps  Turkmenistan?  Doubt they'd have the force to make any pressure credible.  Ditto the Uzbeks.

Just a regional Arab nation. Egypt would do it at the drop of a hat, the UAE would probably want to help, Kuwait, etc. etc. This doesn't seem like a major point.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think they'd play it a bit smarter than that, particularly given that we'd already bombed AQ training camps in Afghanistan after the Embassy bombings, and that, as you pointed out earlier, Dubya made it perfectly clear that they would "share their [AQ's] fate".

Share their fate if they don't hand over Bin Laden.

I'm not saying the Taliban aren't bad. They're in favor of extremist theocratic rule over innocent people. What I'm saying is that the attacks on both al Qaeda and Taliban camps and the subsequent invasion had less to do with justice for 9/11 and more to do with a show of strength.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"There is an alternate explanation: that there was one line of policy to be promulgated for international consumption, and another line of policy to actually be implemented.  Given the tensions of the times, it would obviously be impolitic for the Taliban to refuse to turn bin Laden over.  Under what must have been a bit of a stressful spot, the Ambassador let slip the policy to be implemented, rather than the cover of "we're asking for evidence."  The translator realized the error.  This is, of course, speculation -- but no more so than your scenario.

You're suggesting that it's just as likely the ambassador let it slip a secret plan as my explanation where a translator translated?

I'm suggesting that diplomatic blunders happen.  After all, your source reported the ambassodor's answer as "No", and then reported the translator's answer as "No, not without evidence."  The burden in this case is not on me; this is not my citation.

Quote

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Given their history of thumbing their noses at international opinion, how can you justify assuming that they would about-face and attempt to mollify world opinion?

Thumbing their noses regarding internal Afghan matters is one thing. Thumbing their noses at the US about 9/11 is something completely different.

Apparently, it wasn't; they refused to surrender someone inculpated in an atrocity to the country so victimized, as international law (as established at Nuremburg) had established.

QuoteJust a regional Arab nation. Egypt would do it at the drop of a hat, the UAE would probably want to help, Kuwait, etc. etc. This doesn't seem like a major point.

Except that those countries, as well, had not the resources nor the permission to reach across Iran.  You may wish to dismiss this objection; you haven't disarmed it.

QuoteI'm not saying the Taliban aren't bad. They're in favor of extremist theocratic rule over innocent people. What I'm saying is that the attacks on both al Qaeda and Taliban camps and the subsequent invasion had less to do with justice for 9/11 and more to do with a show of strength.

I'd like to make clear at this point that I'm not trying to tar you with the brush of "sympathizer", and I'd like everyone reading this exchange to be clear on that point.  

My argument is simply that it takes two to tango, and that the Taliban as much as the Bush Administration mishandled this.  The Bush Admin should have been less bellicose, and more internationalist, even if emotional or political satisfaction might be somewhat delayed.  However, once they put forth that the surrender of bin Laden, KSM, and others was the desiderata, the Taliban could have undermined any American [domestic, politically driven] justification for attack.  Had America had bin Laden in the dock, there would have been no international support whatever for any military action.

I personally felt at the time, and do so feel today, that the original invasion was justified.  I also think that after it was clear that we missed him at Tora Bora, we should have withdrawn; to our discredit, considerations of prestige entered into the equation at that point.

It seems we're interpreting the same information differently. I'm not above agreeing to disagree.

Heh, I thought that's what we were doing.  

Quote from: "Reginus"Also, if I remember correctly, wikileaks withheld some 15,000 articles to preserve privacy (of soldiers, I think, but maybe informants as well.)

According to this article (http://www.counterpunch.org/forte08112010.html), yes. Its author, Anthropology Professor Forte, seems to see this similarly to Will:

QuoteThe endangering of Afghan civilians cannot, clearly, be a point on which to prosecute a case against Wikileaks, because the irony would be too immense for even the U.S. to try to keep inflated and aloft. The safety of troops is not much less ironicâ€"after all, it was the state that placed those troops in harm’s way, not Wikileaksâ€"but it does play better with a home crowd that has been sufficiently conditioned to thirst for the blood of imagined “traitors.”...
 It would be amazing if the U.S. or an ally ever got to try a case against Wikileaks on the grounds that troops’ lives had been endangered. It would be a massive fiasco. The state would need to showâ€"and not just assert, as it does nowâ€"exactly how any troops were actually endangered. Which of the rounds received from small arms fire in Afghanistan is a regular “insurgent” round and which one is a Wikileaks’ inspired round? In a war zone, how do you calibrate safety levels such that you can tell when, with Wikileaks, the danger meter went deeper into the red? And since Afghan civilians are already, all too painfully, aware of the damage done by U.S. and NATO forces, how can the release of these records do any greater damage? Did Afghans need a reminder, in print, in another language?

