Julian Assange's Really Creepy Emails

[Shady]

I cant find a single constructive motive for NOT revealing private cables.

Really? You you that big of an idiot? How about productive diplomacy? How about having countries like Yemen participate in rooting out terrorists? How about Abbas working against Hamas? Those things are all compromised because of Julian the rapist. I'm all for revealing illegal activity. Julian the rapist has revealed very little, if any at all.

How about the guy that ACTUALLY STOLE THE DATA, and the hundreds of media organizations that ACTUALLY PUBLISHED IT. Calling for their deaths too?

I'm not calling for anyone's death. I'm just agreeing with him.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Shady

[eyeball]

Really? You you that big of an idiot? How about productive diplomacy? How about having countries like Yemen participate in rooting out terrorists? How about Abbas working against Hamas? Those things are all compromised because of Julian the rapist. I'm all for revealing illegal activity. Julian the rapist has revealed very little, if any at all.

He's published evidence that our allies in the war on terror, are torturing, murdering and terrorizing people. These are what have compromised us, not Assange.

I'm not calling for anyone's death. I'm just agreeing with him.

We're torturing and killing people in total defiance of every law and principle we have ever rubbed our enemies faces in and you agree with the suggestion he should be killed for revealing this.

I'm all for revealing illegal activity.

You are full, to the brim, with shit.

[Shady]

He's published evidence that our allies in the war on terror, are torturing, murdering and terrorizing people.

Which evidence? And if that's the case, I'm fine with revealing it. But like I said, not everything needs to be revealed. And that's where Julian the rapist has been completely irresponsible. His mass dumps (very appropriate description), haven't been selective at all.

[jbg]

He's published evidence that our allies in the war on terror, are torturing, murdering and terrorizing people. These are what have compromised us, not Assange.

Maybe Marquis of Queensbury rules don't work too well in fighting terrorists. These are, after all, not nice people. Sana, Yemen, is not Edmonton, and Gaza is not Saskatoon.

[eyeball]

Which evidence?

US officials had evidence of widespread torture by Indian police and security forces and were secretly briefed by Red Cross staff about the systematic abuse of detainees in Kashmir, according to leaked diplomatic cables.

And if that's the case, I'm fine with revealing it.

Horseshit you are.

But like I said, not everything needs to be revealed.

Sorry but if the above is any example of the sort of things our leaders are trying to hide from public view then everything in fact does need to be revealed.

I mean, at this point there's little reason not to conclude every single thing any government says or does is suspect. I don't get it, this insight should be second nature to hard-boiled right-wingers like you, you've invested an entire lifetime espousing the notion that state governments are worse than useless at just about everything they do in just about every single case. What a coincidence that all of a sudden they're so infallible.

How do you explain that?

Edited December 22, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Maybe Marquis of Queensbury rules don't work too well in fighting terrorists. These are, after all, not nice people.

We're not very nice people either, once you get to really know us. Our methods are guaranteed to inspire more terrorists abroad, not to mention an increasingly secretive and authoritarian society in reaction at home.

Sana, Yemen, is not Edmonton, and Gaza is not Saskatoon.

Yeah, they're all located on a tiny little speck of dirt locally referred to as Earth. What's your point?

[Shady]

Sorry but if the above is any example of the sort of things our leaders are trying to hide from public view then everything in fact does need to be revealed.

So an example from India of possible torture is a stain on the west? Cuba does the same thing. Do they also stain the west? If so, what are we suppose to do about it? Is this all you have?

I don't get it

I don't get it that you still don't get it. It's not a hard concept. Some information shouldn't be released. Such as back channel diplomacy, and/or the names of people working in dangerous situations. But you continue to ignore that in order to defend Saint Julian the rapist.

What a coincidence that all of a sudden they're so infallible.

Who's said they're infallible. I've only said that certain information shouldn't have been released. Your strawmen are getting tiresome.

[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.

Banks like to rob also..it's cute how they collect about 20 million bucks a month in service charges - regarding the accounts of welfare parasites..Kind of like a money laundering operation where YOU the tax payer has to send a cut to the banks..via the washing machine that is the "social safety net". So who are the real crimminals here? Are they the people who sent thousands off to die looking for weapons of mass destruction that did not exist? Or is it big mouths like Assange who for lack of a hobby shows the paper work that proves some told lies that caused needless death and crippling ?

