Julian Assange's Really Creepy Emails

[jbg]

Those who believe that we the people have the right to know what our government are doing at all times (like Dr Dre, for example) do not appreciate that total transparency could in many instances undermine the duties we the people expect our government to perform.

I think anyone with any brains knows why diplomatic communications don't belong spilled out onto the Internet.

[Moonlight Graham]

Why does he write his emails like he's a robot? Maybe he is a robot!

[guyser]

.

Edited December 20, 2010 by guyser

[dre]

WikiLeaks doesn't decide what to publish? Are you sure? This article has a WikiLeaks spokesman claiming that they asked NATO to review files prior to publication.

You guys are telling me that WikiLeaks has no responsibility for what gets published on their site, but here's "Daniel Schmitt" claiming that they asked NATO to help them go through the files before they were published so that Afghan civilians wouldn't be put in danger. Are you guys mistaken, or is "Daniel Schmitt" a big fat liar?

Do you have any definition for "whistleblowing"? Or do you feel that anytime anybody has private information that they wish to publish, it's "whistleblowing"?

If anything is whistleblowing as long as person divulging the information thinks people have a right to know, then "Elizabeth" from the opening post is just a whistleblower, no different from anybody who contributes to WikiLeaks.

But if you believe information needs to meet a higher standard to qualify as "whistleblowing", then let's talk about that.

To me, the term whistleblowing involves the exposure of wrongdoing. If somebody becomes aware of wrongdoing, I believe they have a moral right to make it known. Some of the controversial information published by WikiLeaks certainly qualifies as whistleblowing to me.

But not all of it.

For example, one morning I woke up and heard about a diplomatic rift between China and North Korea resulting from Chinese officials discussing what's going to happen when Kim Jong Il dies, the potential collapse of the North Korean regime, the possibility of unified Korea under democratic rule, and so-on.

I have a hard time rationalizing that as whistleblowing under any definition I'm familiar with. I'd consider that to be legitimate discussion by political officials who were probably doing exactly the job their government and their citizens employ them to do. I'm at a loss to see how the world was made a better place by that being leaked. I'm at a loss to see how leaking the names of Afghan civilians assisting NATO forces makes the world a better place.

I'm at a loss to understand how things like that further the cause of justice, or qualify as "whistleblowing" in the commonly understood usage of the term. Can you help me out with that?

-k

You guys are telling me that WikiLeaks has no responsibility for what gets published on their site, but here's "Daniel Schmitt" claiming that they asked NATO to help them go through the files before they were published so that Afghan civilians wouldn't be put in danger. Are you guys mistaken, or is "Daniel Schmitt" a big fat liar?

After information gets posted, they review it before they release it. BTW, as far as I know they dont publish the data on their site anymore. The last few leaks have gone to a select number of media organizations but the dumps have not been posted on wikileaks for the public. For the most part Media outlets have really decided which parts got released to the public.

To me, the term whistleblowing involves the exposure of wrongdoing. If somebody becomes aware of wrongdoing, I believe they have a moral right to make it known. Some of the controversial information published by WikiLeaks certainly qualifies as whistleblowing to me.

I guess you would have to ask the whistle blower for his reasoning. But wikileaks isnt the whistle blower. They are an information wholesaler. The whistleblower themself at this point has decided that they want to release the information and wikileaks is just one of thousands of outlets he could send it to. Once wikileaks gets the data they just need to decide if the public has an interest in it.

I'm at a loss to understand how things like that further the cause of justice, or qualify as "whistleblowing" in the commonly understood usage of the term. Can you help me out with that?

Its not their responsibility to "further the cause of justice". I think some of their dumps would qualify for this, and some wouldnt. At the end of the day its just information... it lets people know more about how their government operates. I see value in that, but clearly some people dont.

[Shady]

But wikileaks isnt the whistle blower. They are an information wholesaler.

That's like selling something you know is stolen, and then defending yourself by asserting that you weren't the one that stole it.

[dre]

I think that everybody except the most out-there libertarians and anarchists recognizes a necessity for government. Even those who are most prone to complain about "Big Gub'mint" recognize a need for public infrastructure, law enforcement, international diplomacy, and national defense, among others.

Those who believe that we the people have the right to know what our government are doing at all times (like Dr Dre, for example) do not appreciate that total transparency could in many instances undermine the duties we the people expect our government to perform.

-k

Where did I call for total transparency? I think theres areas where secrecy is required (temporary secrecy anyhow), i just think government massively abuses it, and that presents a security risk in itself. Wikileaks does NOTHING to remove the right of a government to classify information. This information got out because a government employee decided he was gonna leak a bunch of data... once that happened it was out of the bag whether wikileaks existed or not.

I would tighten the rules around secrecy but I woulnt eliminate it. But Iv been very clear about that, and Iv even posted about a few ideas to do it, so Im unclear why you would characterize me as being for "total transparency".

[dre]

That's like selling something you know is stolen, and then defending yourself by asserting that you weren't the one that stole it.

No unless the press is actively involved in the theft thats not their problem. Even if the government asserts legal ownership the press can publish under "fair use" with or without the owners consent. Which is of course why nobody is charging them with theft.

