WikiLeaks Cables Disclosure

[KingsCrossing]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/28/wikileaks.documents.published/index.html?hpt=T2

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858990

This is going to be a shit storm and aside from the political and diplomatic insanity it will inevitably create, it once again brings up an important (and incredibly complex) question (in it's simplest form): should these documents have been released in order for the public to know what's going on behind closed doors or should they have been concealed so as to protect national security and the lives of others around the world? I'm pretty torn myself - this is one hell of a moral dilemma.

Some gems so far:

-- Conversations between Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and Petraeus about military action against al Qaeda militants in Yemen. A cable about their January meeting reports Saleh as saying: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours." At that point, according to a cable sent by the then-U.S. ambassador in Yemen, the deputy prime minister joked "that he had just 'lied' by telling Parliament" that Yemeni forces had carried out the strikes.

-- Negotiations with governments over the transfer of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. According to The New York Times, "Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President (Barack) Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in a group of detainees."

[domotime2]

oh? oh?

[Dustin Harkins]

This will be bad.
Understatement of the year.

[Ricketts]

I hate government secrets, I really do. I still wish we would assassinate this guy though. He seems like a fuckin creep.

[domotime2]

im excited.

[LostAllways]

This is going to be a shit storm and aside from the political and diplomatic insanity it will inevitably create, it once again brings up an important (and incredibly complex) question (in it's simplest form): should these documents have been released in order for the public to know what's going on behind closed doors or should they have been concealed so as to protect national security and the lives of others around the world? I'm pretty torn myself - this is one hell of a moral dilemma.

Uh, I don't see a dilemma here, to be honest. Of course the documents should be released for all to see. More lives are compromised with these leaks concealed in the long run. People need to know what the fuck is going on, not that 99% really care or anything.

[bNz719]

These documents should be released. Our government is corroding due to corruption and this will bring it to the public's attention. Things will get bad but, if justice works the way it should (and that's a huge if), for those who deserve it. Just because it is our government doesn't mean they instantly deserve our trust, loyalty, and respect. That kind of thinking is exactly why these 'leaders' have gotten away with so much thus far. The downside of releasing all this information is that it can and will be used as propaganda against the U.S. but as I said, government must be accountable for their actions.

In the long run though, this could be a huge moment in history where true transparency in government (albeit, forced) was achieved at such a massive level.

[Ricketts]

These documents should be released. Our government is corroding due to corruption and this will bring it to the public's attention. Things will get bad but, if justice works the way it should (and that's a huge if), for those who deserve it. Just because it is our government doesn't mean they instantly deserve our trust, loyalty, and respect. That kind of thinking is exactly why these 'leaders' have gotten away with so much thus far. The downside of releasing all this information is that it can and will be used as propaganda against the U.S. but as I said, government must be accountable for their actions.

In the long run though, this could be a huge moment in history where true transparency in government (albeit, forced) was achieved at such a massive level.

While I don't completely agree with you, this is an extremely well thought out and concise point. Bravo, good sir.

[timb89]

I hate government secrets, I really do. I still wish we would assassinate this guy though. He seems like a fuckin creep.

He is creating a precedent that if governments do wrong, then that wrong won't slip under the radar.

[Ricketts]

He is creating a precedent that if governments do wrong, then that wrong won't slip under the radar.

Oh no, I agree completely. Don't get me wrong. I'm just making a throwaway comment about how creepy the guy is.

[open mind]

He is creating a precedent that if governments do wrong, then that wrong won't slip under the radar.

b.s.
wrong can always be slipped under the radar, and always has been slipped under the radar as a response to a threat to government security, or a threat of infection to the wrong ideas. wrongs are always justified by those in power.....but those with the temerity to act like their in power are always punished mercilessly.

i like wikileaks and what it does to the current power structure....we'll never advance as a species if our governments (and those that control them) are constantly hidden and free from public debate and criticism.

[Mitch]

Sarah Palin's Twitter--

Inexplicable: I recently won in court to stop my book "America by Heart" from being leaked,but US Govt can't stop Wikileaks' treasonous act?

[caveBEAR]

Sarah Palin's Twitter--

Inexplicable: I recently won in court to stop my book "America by Heart" from being leaked,but US Govt can't stop Wikileaks' treasonous act?

Jesus fucking Christ...she does realize that even though the courts 'stopped' her book from being 'leaked', that I could go get it off the internet (you know, from a leak) right fucking now, right?

[Scrandon]

i like wikileaks and what it does to the current power structure....we'll never advance as a species if our governments (and those that control them) are constantly hidden and free from public debate and criticism.
i.e. not the state of the world before Wikileaks.