Yet also says:

Quote“If there are innocent Afghans being revealed, which was our concern, which was why we kept back 15,000 files, then of course we take that seriously.” The problem is that many such identities are revealed in the files that have already been released. Assange argues that the U.S. military is ultimately to blame for having placed Afghan civilians in danger, and for recording identities that could be revealed. He is not wrong there, and the U.S. was overconfident that its database was beyond any danger of leakage, which is obviously wrong. Perhaps not wanting to engage in cold, bitter irony, Assange did not choose to give back to the state the words it often gives us: “Mistakes were made. We regret all loss of innocent civilian life. Unfortunately, the enemy chose to embed itself in the civilian population.” Wikileaks, via Twitter, was correct in noting that not once since the recent leaks exploded into public has the Pentagon said it was sorry about all the Afghan civilians it killed, or that it would stop.

And, just because I like picking on FOX, I'll quote this too:

QuoteFox News was eager to dedicate its time and energies to looking for legal loopholes by which to hang Wikileaks. It demonstrated no such concern for the finer points of international law, let alone another country’s domestic laws, when it came to the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, here is Fox on Wikileaks’ trail in Sweden. On August 6th Fox was happy to have surfaced with this report: “But the law [protecting freedom of expression and the anonymity of sources] only applies to websites or publications that possess a special publishing license granting them constitutional protection, and WikiLeaks has not acquired the requisite paperwork.” Fox’s headline was “WikiLeaks Website Not Protected by Swedish Law, Legal Analysts Say”â€"no legal analyst was named or quoted in the article. The only reason Fox issued this piece is as part of an effort, combining old media, social media, and the national security state, to draw a tighter noose around Wikileaks’ collective neck. At a time when many “patriotic Americans” are publicly calling for Wikileaks’ people to be hunted down and shot, it is interesting to note that Fox is only too happy to reveal the name, location, and photograph of the person hosting Wikileaks’ server in Sweden.

The hypocrisy is amazing. Truly it is. I've talked with a man now, at least on two recent occasions, who in all seriousness says he believes the young man in the military who gave WikiLeaks some of these documents should be "shot". (Why specifically "shot", I don't know).

WikiLeaks is starting to really earn my trust since they have now given the US government the ability to redact sensitive information (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/08/20/wikileaks-lawyer-says-pentagon-has-been-given-codes-granting-access-to-unpublished-secret-documents.html).

Not sure if this has been said yet, but for the next batch of 15,000 documents, wikileaks is editing the names.  Article here (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115175-provoked-wikileaks-strikes-at-dod-on-twitter)

Ah, I found the article I was looking for regarding the Taliban offering to hand over OBL to the US:

QuoteAfter a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.

After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.

The offer yesterday from Haji Abdul Kabir, the Taliban's deputy prime minister, to surrender Mr bin Laden if America would halt its bombing and provide evidence against the Saudi-born dissident was not new but it suggested the Taliban are increasingly weary of the air strikes, which have crippled much of their military and communications assets.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 31436.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html)

The offer came after the bombing started, but demonstrates my point that the Taliban were willing to turn over OBL.

Thanks for your following up, Will.  I didn't recollect that, and I stand corrected.

Thumpalumpacus, you have the objectivity of a Vulcan. I'm impressed.  

heh, you're too kind.  

A man who can't admit when he's wrong ain't much of a man in my book.

Thumpy, as a lurker I shall add my praise too.  

Few to no qualities I admire more.

WL being a hero or troublemaker depends on the perspective. When people who can't handle information properly or can use it for their own dark agenda get it, the outcome is usually not too good. When people who don't really care get the same information, nothing changes. And others may react in some way that brings something positive about.

Personally, I wouldn't trust potentially sensitive information to general public. Too many idiots among those... At least one can usually control the idiots within the organization that sits on the sensitive data. Can't control much once it's out there.

Will the US government censor Wikileaks with SDN (http://www.thecubablog.com/uncategorized/staff/the-us-has-a-way-to-shut-down-wikileaks-the-infamous-sdn-list/)? I hope not.

QuoteYou may not know what the SDN list (Specially Designated Nationals) is but we´ll explain. It’s the US version of Iran and Chinas state censorship machine.