Wikileaks only has potential legal exposure in one way. They need to be extremely carefull what kind of communications they have with the leaker. If the whistle blower contacted wikileaks, and they said anything at all to encourage or council him to either post the data, or perhaps download more, than you can make a case for espionage.

[sharkman]

I think that everybody except the most out-there libertarians and anarchists recognizes a necessity for government. Even those who are most prone to complain about "Big Gub'mint" recognize a need for public infrastructure, law enforcement, international diplomacy, and national defense, among others.

Those who believe that we the people have the right to know what our government are doing at all times (like Dr Dre, for example) do not appreciate that total transparency could in many instances undermine the duties we the people expect our government to perform.

-k

Very true, and this is the issue that can't be answered by the wiki fans out there who are too busy sticking it to the man to realize that the man in this case is trying to serve them.

[dre]

Very true, and this is the issue that can't be answered by the wiki fans out there who are too busy sticking it to the man to realize that the man in this case is trying to serve them.

Yes it has been answered. Dozens of times. And that post is a complete strawman. I dont know ANYBODY thats called for total transparency. What Iv called for is LIMITED secrecy, and tighter rules on what should get disclosed and when.

Theres literally billions of documents that have been classified for many decades, and the government can basically decide to keep stuff secret on a completely arbitrary basis. You would need absolute trust in government to support that, and some people just arent that trusting.

Edited December 20, 2010 by dre

[eyeball]

I think that everybody except the most out-there libertarians and anarchists recognizes a necessity for government. Even those who are most prone to complain about "Big Gub'mint" recognize a need for public infrastructure, law enforcement, international diplomacy, and national defense, among others.

Those who believe that we the people have the right to know what our government are doing at all times (like Dr Dre, for example) do not appreciate that total transparency could in many instances undermine the duties we the people expect our government to perform.

-k

What you don't seem to appreciate is that when our government's or our allies torture, murder and terrorize people it puts all of us in harm's way, it creates the very thing we claim we're trying to prevent and it undermines everything we've ever said about why democracy, freedom and the rule of law are so important.

We're only as good as the worst allies we keep. When they kill and torture in the name of our coalition it's no different than us doing it.

Canada should know better than to align ourselves with governments like India or leaders like Karzai. Wikileaks is the only thing confirming Canadian's worst fears about what our government has been doing in our name. Until such time as we see a proper audit and verification process that our government's activities and communications can be screened with I'll have little choice or reason but to conclude those fears are justified. At this point I'd say our government and the gnomes who dance around with it, especially on the world's stage, are our own worst enemies.

I can certainly see the utility in living under an open honest governance. I sure hope I see one before I die just to know such a thing is even possible.

Edited December 20, 2010 by eyeball

[sharkman]

After finding out what Assange is being charged of I hope he does hard time. These emails also show him to be a stalker.

[eyeball]

These emails also show him to be a stalker.

Why hasn't he been charged with stalking if that's the case?

[M.Dancer]

Why hasn't he been charged with stalking if that's the case?

Depends where the activities took place and if the victim wished to pursue legal alternatives....most nations do not have stalking laws

[eyeball]

...most nations do not have stalking laws

Notice how that doesn't stop some nations from stalking Assange?

[jbg]

Notice how that doesn't stop some nations from stalking Assange?

I see Assange as a combatant.

The news media has the right, perhaps the obligation, to publish information that the know, even if the means by which it is obtained is extremely foul. Assange is in a different category.

The effect, if not the intent of Assange's actions are to nihilistically destroy the ability of diplomats and government officials to communicate in a candid and forthright manner. They are forced by the threat that their communications will be made public to sugar-coat their communications, and comply with poligical correctness. And this is the least drastic consequence.

The most drastic consequence will be to totally stifle efforts to resolve violent disputes by diplomacy rather than force. For example (and I plead guilty to headline skimming here rather than full reading), apparently there are undisclosed and constructive contacts between the Palestinians and Israeli authority. Anything that could bring this horrendous, multi-thousand year struggle to a beneficial conclusion would be welcome. Nothing would be better for the world than Palestinians becoming educated, hard and productive workers, arm in arm with their Israeli brethren.

All it takes is a creep like Assange to snuff that out.

Thus, Assange should be dealt with the way any traitor or scoundrel is dealt with.

[eyeball]

All it takes is a creep like Assange to snuff that out.

Thus, Assange should be dealt with the way any traitor or scoundrel is dealt with.

What about when a hero like Assange confirms that our governments are in fact aligned with torturers, murderers and terrorists?

Shouldn't he have high schools and holidays named after him for exposing the horrendous fraud our governments have perpetrated?

[jbg]

What about when a hero like Assange confirms that our governments are in fact aligned with torturers, murderers and terrorists?

Shouldn't he have high schools and holidays named after him for exposing the horrendous fraud our governments have perpetrated?

Sigh.

I guess you don't really want peace between the Israelis and Palestinians then. What a hypocrit.

[eyeball]

Sigh.

I guess you don't really want peace between the Israelis and Palestinians then. What a hypocrit.

Sure I do. Why on Earth should it be a secret that constructive talks are finally going on between these two?