[JordanBuell]

Jesus fucking Christ...she does realize that even though the courts 'stopped' her book from being 'leaked', that I could go get it off the internet (you know, from a leak) right fucking now, right?

Sarah Palin 2012!!!

[open mind]

i.e. not the state of the world before Wikileaks.

not what i was saying.

anybody that furthers a more translucent government is better then the asshole who says it all has to be hidden for the sake of the people......and please stop being a dick or i will treat you in kind.

[Protested Hero]

The more leaks, the better. Not the public's fault the government made shitty decisions like a bunch of disabled toddlers.

[spiffa0]

My life doesn't change whether I know or not

[Alou]

I like WikiLeaks :)

[<*)))><]

I'm surprised that it took so long for this to leak.

[Scrandon]

not what i was saying.

anybody that furthers a more translucent government is better then the asshole who says it all has to be hidden for the sake of the people......and please stop being a dick or i will treat you in kind.
I'm not being a dick. I'm pointing out your hyperbolic rhetoric as what it is: bullshit. I don't care how you treat me.

[The Indigo]

I can't find this anywhere on demonoid.

[Simulcast]

-- Negotiations with governments over the transfer of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. According to The New York Times, "Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President (Barack) Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in a group of detainees."

Wow.

[saysmydoctor]

The Saudis don't like Iran? OH MY GOD, HOLD THE PRESSES.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Jesus fucking Christ...she does realize that even though the courts 'stopped' her book from being 'leaked', that I could go get it off the internet (you know, from a leak) right fucking now, right?

Of course she does't silly bear. The woman thinks she can see Russia from her house and that refudiate is a word.

[Simulcast]

Of course she does't silly bear. The woman thinks she can see Russia from her house and that refudiate is a word.

It is a word... (http://blog.oup.com/2010/11/refudiate-2/)

[caveBEAR]

It is a word... (http://blog.oup.com/2010/11/refudiate-2/)

Jesus fucking Christ. My little 6 year old cousin calls kitty cats, 'tittie tats', can we make that official, too?

[zion the lion]

Of course she does't silly bear. The woman thinks she can see Russia from her house and that refudiate is a word.

I get so tired of this. The Russia thing is a saying, I dont know how dumb you have to be to believe that she honestly meant it. It's like saying you're so close to someone that you can spit on them.

[Simulcast]

Jesus fucking Christ. My little 6 year old cousin calls kitty cats, 'tittie tats', can we make that official, too?

Meh, language is an ever evolving thing. Doesn't seem like something to get worked up about. Hell, I didn't know "normalcy" wasn't originally a word when Harding said it.

[Scrandon]

I get so tired of this. The Russia thing is a saying, I dont know how dumb you have to be to believe that she honestly meant it. It's like saying you're so close to someone that you can spit on them.
No, it's dumb that she claimed it to be foreign policy experience. Suddenly, everyone who goes to Mexico for spring break are a bunch of fucking diplomats.

[deFobbed14yrs]

It is a word... (http://blog.oup.com/2010/11/refudiate-2/)

Yes, after she said it.....I read that article too.

"Now, does that mean that “refudiate” has been added to the New Oxford American Dictionary? No it does not. Currently, there are no definite plans to include “refudiate” in the NOAD, the OED, or any of our other dictionaries. "

[deFobbed14yrs]

I get so tired of this. The Russia thing is a saying, I dont know how dumb you have to be to believe that she honestly meant it. It's like saying you're so close to someone that you can spit on them.

...I was just making fun of her, calm down.

And I think we all know in context, she used that as her Foreign Policy, so yes i will bring it up to call her a fucking idiot.

[Simulcast]

Yes, after she said it.....I read that article too.

"Now, does that mean that “refudiate” has been added to the New Oxford American Dictionary? No it does not. Currently, there are no definite plans to include “refudiate” in the NOAD, the OED, or any of our other dictionaries. "

Have a little faith. "Bromance" and "staycation" made it in there.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Have a little faith. "Bromance" and "staycation" made it in there.


.....:hitself:

[Simulcast]

.....:hitself:

I know, it kills me too.

[deFobbed14yrs]

I know, it kills me too.

If a word that Sarah Fucking Palin made up ever gets reputable, I'm burning Oxford Dictionary down.

[perceptrons]

If a word that Sarah Fucking Palin made up ever gets reputable, I'm burning Oxford Dictionary down.
I don't think people have started adopting it, have they?

[Simulcast]

I don't think people have started adopting it, have they?

Allow me to refudiate your thinking. They have.8-)

[caveBEAR]

I've created a new word, too. It's called 'shitfuck'. It's all I can hear in my brain, over and over and over again whenever Sarah Palin is mentioned.