Is this story at all related to Wikileaks? It hadn't mentioned it:

Quote from: "Slate"U.S. Soldiers Accused of Killing Afghan Civilians for Sport
The documents with the charges against soldiers accused of randomly killing Afghan civilians for fun contain "some of the grisliest allegations against American soldiers since the U.S. invasion in 2001," writes the Washington Post's Craig Whitlock. Besides killing three civilians for no apparent reason, members of a platoon from the Fifth Stryker Combat Brigade, Second infantry Division have also "been charged with dismembering and photographing corpses, as well as hoarding a skull and other human bones." Five sodiers are accused of planning and executing three murders in Kandahar province while seven others have been charged with related crimes, including trying to block the investigation and assaulting a whistleblower. Now questions are being raised about whether the military willfully turned a blind eye toward suspicious behavior. The father of one of the soldiers tried to warn officials after his son told him what was going on, but no one took him seriously.

That's awful!  D:

More news on Assange:

Quote from: "NY Times"Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.”

He is also being investigated in connection with accusations of rape and molestation involving two Swedish women. Mr. Assange has denied the allegations, saying the relations were consensual. But prosecutors in Sweden have yet to formally approve charges or dismiss the case eight weeks after the complaints against Mr. Assange were filed, damaging his quest for a secure base for himself and WikiLeaks. Though he characterizes the claims as “a smear campaign,” the scandal has compounded the pressures of his cloaked life.

When questioned about the rape allegations he walked out of a CNN interview.

[youtube:19tkupv3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_0-KUaQl7k[/youtube:19tkupv3]
Guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

assange is an attention-seeking demagogue who is divulging information which would outrage many simple-minded wishy-washy people.

It turns out the Pentagon has admitted that no intelligence sources have been compromised by wikileaks, meaning the argument about putting people in danger, according to the Pentagon, is no longer valid.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/22/ ... el_leak_in (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/22/wikileaks_prepares_largest_intel_leak_in)

Quote from: "Sophus"Will the US government censor Wikileaks with SDN (http://www.thecubablog.com/uncategorized/staff/the-us-has-a-way-to-shut-down-wikileaks-the-infamous-sdn-list/)? I hope not.

QuoteYou may not know what the SDN list (Specially Designated Nationals) is but we´ll explain. It’s the US version of Iran and Chinas state censorship machine.

Conspicuous by its absence from this article was any mention of the complicity of the registrars in shutting down those sites.

A new blizzard of leaked documents from WikiLeaks!  

They can't possibly be putting troops lives in danger this time around (can they?) so what shall the counter arguments come to now?

I hate to admit it but I seriously fear for Julian Assange's life right now.

Me, I think the secret keepers should have the right to preserve their secrecy.  

Doesn't matter if I know... doesn't matter if the old lady next door knows... But who can tell what someone can do, who is willing to use such leaks for gains of their own..?

Quote from: "Asmodean"Me, I think the secret keepers should have the right to preserve their secrecy.  

Doesn't matter if I know... doesn't matter if the old lady next door knows... But who can tell what someone can do, who is willing to use such leaks for gains of their own..?

I think that depends on what the secrets are. But more to the point, if we are to call ourselves a Democracy shouldn't the voters be given transparency from their government?

This 'outrage' is severely misplaced in my opinion. It shouldn't be aimed at the whistleblowers but should be aimed at the government by the government. Most of this smacks of people being pissed off just because they've been shown to be the arrogant and bullish officials they so obviously are. Most governments are so concerned with hiding their own mistakes and agendas just to save face that when something like this comes out, their misgivings are always about 'national security' yadda yadda. It makes a mockery of this transparency they're so fond of. Anyway, many reasons for people to keep secrets is because they've done something wrong.

Hopefully Wikileaks will continue to make governments think twice before being such arrogant wankers.

Quote from: "Sophus"I think that depends on what the secrets are. But more to the point, if we are to call ourselves a Democracy shouldn't the voters be given transparency from their government?

To make the answer short, no. There are many shades of democracy - from near dictatorship to near anarchy.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Me, I think the secret keepers should have the right to preserve their secrecy.  

Doesn't matter if I know... doesn't matter if the old lady next door knows... But who can tell what someone can do, who is willing to use such leaks for gains of their own..?

I think that depends on what the secrets are. But more to the point, if we are to call ourselves a Democracy shouldn't the voters be given transparency from their government?

Diplomacy often requires discretion.  Governments are often unwilling to support something in public but will support the same thing privately: witness Saudi's discreet support of Israel in the late 90s as a regional counterweight to Iran.

There are times where stuff like this should be public.  Honestly, wikileaks appears no more nor less trustworthy than any government I've seen.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Me, I think the secret keepers should have the right to preserve their secrecy.  

Doesn't matter if I know... doesn't matter if the old lady next door knows... But who can tell what someone can do, who is willing to use such leaks for gains of their own..?