[guyser]

Really? You you that big of an idiot?

No , I dont believe so Shady TWB*.

How about productive diplomacy? How about having countries like Yemen participate in rooting out terrorists? How about Abbas working against Hamas? Those things are all compromised because of Julian the rapist. I'm all for revealing illegal activity. Julian the rapist has revealed very little, if any at all.

How about diplomacy? Shine the light Shady TWB*.

I'm not calling for anyone's death. I'm just agreeing with him.

yaeh ok....sure.STWB*

Edited December 22, 2010 by guyser

[eyeball]

So an example from India of possible torture is a stain on the west? Cuba does the same thing. Do they also stain the west? If so, what are we suppose to do about it? Is this all you have?

No there's lots more. The cable relating to this one example is official confirmation of what India has been doing in Kashmir for years and yes, these atrocities do stain any of us that are allied with India. What we are supposed to do is reject India as an ally, with disgust, not just roll our eye's at them.

I don't get it that you still don't get it. It's not a hard concept. Some information shouldn't be released. Such as back channel diplomacy, and/or the names of people working in dangerous situations. But you continue to ignore that in order to defend Saint Julian the rapist.

What is there to get? You don't seem to be the least bit concerned or worried about any fallout or repercussions from the revelations about India. If torture and murder at our side's hands is nothing to worry about then I fail to see how a few diplomats or officials disparaging one another while in their official capacity should get anyone's ginch in a knot.

I've only said that certain information shouldn't have been released.

Yeah, and I've got a pretty good idea what sort of info you'd keep secret.

[Shady]

No there's lots more. The cable relating to this one example is official confirmation

Actually it's nothing close to an official confirmation. It's an accusation. Do you even read your own links?

WikiLeaks cables: India accused of systematic use of torture in Kashmir

Since when is an accusation equal to confirmation?

[eyeball]

Since when is an accusation equal to confirmation?

Whenever you talk about Julian Assange.

[kimmy]

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.

Let's review:

And in this case we have ... apparently Julian Assange being the guy who decides whether there's a compelling need. And his decision is always "no", right?

No thats fundamentally wrong. Wikileaks is just an information clearing house. A media wholesale outlet. Its the WHISTLE BLOWERS that are uploading documents to wikileaks that are the guys making the decisions, and its regular news networks that actually decide what gets shown to the public. And if wikileaks wasnt there theres thousands of other outlets they could send the information to.

Julian Assanged didnt "decide" that some American soldier was going to leak hundreds of thousands of US goverment documents, anymore than YouTube decides what theyre users will upload.

Sorry, but if WikiLeaks reviews the information before they release it, then they're not like YouTube.

Clearly they could have decided not to publish the names of Afghan civilians, but went ahead anyway. Their spokesman says so himself.

-k

[kimmy]

Closer....?....as in hundreds of miles (if not thousands) away , in regular street clothes working a job without any grenades real or imagined?

An orange is closer to a walrus than Assange is to lobbing grenades.

But yeah..........close.

WikiLeaks published the names of Afghan civilians who have assisted coalition forces-- civilians who are now being assassinated according to Amnesty International.

Clearly, knowing that their identities won't be secret after-all will make people unwilling to assist coalition forces. Thanks to WikiLeaks, former informants are dead, and future informants are going to keep their mouths shut. Obviously this undermines the mission in Afghanistan. Far more than some mooks with grenades could.

-k

[dre]

Let's review:

Sorry, but if WikiLeaks reviews the information before they release it, then they're not like YouTube.

Clearly they could have decided not to publish the names of Afghan civilians, but went ahead anyway. Their spokesman says so himself.

-k

Sounds to me like they tried to get help redacting out those names, but the US government refused. Without that kind of assistance its hard to review hundreds of thousands of documents and redact the right stuff.

In any case if those names pose a big issue then maybe they should have properly secured the data? You can focus on the middle man/messenger all you want, but the bottom line is security had already failed at that point. Someone had stolen data and was determined to make it public. At that point they had literally thousands of choices as far as how to disseminate it.

Sorry, but if WikiLeaks reviews the information before they release it, then they're not like YouTube.