Nothing would be better for the world than Israelis becoming humane, fair and just neighbours, arm in arm with their Palestinian brethren.

Hypocrite? Exactly where the hell do you get off calling me a hypocrite for wanting the same thing you do?

Sigh.

[dre]

I see Assange as a combatant.

The news media has the right, perhaps the obligation, to publish information that the know, even if the means by which it is obtained is extremely foul. Assange is in a different category.

The effect, if not the intent of Assange's actions are to nihilistically destroy the ability of diplomats and government officials to communicate in a candid and forthright manner. They are forced by the threat that their communications will be made public to sugar-coat their communications, and comply with poligical correctness. And this is the least drastic consequence.

The most drastic consequence will be to totally stifle efforts to resolve violent disputes by diplomacy rather than force. For example (and I plead guilty to headline skimming here rather than full reading), apparently there are undisclosed and constructive contacts between the Palestinians and Israeli authority. Anything that could bring this horrendous, multi-thousand year struggle to a beneficial conclusion would be welcome. Nothing would be better for the world than Palestinians becoming educated, hard and productive workers, arm in arm with their Israeli brethren.

All it takes is a creep like Assange to snuff that out.

Thus, Assange should be dealt with the way any traitor or scoundrel is dealt with.

This whole analysis is completely irrational and devoid of logic. This information got out because an insider was able to download it, and they decided to go public with it. Once that had happened the cat was out of the bag and the documents would have ended up in the press whether wikileaks and assange existed or not.

All it takes is a creep like Assange to snuff that out.

What in the ever loving fuck are you talking about? Assange didnt leak anything at all.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED... If governments want diplomacy to be secret they have to SECURE THE GOD DAMN DATA. Just like they had to BEFORE there every was a WIKILEAKS.

How can you people not get this through your thick skulls. Before Assange and WikiLeaks EVER ENTERED THE PICTURE, you already had a guy that had stolen sensitive data and decided to turn it over the public. He had literally thousands of choices at that point.

[bud]

Exactly. He's the champion of transparency, claiming there's nothin that needs to be a secret. Ironically, he didn't want the address of the house he's currently staying at to be made public. So not only is Assange a creepy stalker/rapist, he's also a giant hypocrite.

are you really this clueless or are you just playing one?

is assange releasing personal information about people who are trying to get laid or is he releasing information about what our governments / representatives are really doing behind closed doors?

how clueless do you have to be to try to equate two things that are completely different?

[bud]

I see Assange as a combatant.

The news media has the right, perhaps the obligation, to publish information that the know, even if the means by which it is obtained is extremely foul. Assange is in a different category.

The effect, if not the intent of Assange's actions are to nihilistically destroy the ability of diplomats and government officials to communicate in a candid and forthright manner. They are forced by the threat that their communications will be made public to sugar-coat their communications, and comply with poligical correctness. And this is the least drastic consequence.

The most drastic consequence will be to totally stifle efforts to resolve violent disputes by diplomacy rather than force. For example (and I plead guilty to headline skimming here rather than full reading), apparently there are undisclosed and constructive contacts between the Palestinians and Israeli authority. Anything that could bring this horrendous, multi-thousand year struggle to a beneficial conclusion would be welcome. Nothing would be better for the world than Palestinians becoming educated, hard and productive workers, arm in arm with their Israeli brethren.

All it takes is a creep like Assange to snuff that out.

Thus, Assange should be dealt with the way any traitor or scoundrel is dealt with.

hey, mr. radical leftist lawyer, for a lawyer, you sure have quite the contempt for the law.

[Oleg Bach]

Big deal - if Assange means well or not is not the issue - at least by devine accident a few rats have been pointed out that will not be trusted because they back stab - and people like Hilary Clinton who state - we do it all the time - does not make bad betraying behaviour acceptable..having said that - as for the "woman" and him "creeping them out" - to hell with that idea..Most woman - especially liberal EU types are so emotionally and sexually distrubed that the advance of a normal man would be weird to them...all the social engineering of this younger generation as made me feel TOTALLY CREEPED OUT BY ALL THE MUTANTS.

[jbg]

hey, mr. radical leftist lawyer, for a lawyer, you sure have quite the contempt for the law.

There is a huge difference between the rights of someone arrested, say, for a bank robbery and one who, on the front lines of a battle in the field is lobbing grenades at our soldiers. I consider Assange to be closer to the latter category.

[Oleg Bach]

There is a huge difference between the rights of someone arrested, say, for a bank robbery and one who, on the front lines of a battle in the field is lobbing grenades at our soldiers. I consider Assange to be closer to the latter category.

Have you seen Assange's mother..? You can tell she was a hot hippy chick in her youth - super liberal and full of foolish and aging idealism...she probably brought up Assange like a little girl..so he acts like a little girl when it comes to woman ..the hand that rocks the craddle as they say.

[dre]

There is a huge difference between the rights of someone arrested, say, for a bank robbery and one who, on the front lines of a battle in the field is lobbing grenades at our soldiers. I consider Assange to be closer to the latter category.

Well then youve utterly lost touch with reality. Its a shame.