I think that depends on what the secrets are. But more to the point, if we are to call ourselves a Democracy shouldn't the voters be given transparency from their government?

Diplomacy often requires discretion.  Governments are often unwilling to support something in public but will support the same thing privately: witness Saudi's discreet support of Israel in the late 90s as a regional counterweight to Iran.

There are times where stuff like this should be public.  Honestly, wikileaks appears no more nor less trustworthy than any government I've seen.

I feel as though there are some cases in which you would be right, Thump. One major problem I see, however, with most critiques of WikiLeaks doing is that all arguments are constructed of these very vague hypothetical scenarios. I don't see much analysis of specific cases and instances where leaked information from WikiLeaks is dangerous. Perhaps this is because they bombard us with all this information at once. It may be more to their benefit if they released secrets one at a time so we can all together focus our attention on the issue at hand. For instance, why should Hillary Clinton's spying in international code violation (http://www.slate.com/id/2276190/) be excused?

This seems to be a tactic of the governments: to oversimplify the issue and focus on all of the scary yet unexplained possibilities of leaked classified information without focusing on what that information is.

I would seriously be in favor for signing a petition-like request of sorts asking that WikiLeaks release information in gradual small bits so we can actually digest it without the propaganda blowing everyone's circuits out. It would be much to their benefit.

Quote from: "Sophus"For instance, why should Hillary Clinton's spying in international code violation (http://www.slate.com/id/2276190/) be excused

Is this coming from the Hilary Clinton is the Antichrist people?
I would be happy if governments were held to higher standards, but I'd be very sceptical if it started with Hilary.  How about the instigators of the Iraq war?

QuoteAmong the targeted were Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and permanent security-council representatives from China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom

I'm sure those countries are squeaky clean, it's a shame I wore out my Rainbow Warrior tee-shirt years ago.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Is this coming from the Hilary Clinton is the Antichrist people?
I would be happy if governments were to higher standards, but I'd be very sceptical if it started with Hilary.  How about the instigators of the Iraq war?

To the best of my knowledge, no. Slate is a very liberal magazine. It was also mentioned in that article:

QuoteTo be fair to Clinton, she isn't the first secretary of state to issue cables telling U.S. foreign service officers to spy on other diplomats. According to the leaked diplomatic cables, Condoleezza Rice likewise instructed State Department diplomats to collect such intelligence, and I wouldn't be surprised if previous secretaries of state encouraged if not instructed their diplomats to push information-collection all the way to intelligence-gathering.

QuoteAmong the targeted were Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and permanent security-council representatives from China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom
I'm sure those countries are squeaky clean, it's a shame I wore out my Rainbow Warrior tee-shirt years ago.

Does it take a WikiLeaks for everyone to suddenly try to justify the corruption from within one's own government? WikiLeaks does not discriminate and would as soon as publish any dirty secrets of these countries as well. Either way Hilary needs to be explaining her "justification" for this spying instead of trying to direct our attention on how awful these leaks are.

WikiLeaks' next target is big business. Banks more specifically. I don't imagine there will be any outcry against this leaking of information. If there's anything that will get people's interest it's money, right?

If anything, these leaked cables have made some astonishing reading. Who'd have thought China wanted a united Korea?

I hope we get to see the financial institutions responsible for the collapse finally held responsible by Wikileaks' next leak. 100,000 pages of internal Goldman memos would go a long way for helping to push for financial reform.

After thinking about this a little, I think wikileaks is being really stupid about this.  There are certainly some things that need to be aired in this mass of documents, but by dumping it all at once they not only surrender their power to influence events, but they sell out their source -- in this case, he's already in custody and has been since April -- but who is going to chance doing this again?  The Pentagon and the State Dept are revamping distro channels to make sure the flow of diplomatic documents does not get so low in the ranks again, which only reduces transparency.

Had WL instead leaked slowly, and spread the leaks out through various outlets, they'd have provided their source cover, confounded the "security" apparatus as to weaknesses, and maintained a channel of information that will now be shut off.  Someone wasn't thinking at all on the operational level.

No wonder they're moving on to banks.  They've killed their government goose.  Pity that they're so stupid as to announce it, though.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"After thinking about this a little, I think wikileaks is being really stupid about this.  There are certainly some things that need to be aired in this mass of documents, but by dumping it all at once they not only surrender their power to influence events, but they sell out their source -- in this case, he's already in custody and has been since April -- but who is going to chance doing this again?  The Pentagon and the State Dept are revamping distro channels to make sure the flow of diplomatic documents does not get so low in the ranks again, which only reduces transparency.