Thats a valid point. Youtube reviews information after its already been exposed, and wikileaks reviews it first and makes an attempt to get sensitive material redacted. Which is good because theres literally millions of web servers our there on the web that would have gladly hosted that data without any review at all. I dont remember the Newyork times asking the government if they wanted to redact out sensitive information in the pentagon papers do you? I also dont see the hundreds of news organizations who are running "cable gate" stories today doing this.

For some bizzare reason though theres no outrage directed at them... or at the guy that actually stole the data. Its all focused on the middle man. Go figure.

[dre]

WikiLeaks published the names of Afghan civilians who have assisted coalition forces-- civilians who are now being assassinated according to Amnesty International.

Clearly, knowing that their identities won't be secret after-all will make people unwilling to assist coalition forces. Thanks to WikiLeaks, former informants are dead, and future informants are going to keep their mouths shut. Obviously this undermines the mission in Afghanistan. Far more than some mooks with grenades could.

-k

Thanks to WikiLeaks, former informants are dead, and future informants are going to keep their mouths shut.

Thanks to wikileaks? How can you not see how silly that statement is? Why on earth would you blame a non profit information middleman instead of the US government that leaked this data in the first place, and then didnt bother to redact the names when given an opportunity?

Why blame wikileaks when it was only one of thousands of ways that guy could have posted the data?

I could open up an account at virtually any ISP around the world, and have that information posted and public within a few hours depending on how good my connection to the server was. How can this be lost on you? Once someone had decided to steal that data and make it public it was GAME OVER, whether wikileaks even existed or not.

[kimmy]

Sounds to me like they tried to get help redacting out those names, but the US government refused. Without that kind of assistance its hard to review hundreds of thousands of documents and redact the right stuff.

Send me a private message listing any items with sentimental value in your home. When I rob your pad, I'll be sure to leave the sentimental stuff, as long as it doesn't look valuable.

In any case if those names pose a big issue then maybe they should have properly secured the data?

And by the way, when I do rob you, it's your own fault for not having better locks.

Actually, I'll be helping you out by pointing out how lousy your home security is. Aren't I nice?

You can focus on the middle man/messenger all you want, but the bottom line is security had already failed at that point. Someone had stolen data and was determined to make it public. At that point they had literally thousands of choices as far as how to disseminate it.

That logic didn't work for Napster, or bit torrent sites, or for people who traffic in child pornography. It won't work for the pawn shop that gets caught selling the stuff I jack from your pad.

Thats a valid point. Youtube reviews information after its already been exposed, and wikileaks reviews it first and makes an attempt to get sensitive material redacted. Which is good because theres literally millions of web servers our there on the web that would have gladly hosted that data without any review at all.

If there's a comparison to be made between WikiLeaks and YouTube, this is it. If you make a crappy video of your dog falling on its head or whatever, and post it on your own website, who's going to see it? But if you post it on YouTube, you have a chance of finding an immense audience. Thousands of people will probably see your crappy video just by accident. YouTube provides a facility for distributing your crappy video that's completely unequaled by what you could accomplish on your own.

WikiLeaks has the ear of media. WikiLeaks has a credibility that some random site on the web would not have. Send your stuff to WikiLeaks and your identity is safe. Publish it on your own, and you're going to get caught.

The very existence of YouTube encourages people to create and upload crappy videos that they wouldn't have bothered to upload if YouTube didn't exist.

The very existence of WikiLeaks probably encourages people to obtain and upload documents that they probably wouldn't upload if a secure and credible means of publishing that information didn't exist.

I'm willing to agree that in some cases that's a good thing.

None of you are willing to admit that in some cases it has not been a good thing.

I dont remember the Newyork times asking the government if they wanted to redact out sensitive information in the pentagon papers do you? I also dont see the hundreds of news organizations who are running "cable gate" stories today doing this.

For some bizzare reason though theres no outrage directed at them... or at the guy that actually stole the data. Its all focused on the middle man. Go figure.

The source of the leaks, if found, will face outrage aplenty. The guy who leaked the Afghanistan documents would probably get court martialed for treason if he's caught.

-k

[GostHacked]

Thanks to wikileaks? How can you not see how silly that statement is? Why on earth would you blame a non profit information middleman instead of the US government that leaked this data in the first place, and then didnt bother to redact the names when given an opportunity?

I agree, the problem is with the US Gov/Mil who had the leak in the first place. But then again, would Manning have that kind of access to these documents? The amount of papers/pages is staggering. Was the info gathered all in one shot or was it over time?

