Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Wikileaks dropping the dox redux
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michael



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10636

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:
so it's no longer US government property once it concerns international affairs?

i mean, i can't say i feel sorry for them, but it's rather strange to suggest that the US government is being unreasonable in treating the release of US government property and US government information as a matter concerning the US government


Guest got it right. I'm not denying it's a matter concerning the US government, I'm saying its an international affair where US law does not apply and their authoritarian tone is out of place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, if he comes into the US again, or into a country which agrees to extradite to the US for espionage charges, US laws would very much come into play. First wrinkle is, I believe the US reserves the right to execute spies, and most countries don't like to extradite to us if they think we might go ahead and kill the guy. The second is, from reading the various law blogs that are looking into these leaks, it's not at all clear which, if any, laws Wikileaks is breaking. Look at even the language of the letter from the State Department's legal advisor to Mr. Assange. Koh talks about the documents being illegally obtained, and urges Wikileaks not to further disseminate illegally obtained documents, but at no point claims that WL itself is in violation of any laws (only that it's hurting/endangering people, etc.). It is VERY unusual for an attorney, especially for the government, not to assert that actions are illegal if they are.

So... yeah. Work is interfering with my webbrowsing now, will be back later.
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5123
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While not taking away from the ideal of Wikileaks as a disinfectant nor downplaying the things in this recent disclosure (Though none of it is shocking -- and surely not "a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States" as Rep. King says -- it is interesting in a gossipy sort of way. And people have a right to know about the gossip of their government), I think it becomes appropriate to take a closer look at Mr. Assange. Wikileaks contacted various European outfits and offered them a complete and unfiltered look at the documents prior to the embargo being lifted on Sunday; they offered no US outlets that same privileged. The Wall Street Journal and CNN were allowed a partial look if they agreed to conditions beforehand and both outlets refused. The New York Times only got this information because the Guardian gave it to them. According to the Times (emphasis mine):

Quote:
WikiLeaks is not a “media partner” of The Times. We signed no agreement of any kind, with WikiLeaks or anyone else. In fact, in this case — our third round of articles based on documents obtained by WikiLeaks — we did not receive the documents from WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of the group, decided to withhold the material from us, apparently because he was offended by our reporting on his legal and organizational problems. The London newspaper, The Guardian, gave us a copy of the archive, because they considered it a continuation of our collaboration on earlier WikiLeaks disclosures. (The Guardian initially asked us not to reveal that they were our source, but the paper’s editor said on Sunday night that he was no longer concerned about anonymity.)

_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6277

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems entirely reasonable to me. Newspapers have a right to report as they see fit, Assange has the right to give "scoops" to those he views as giving him preferential treatment. You certainly can't say that Wikileaks is in the habit of "withholding" things, given that they dump mountains of raw data on an open server. His only power in the relationship is deciding which papers get to ring the dinner bell.

Given that there are many incredibly powerful organizations actively trying to discredit (and even prosecute) him, I hardly find it duplicitous that he acts in his own best interests vis a vis the media.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5123
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nathan wrote:
Seems entirely reasonable to me. Newspapers have a right to report as they see fit, Assange has the right to give "scoops" to those he views as giving him preferential treatment. You certainly can't say that Wikileaks is in the habit of "withholding" things, given that they dump mountains of raw data on an open server. His only power in the relationship is deciding which papers get to ring the dinner bell.

Given that there are many incredibly powerful organizations actively trying to discredit (and even prosecute) him, I hardly find it duplicitous that he acts in his own best interests vis a vis the media.


The mere fact that he gives preferential treatment to some is upsetting to me. You can not claim to be shining a light on darkness, while maintaining that you deserve to stay in the shade. The man has a clear agenda.

And he absolutely has the power to selectively reveal what has been given to him. We have no idea if he has or has not done so already.


This is all separate from the desire of a small portion of the US government to prosecute him.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because I love a good conspiracy theory (NOT something like 9/11 being an inside job - I said a good conspiracy theory): http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/beyond_manning.php#more?ref=fpblg

Quote:
I'm really not sure what to make of it. But I'm extremely intrigued by this series of comments by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski on the NewsHour. I'm cutting out some cross-talk and comments by the other guest Stephen Hadley (who held the same position under President Bush) to focus on Brzezinski's comments ...

Quote:
The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia on this issue -- Wiki -- Wiki -- WikiLeaks on this issue? They're getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, what are you referring to?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, for example, there are references to a report by our officials that some Chinese leaders favor a reunified Korea under South Korea.

This is clearly designed to embarrass the Chinese and our relationship with them. The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home.