Had WL instead leaked slowly, and spread the leaks out through various outlets, they'd have provided their source cover, confounded the "security" apparatus as to weaknesses, and maintained a channel of information that will now be shut off.  Someone wasn't thinking at all on the operational level.

No wonder they're moving on to banks.  They've killed their government goose.  Pity that they're so stupid as to announce it, though.

Yes, I completely agree (although the bank information was, I believe, just a portion of previous documents they've received and had to sort through). It also forces the media to focus more on what WikiLeaks is doing instead of the individual scandals, which could be getting a lot more attention. Instead we hear the media talking about how "we are already know the government is corrupt. This flood of information oesn't prove anything new."  

So, Interpol are after him:

http://news.scotsman.com/world/WikiLeak ... 6646489.jp (http://news.scotsman.com/world/WikiLeaks-founder-placed-on-Interpol.6646489.jp)

Smear campaign or dirty bastard?

 

I'm no expert but judging from Julian's interviews about these allegations (http://www.anorak.co.uk/256861/media/julian-assange-loses-his-cool-to-rape-victim-anna-ardin-wilikleaks-is-scooped.html) he doesn't come across as being overly protective like someone guilty of these crimes might act. If I had to guess I'd say he's probably innocent. Then again I'm not really the best judge when it comes to these sorts of things.

Me, I don't lose any sleep over whether or not he should be thrown in jail for whatever reason. Russians and I, we are pretty much on the same page in regard to Assange, our response pretty much being "Oh.   " in regard to the leaks, and the rape thing... A matter for local police wherever that happened.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Russians and I, we are pretty much on the same page in regard to Assange, our response pretty much being "Oh.  

Do the Russians even pretend to hide what they are?
They don't go to much trouble to make the deaths of journalists look accidental.
Do they use a subtle poison on Yushchenko, no they make a scary example via dioxin.
It must take some practice to produce such spectacular results.
And there's always radioactive polonium for variety.
It's hard to create that Stalinist pall of fear and be secretive about it.

Does it seem like WikiLeaks is being criticized now more than ever? Staying online has certainly gotten harder for them. I wonder why this batch of leaks is causing them more trouble than the previous ones.

Assange said that among some of the material they've received, UFO's have been mentioned...

 

Quote from: "karadan"Assange said that among some of the material they've received, UFO's have been mentioned...

 

Well, technically UFO's aren't as exciting as science fiction makes them out to be.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "karadan"Assange said that among some of the material they've received, UFO's have been mentioned...

 

Well, technically UFO's aren't as exciting as science fiction makes them out to be.

Haha, unless they have actual aliens driving them :p

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Do the Russians even pretend to hide what they are?

Of course. Every nation I know of tends to. It's just that they show a lot of things most other governments would try to hide.

QuoteThey don't go to much trouble to make the deaths of journalists look accidental.

Why would they..? Internal affairs, so they can pretty much do what they want. They also have oil and gas, which means Europe will pretty much let them carry on with no more than mutters of displeasure. They ALSO have enough nukes and will to use them to get rid of the Earth, the Moon and probably a couple of asteroids while at it, so no sane government would want to attack them.

QuoteDo they use a subtle poison on Yushchenko, no they make a scary example via dioxin.

What can I say... They has STYLE  :D

QuoteIt's hard to create that Stalinist pall of fear and be secretive about it.

Especially when you don't need to be secretive.

Here we go! Christopher Hitchens and I don't usually see political issues eye to eye. Here's his weekly Slate column titled Turn Yourself In, Julian Assange: The WikiLeaks founder is an unscrupulous megalomaniac with a political agenda (http://www.slate.com/id/2276857/). I have to say, the more I read of Hitchens the more I notice how fond of ad hominem's he is. So what if Assange is egotistical? Some of the greatest most talented people are, and historically have been. So what if he has strong political beliefs on the war? Does Hitchens not?

The rape accusations are looking weak.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101118/wl ... 1118185047 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101118/wl_afp/swedencrimeinternetwikileaksrapelondon_20101118185047)

Quote"Both the prosecutor and the defence agree that it was an incident of consensual sex where the condom broke. They are saying that amounts to rape, we are saying it doesn't," he added.

Voltaire might have said - if there were no criminal charges against Assange, it would be necessary to invent some.  

I think the sex charges are BS, just an anchor charge to hold him in place while the offended governments put together a case (whether true or false, I cannot say) about the leaked documents.  Assange apparently never heard the Japanese proverb: The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

Haven't kept up on Assange, and if it weren't for all this, I probably never would have. But one thing is for sure, and that is a whole lot of people are really after his ass. He probably should turn himself in, just to try and keep from being killed by somebody. More than a few people want him dead, and eventually, someone is going to get to him.