Why blame wikileaks when it was only one of thousands of ways that guy could have posted the data?

Great point. If we find that wikileaks is no more in the near future, this will set the precedent for whistle blowers in the future.

I could open up an account at virtually any ISP around the world, and have that information posted and public within a few hours depending on how good my connection to the server was. How can this be lost on you? Once someone had decided to steal that data and make it public it was GAME OVER, whether wikileaks even existed or not.

The more things are connected (computer systems ect) the more this will happen and can happen easy.

[dre]

Send me a private message listing any items with sentimental value in your home. When I rob your pad, I'll be sure to leave the sentimental stuff, as long as it doesn't look valuable.

And by the way, when I do rob you, it's your own fault for not having better locks.

Actually, I'll be helping you out by pointing out how lousy your home security is. Aren't I nice?

That logic didn't work for Napster, or bit torrent sites, or for people who traffic in child pornography. It won't work for the pawn shop that gets caught selling the stuff I jack from your pad.

If there's a comparison to be made between WikiLeaks and YouTube, this is it. If you make a crappy video of your dog falling on its head or whatever, and post it on your own website, who's going to see it? But if you post it on YouTube, you have a chance of finding an immense audience. Thousands of people will probably see your crappy video just by accident. YouTube provides a facility for distributing your crappy video that's completely unequaled by what you could accomplish on your own.

WikiLeaks has the ear of media. WikiLeaks has a credibility that some random site on the web would not have. Send your stuff to WikiLeaks and your identity is safe. Publish it on your own, and you're going to get caught.

The very existence of YouTube encourages people to create and upload crappy videos that they wouldn't have bothered to upload if YouTube didn't exist.

The very existence of WikiLeaks probably encourages people to obtain and upload documents that they probably wouldn't upload if a secure and credible means of publishing that information didn't exist.

I'm willing to agree that in some cases that's a good thing.

None of you are willing to admit that in some cases it has not been a good thing.

The source of the leaks, if found, will face outrage aplenty. The guy who leaked the Afghanistan documents would probably get court martialed for treason if he's caught.

-k

Send me a private message listing any items with sentimental value in your home. When I rob your pad, I'll be sure to leave the sentimental stuff, as long as it doesn't look valuable.

Wikileaks didnt rob anybodies pad. A whistle blower posted the information. Your analogy has virtually nothign to do with this situation, and the press has no obligation to protect the privileged or confidential or proprietary nature of information. The press has been publishing leaked, and confidential, and proprietary information for decades.

You keep trying to use "theft" as an example but that just flat out doesnt apply here because the rules around proprietary information dont apply to the press. The 5th estate isnt like your average pawnshop that has to verify whether a stereo that gets brought into them is stolen or not. They publish leaked information all the time and always have.

If you are suggesting that we make the press legally responsible for upholding asserted privilege, confidentiality, or ownership over information you would literally be putting an end to free press and freedom of speech. In a society with such rules the government could stop the press from publishing virtually any information that was inconventient for them. And thats exactly what government tries to do.

When the pentagon papers were published the case went all the way to the supreme court with Nixons attorney general asserting that the executve privilege to keep documents secret superceded the 1st amendment. The court told him to go stuff it. The government can try to keep stuff secret but once something is out there, they have very little right to stop people from speaking about it.

And by the way, when I do rob you, it's your own fault for not having better locks.

Actually, I'll be helping you out by pointing out how lousy your home security is. Aren't I nice?

Again... wikileaks didnt rob anybody. That aside waiting until information is leaked, and then trying to suppress its dissemination by potentially thousands of media outlets is a shitty way to go about keeping secret information safe.

The very existence of WikiLeaks probably encourages people to obtain and upload documents that they probably wouldn't upload if a secure and credible means of publishing that information didn't exist.

I'm willing to agree that in some cases that's a good thing.

None of you are willing to admit that in some cases it has not been a good thing.

Look... you keep saying that but its just not true. Just like your claim that Im calling for "complete transarency". I said very clearly that I agree theres some information that should be kept secret. And I can EASILY see cases where the release of certain information would be a "bad thing". Thats why we give the government the ability to keep some stuff secret! And diplomats around the world, and also American citizens should be very concerned that their government is leaking millions of documents out of every orifice like a busted sieve. Its THEIR JOB to prevent this from happening, and they take billions of dollars from taxpayers to pay for it.