...
JUDY WOODRUFF: And what is it -- what are you worried about with regard to the knowledge that...

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It's not a question of worry. It's, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.

And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren't some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments.

For example, leaving aside the personal gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.


Hadley goes on to say that a simpler answer is that there's just some very damaging stuff in a quarter of a million documents. And I suspect he's right. But I'm also not ready to dismiss Brzezinski's speculation. It's one of the oldest trick in the intel book to seed bogus documents into a cache of authentic ones. And while the idea here would be that all are genuine, the same logic of concealment would apply.


I tend to think this is like that lout who passed on the hundreds of thousands of documents earlier - just some idiot who decided this would be a good idea, but I must say, it's a compelling theory nonetheless.
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3440
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:34 pm    Post subject: cracks me up every time Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6277

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mizike wrote:
The mere fact that he gives preferential treatment to some is upsetting to me. You can not claim to be shining a light on darkness, while maintaining that you deserve to stay in the shade. The man has a clear agenda.

And he absolutely has the power to selectively reveal what has been given to him. We have no idea if he has or has not done so already.

The man has been quite open about the fact that he has an agenda, and giving preferential treatment to one organization over another with regard to who gets the "hot tips" is not "maintaining that you deserve to stay in the shade." They still get access to the information - just like everyone else with an internet connection - they just don't get the financial benefit of an advanced release to paste all over the morning paper (though, of course, here they in fact did - thanks to another paper!). He's shining a light in the darkness, but he'd be stupid not to acknowledge that doing so may land him in jail, or worse, if he doesn't play his cards right.

His potential censoring of information is unrelated to his relationship with the newspapers. They get exactly what everyone else gets. This reduces to the simple question of whether we are better having the original, unredacted files, or instead having nothing at all. Anything else means that someone, somewhere, is making judgments about what should be released. I trust the unspoken motives of Julian Assange as much as I trust those of the US. Neither is perfect, but more public information in a democracy is very rarely a bad thing, and the US has a track record of keeping information under wraps for purely self-interested reasons. Until Assange establishes a similarly documented history, he is the safer bet.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5123
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think I disagree with you on any major points.

I see Wikileaks as a potentially huge, enormously beneficial entity; bu I still don't trust Assange. I don't think he should be prosecuted, but I don't trust him.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9182

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want him to start leaking the everloving shit out of corporations. Yes, american international policy has been murderously incompetent derpfail for a decade now. Oh, and SIPRnet and intellipedia have been wantonly accessible to completely inappropriate low-ranking servicemembers for such a long time now (I would not be surprised if Gally has offhandedly bragged about that by now) to the extent that this is super fucking obviously only a leak to the public, not to any country in the world that can rub two spies together.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr Gary



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 6212
Location: Some pub in England

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Liberal Democrats' two top strategists, Polly Mackenzie and Chris Saunders, now both working in government, planned to run a fierce anti-Cameron election campaign, describing him as "out of touch with real life". The death of Cameron's son Ivan forced them to drop the plan since it "eliminated these vulnerabilities".


What Mervyn King Said

I'm loving this whole shit storm. Nothing coming from it is worse than we could possibly imagine. Everything coming from wikileaks is excatly as funny as we could imagine.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interpol has issued a red notice for Assange. Since they review everything to make sure there's at least reasonable suspicion sufficient to make an arrest before issuing a red notice... apparently Interpol actually believes Sweden's allegations have some merit. He always looked, to me, more of the "trying to sell his body to other men" sort, where sex crimes are concerned, but I guess it takes all types? Or something?
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh snap, Putin!
Quote:
Mr. Putin said several American presidents had been elected through the electoral college system even though they did not win a majority of the popular vote, but that Russia does not press the point.

“When we are talking with our American friends and tell them there are systemic problems” with the electoral college system, “we hear from them, ‘Don’t interfere with our affairs, this is our tradition and it’s going to continue like that.’ We are not interfering.”

“But to our colleagues, I would also like to advise you not to interfere with the sovereign choice of the Russian people,” he said.


And here's Noam Chomski talking about - amongst other things - the leak
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5123
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Man, I love Noam Chomsky so friggin' much academically. But he's such a damned polemicist politically. I still love him, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that one man's profound hatred of democracy is another man's wariness of unchecked, fundamentalist populism.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Mr Gary



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 6212
Location: Some pub in England

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Am I just really late in hearing this:

Assange Wanted On Rape Charge

Because, y'know, even I might have heard something about this before today, y'know, if he was well known for being rapey and such. Smear?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 2 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group