Right or wrong, good guy or bad guy, or shades of everything in between, he absolutely invited trouble into his life with all this, so he doesn't have anyone else to blame for his troubles.

Quote from: "McQ"He probably should turn himself in, just to try and keep from being killed by somebody. More than a few people want him dead, and eventually, someone is going to get to him.

He already has surrendered to authorities.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 087467.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/08/3087467.htm)

I don't get the talk of treason that come out of the USA, he isn't American, how can he betray them?
And if someone does get him Assange becomes a martyr.
Much of what he has released seems trivial or unhelpful, but after the devious justification for starting the Gulf war, something like Wiki Leaks has it's place.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "McQ"He probably should turn himself in, just to try and keep from being killed by somebody. More than a few people want him dead, and eventually, someone is going to get to him.

He already has surrendered to authorities.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 087467.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/08/3087467.htm)

I don't get the talk of treason that come out of the USA, he isn't American, how can he betray them?
And if someone does get him Assange becomes a martyr.
Much of what he has released seems trivial or unhelpful, but after the devious justification for starting the Gulf war, something like Wiki Leaks has it's place.

See? Told you I wasn't up to speed on this guy!

I didn't know people in the U.S. were calling him treasonous either. Seems odd, for the same reason you mentioned. I had never heard of Wikileaks before the first big release of information they did.

I still don't know what I think about Assange, or Wikileaks. It's hard to come to any decent opinion with so little information (meaning I don't have much info, I'm sure lots of other people do). I just know a lot of people are gunning for him, but most of them seem to be reactionaries.

It seems to me he could be, at most, prosecuted for receiving stolen property.

Sarah Palin was earlier calling for him to be pursued (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/does-palin-want-to-whack-assange.html) "like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

Given that we pursue them with Predator drones firing Hellfire missiles, it makes me wonder if she knows how we chase them.  Or if she wants him taken out.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It seems to me he could be, at most, prosecuted for receiving stolen property.

Sarah Palin was earlier calling for him to be pursued (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/does-palin-want-to-whack-assange.html) "like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

Given that we pursue them with Predator drones firing Hellfire missiles, it makes me wonder if she knows how we chase them.  Or if she wants him taken out.

She'd probably like to hunt him like she hunts moose. Poor moose.

Bill O'Reilly and other FOX imbeciles have also called for his assassination for "treason". I wonder what these assholes will say if it really does happen. Bill can't pretend to have not provoked it like he did with Tiller since he was so blunt this time around.

He didn't fool anyone in the mess about Tiller, anyway.

Doesn't matter, though.  He will lie.  What else does he know how to do when cornered?  He certainly doesn't know how to man up.

Quote from: "McQ"He probably should turn himself in, just to try and keep from being killed by somebody. More than a few people want him dead, and eventually, someone is going to get to him.

Hmm... we should also remember David Kelly who blew the whistle on Blair and is now dead.  OK, if we accept that it was indeed suicide, he was hounded into doing it.

Here's what the Daily Mash (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/assange-to-escape-from-police-at-the-top-of-some-stairs-201012073327/) thinks.

http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/ (http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/)

Also, hiyas, OldGit, good to see another plankspanker here.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/

Also, hiyas, OldGit, good to see another plankspanker here.

Whoa, hold up a minute....

Quote from: "sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain"WikiLeaks has revealed how scientists manipulated global warming research data in order to make it seem more consequential.

Really? I thought this was a busted myth.

Quote from: "Sophus"Really? I thought this was a busted myth.

To the best of my knowledge, it is.

However, there are many sides with as many agendas involved, so it's... Complicated. Not so much about accuracy as political convenience now, it seems.

If I remember correctly, dendrochronological data that apparently (but not necessarily) countermanded MMGW was suppressed lest the general public latch onto it and start asking questions.

 So the claim that you're remembering -- or misremembering, I cannot say what you originally read, obviously -- is obviously false.  However, there is a difference between "making evidence more consequential" and omitting some data solely on the grounds that appears to contradict one's hypothesis.

While we're told that the contradictory data wasn't really contradictory, without a clear explanation its elision appears manipulatory, and I applaud Wikileaks for holding these scientists accountable, even if their error was in this case innocent.  Transparency in science is a good thing.  The dangers of its absence should be obvious.

I don't really know what is the path the conversation is taking since I just saw this topic and I don't really have time to read everything, but I will say this:

Wikileaks, in my opinion, should not be taken down.