In fact... Id guess that hundreds of thousands of people have been damaged and many killed because of their names appearing in the press over the years. Certainly the free flow of information can be dangerous but in my opinion the alternative is 1000 times worse.

But if we made the media accountable for upholding asserted privilege, confidentiality, or propriety then WE HAVE NO FREE PRESS.

Edited December 22, 2010 by dre

[eyeball]

The source of the leaks, if found, will face outrage aplenty. The guy who leaked the Afghanistan documents would probably get court martialed for treason if he's caught.

-k

She/he could just as easily have a school named after them.

City of Berkeley debates naming Wikileaker a hero

No matter how this plays out I doubt the future will ever be the same. There is definitely a mood of defiance for authority that is building in people everywhere in light of revelations about what governments do when no one is looking. If the governments of the world go into bunker mode as a result the perception that it's them against us will only grow. This is definitely a clash within civilization that I relish engaging in. It's about time.

So how about the Indian government's crimes against human beings, or do you just shrug them off as easily as Shady and our government do too?

[dre]

She/he could just as easily have a school named after them.

City of Berkeley debates naming Wikileaker a hero

No matter how this plays out I doubt the future will ever be the same. There is definitely a mood of defiance for authority that is building in people everywhere in light of revelations about what governments do when no one is looking. If the governments of the world go into bunker mode as a result the perception that it's them against us will only grow. This is definitely a clash within civilization that I relish engaging in. It's about time.

So how about the Indian government's crimes against human beings, or do you just shrug them off as easily as Shady and our government do too?

They made a movie about Daniel Ellsberg as well.

Ellsberg secretly made several sets of photocopies of the classified documents to which he had access; these later became known as the Pentagon Papers. As an editor of the New York Times was to write much later, these documents "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance"

[guyser]

WikiLeaks published the names of Afghan civilians who have assisted coalition forces-- civilians who are now being assassinated according to Amnesty International.

You would never knowingly put info here without backup , however in a search of AI's website , including a Q&A about Wiki and Assange, I failed to see any mention of assissination resulting from Wikileaks info.

In fact this question would be ideal in telling us that occured.

"Is Amnesty International concerned about the potential for harm to individuals as a result of the leaked information?

Amnesty International has consistently called on Wikileaks to make every possible effort to ensure that individuals are not put at increased risk of violence or other human rights abuses as a result of, for instance, being identifiable as sources in the documents.

However, risks of this kind are not the same as the risk of public embarrassment or calls for accountability that public officials could face if documents expose their involvement in human rights abuses or other forms of misconduct.

Clearly, knowing that their identities won't be secret after-all will make people unwilling to assist coalition forces. Thanks to WikiLeaks, former informants are dead, and future informants are going to keep their mouths shut. Obviously this undermines the mission in Afghanistan. Far more than some mooks with grenades could.

All true K, but with all things, unintended consequencs can happen , even though efforts were made, yet not acted upon by those that could have vetted names.

I would think that efforts to safeguard that info should have been rathced up long ago. Instead lack security was in place.

Edited December 22, 2010 by guyser

[guyser]

Send me a private message listing any items with sentimental value in your home. When I rob your pad, I'll be sure to leave the sentimental stuff, as long as it doesn't look valuable.

Careful with the analogy.

1)Robbery is stealing under threat of violence ,not theft, which I suspect you meant.

2)You have no business in that home, the wiki leaker (US man) had authority to be where he is

None of you are willing to admit that in some cases it has not been a good thing.

-k

I think most here, including me, are willing to admit tha not only good will come of this. In some cases it wont be , but frankly I dont see the overwhelming harm that I would need to see to stop this.

[eyeball]

I think most here, including me, are willing to admit tha not only good will come of this. In some cases it wont be , but frankly I dont see the overwhelming harm that I would need to see to stop this.

Especially when so many of the governments in question routinely lecture us on the inevitability of collateral damage whenever they serve up omelettes.

[Shady]

You would never knowingly put info here without backup , however in a search of AI's website , including a Q&A about Wiki and Assange, I failed to see any mention of assissination resulting from Wikileaks info.

Kimmy's right. But why do you care? Remember, if a few people get killed, so be it.

Shine the light on all of it, if someone gets killed over it well.....so be it.

WikiLeaks has blood on it's hands. As does everyone of their apologists.