Those documents that were leaked ( altough I did not read any of them ) revealed, mostly, things everyone knew, so they were not rally the troublemakers there.

The real trouble was for those implied in those files, because these documents were proofs. In our world, it doesn't matter how much the president might tell you about how is goind to kill everyone with poison in the water or if he's gonna cancel the teletubbies. You might tell that to every major media corps in the world, the concerned authorities will only say: PROOFS, PLEASE.

And this is why those concerned are so angry. Because these documents allow us to pin it down on them, which will reduce significantly the trust the people and the world gives them because they won't be able to say "they hate us because they are anti-americans" or whatever.

What he did was heroic, in my opinion. the ones to be blamed should be those exposed by those files.

Now, for Assange: First, it is pretty obvious the "rape" this was made up by some secret servies, probably the CIA.

And, to show how good he is and how he did not want anyone to be killed, here is a letter he wrote to the US embassy:

Ambassador Louis B. Susman
US Embassy
United Kingdom

26 November 2010

Dear Ambassador Susman,
I refer to recent public statements by United States overnment officials expressing concern about the possible publication by WikiLeaks and other media organisations of information allegedly derived from United States Government records. I understand that the United States Government has recently devoted substantial resources to examination of these records over many months.

Subject to the general objective of ensuring maximum disclosure of information in the public interest, WikiLeaks would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed.

WikiLeaks will respect the confidentiality of advice provided by the United States Government and is prepared to consider any such submissions made without delay.

Yours sincerely,
Julian Assange


He did not want to get anyone killed, he just wanted to expose the truth.

Lastly, here is a quote from agent Monica Reyes from the X-Files' last episode; The truth, which fits the situation perfectly in my opinion:

"What is the point of all of this? To destroy a man who seeks the truth or to destroy the truth so no man can seek it? Either way, you lose."

A rival to WikiLeaks, called OpenLeaks, will be launching soon. The only real difference between them will be that OpenLeaks will not post documents on their website for all to read. They will only be the middle man for passing info to other media sources.

Do you think this is a better approach than WikiLeaks? I think it may certainly be less controversial since nobody can claim about "sensitive" details being released.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It seems to me he could be, at most, prosecuted for receiving stolen property.

Sarah Palin was earlier calling for him to be pursued (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/does-palin-want-to-whack-assange.html) "like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

Given that we pursue them with Predator drones firing Hellfire missiles, it makes me wonder if she knows how we chase them.  Or if she wants him taken out.

If it's now open season on anyone who embarrasses the US, well then it's time for Sarah to find herself a good hiding place.

Quote from: "Sophus"A rival to WikiLeaks, called OpenLeaks, will be launching soon. The only real difference between them will be that OpenLeaks will not post documents on their website for all to read. They will only be the middle man for passing info to other media sources.

Do you think this is a better approach than WikiLeaks? I think it may certainly be less controversial since nobody can claim about "sensitive" details being released.

That's an interesting idea. The problem is that it's entirely reliant on media outlets to have the fortitude to publish things which could threaten or damage the status quo in government or business. I read Time Magazine's article on Julian Assange and it was full of lies, distortions, and half-truths. Apparently there were a lot of complaints, among them a scathing article by Glenn Greenwald (one of my favorite political analysts), and they offered a half-hearted correction. If Time Magazine is any indication, I'm worried most media outlets would be scared to death to publish something like a Texas company's direct involvement in male child prostitution in Afghanistan, which is one story from the recent wikileak.

I think Wikileaks and OpenLeaks should both operate independently and for the foreseeable future.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It seems to me he could be, at most, prosecuted for receiving stolen property.

Sarah Palin was earlier calling for him to be pursued (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/does-palin-want-to-whack-assange.html) "like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

Given that we pursue them with Predator drones firing Hellfire missiles, it makes me wonder if she knows how we chase them.  Or if she wants him taken out.

If it's now open season on anyone who embarrasses the US, well then it's time for Sarah to find herself a good hiding place.

If only she were wise enough to take your advice ....  

Also, like your Christmas decor.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Sophus"A rival to WikiLeaks, called OpenLeaks, will be launching soon. The only real difference between them will be that OpenLeaks will not post documents on their website for all to read. They will only be the middle man for passing info to other media sources.

Do you think this is a better approach than WikiLeaks? I think it may certainly be less controversial since nobody can claim about "sensitive" details being released.

That's an interesting idea. The problem is that it's entirely reliant on media outlets to have the fortitude to publish things which could threaten or damage the status quo in government or business. I read Time Magazine's article on Julian Assange and it was full of lies, distortions, and half-truths. Apparently there were a lot of complaints, among them a scathing article by Glenn Greenwald (one of my favorite political analysts), and they offered a half-hearted correction. If Time Magazine is any indication, I'm worried most media outlets would be scared to death to publish something like a Texas company's direct involvement in male child prostitution in Afghanistan, which is one story from the recent wikileak.

I think Wikileaks and OpenLeaks should both operate independently and for the foreseeable future.

I still think Wikileaks mishandled this and should've acted as an intermediary anyway.  Even if OpenLeaks only disseminates to the alternative press, that will get picked up online and snowball, and perhaps add a layer of protection to the sources.  

Now, I'm not addressing the judgment of what should be leaked and not.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Sophus"A rival to WikiLeaks, called OpenLeaks, will be launching soon. The only real difference between them will be that OpenLeaks will not post documents on their website for all to read. They will only be the middle man for passing info to other media sources.

Do you think this is a better approach than WikiLeaks? I think it may certainly be less controversial since nobody can claim about "sensitive" details being released.

That's an interesting idea. The problem is that it's entirely reliant on media outlets to have the fortitude to publish things which could threaten or damage the status quo in government or business. I read Time Magazine's article on Julian Assange and it was full of lies, distortions, and half-truths. Apparently there were a lot of complaints, among them a scathing article by Glenn Greenwald (one of my favorite political analysts), and they offered a half-hearted correction. If Time Magazine is any indication, I'm worried most media outlets would be scared to death to publish something like a Texas company's direct involvement in male child prostitution in Afghanistan, which is one story from the recent wikileak.

I think Wikileaks and OpenLeaks should both operate independently and for the foreseeable future.

I had to look that up. Yikes.

I remember Sam Harris referring to some reporting on Afghanistan's pedophile problem a few months back. I can't remember what news source it was but, you're right, it certainly wasn't anything like TIME, or the Guardian, etc. I suppose there certainly is an advantage to posting some material online. However, I don't know if that means they can't be more selectively about what does go on the internet. For instance, I'm not entirely sure sharing what diplomats say about other shady politicians behind their backs is of any real importance if no new information is revealed about these global affairs. Putting on a front can be very helpful to keeping the peace. That's my one complaint with WikiLeaks.

Quote from: "Sophus"Putting on a front can be very helpful to keeping the peace. That's my one complaint with WikiLeaks.

It seems most people nowadays prefer using a front to help keep the war.

I think another problem with anything like wikileaks is that it requires putting a lot of trust in one group...what if they create counterfeit documents?  I'm not saying that they do...just that the potential for abuse is there especially if slipped in with a lot of real documents to make people assume they are real too.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I still think Wikileaks mishandled this and should've acted as an intermediary anyway.  Even if OpenLeaks only disseminates to the alternative press, that will get picked up online and snowball, and perhaps add a layer of protection to the sources.  

Now, I'm not addressing the judgment of what should be leaked and not.

I probably would have handled it slightly differently, too, but I think the idea behind wikileaks is radical openness and in that goal they've succeeded tremendously. Their goal isn't so much getting the leaked information out. The true goal of wikileaks is for corrupt people to think twice before they hurt or take advantage of people because if someone finds out they could leak it and there will be consequences. If people can't be good on their own, and looking at government and the market they clearly can't pretty often, there could be significant consequences.

Quote from: "Whitney"I think another problem with anything like wikileaks is that it requires putting a lot of trust in one group...what if they create counterfeit documents?  I'm not saying that they do...just that the potential for abuse is there especially if slipped in with a lot of real documents to make people assume they are real too.

I also think that even though many of our trusted true journalistic sources may have been failing us lately, that there still needs to be some standard of journalistic integrity in any organization that deals in disseminating information like this. With Wikileaks, there simply is none. So I have an immediate issue with them right from the beginning and have to take what they do with a dose of salt. It is possible that they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the personal politics and beliefs of their leader, Mr. Assange. Possible. No accusation, but had to throw that out there too.

I want a truly open and free press, and one with some actual teeth as well as credibility, but my opinion is that wikileaks just doesn't fit the description. So I don't feel they need to be treated as journalists when confronting them on this stuff, as some supporters have said they should be treated. But neither should they be vilified as terrorists just because some people say so.

I know it's not WikiLeaks doing this but these hacks are stupid, petty and juvenile.

Bubble bubble toil and trouble, arise zombie thread, Julian is running for the senate. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-17/julian-assange-to-run-for-senate/3895958)

It is possible for non mainstream people to be elected to the Aus senate.  Twelve senators from each of six states but only half of the positions are contested at each election.  It's a preferential voting system so who knows, he may have a chance.