[deFobbed14yrs]

I've created a new word, too. It's called 'shitfuck'. It's all I can hear in my brain, over and over and over again whenever Sarah Palin is mentioned.

Interesting, all I ever hear is "shutupcunt"

Tweet your word, it'll become legit.

[deFobbed14yrs]

I don't think people have started adopting it, have they?

No one intelligent Simulcast

[timb89]

b.s.
wrong can always be slipped under the radar, and always has been slipped under the radar as a response to a threat to government security, or a threat of infection to the wrong ideas. wrongs are always justified by those in power.....but those with the temerity to act like their in power are always punished mercilessly.

i like wikileaks and what it does to the current power structure....we'll never advance as a species if our governments (and those that control them) are constantly hidden and free from public debate and criticism.

sounds like you are agreeing with me? it's creating more accountabily for the current power structure.

[LoginBanned]

Someone needs to take this guy out, he's dangerous

[paper halo]

Someone needs to take this guy out, he's dangerous

Haha, wow.

[LoginBanned]

Haha, wow.

He's going to get a lot of people killed.

[paper halo]

He's going to get a lot of people killed.

:yawn: Explain why and how, providing evidence, as you're declaring this as fact.

[Takk...Ros]

Someone needs to take this guy out, he's dangerous
Orly?

[Takk...Ros]

:yawn: Explain why and how, providing evidence, as you're declaring this as fact.
I bet it's good. No one here will be able to refudiate it.

[LoginBanned]

:yawn: Explain why and how, providing evidence, as you're declaring this as fact.

Leaked confidential US military documents puts troops in danger, yes they're always in danger but giving a heads up to how and where to take them out doesn't help.

[bNz719]

... :hitself:
Please link me to where in these leaks they released information about troop locations.

[Buscemi Knows Best]

in all seriousness, this fuckhead may create another world war. burn in hell, wikileaks.

[paper halo]

So this thread is bringing the trolls, huh?

[Buscemi Knows Best]

He's going to get a lot of people killed.

yes, thank you.

and if anyone takes him out, he has lawyers ready to release the passwords protected files for everything to the whole world, inevitably causing war and chaos. what a fucking pile of shit.

[LoginBanned]

yes, thank you.

and if anyone takes him out, he has lawyers ready to release the passwords protected files for everything to the whole world, inevitably causing war and chaos. what a fucking pile of shit.

Yeah but I guess we're the whackos.

[LoginBanned]

... :hitself:
Please link me to where in these leaks they released information about troop locations.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/22/wikileaks.release.promise/

Strategies, troop location whatever is in these documents is going to put folks at risk.

[LoginBanned]

in all seriousness, this fuckhead may create another world war. burn in hell, wikileaks.

You're right, but all these spoiled smarmy kids don't understand that this is some serious shit and how much of a tinder box this whole situation is.

[caveBEAR]

yes, thank you.

and if anyone takes him out, he has lawyers ready to release the passwords protected files for everything to the whole world, inevitably causing war and chaos. what a fucking pile of shit.

:squint:

[JoeSledger]

Uh, I don't see a dilemma here, to be honest. Of course the documents should be released for all to see. More lives are compromised with these leaks concealed in the long run. People need to know what the fuck is going on, not that 99% really care or anything.

AGREED.

[JoeSledger]

I wanna see a dope ass political drama come out of this... i can George Clooney starring in it.

[paper halo]

:squint:

You're just another spoiled smarmy kid.

[MelissaMDaniels]

i'm fairly certain even with wikileaks, we still don't know everything. as TNR put it "secrets will still exist in the future."

[PTVsnewO]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for transparency in our government. However, these leaks have proved to be harmful and they will probably lead to strained relations with states. Most of what was in these leaks have no pertinence to the general population; they did not (and will not) affect us in any way whatsoever.

[Matt Chylak]

i don't know how to feel about this one.

[tonighttonight0]

I'm just sick of hearing about WikiLeaks every other week. The idea of the site itself just makes me angry. Even though I believe that we should have access to these things, it shouldn't be because of some asshat leaking them.

[EasySkankin]

All iraq/afghanistan operations that are reported already happened, so I don't see how they can be used against us. The only people who's lives are being compromised are the sources of these documents.

What actually would start a world war is our continuing negligence about the overwhelming evidence of our government and others lying to the public, violating civil rights, and perpetuating wars for business deals.

It's about time people start holding our officials accountable

[bNz719]

What actually would start a world war is our continuing negligence about the overwhelming evidence of our government and others lying to the public, violating civil rights, and perpetuating wars for business deals.

It's about time people start holding our officials accountable

:appl:

[ikikwe]

yes, thank you.

and if anyone takes him out, he has lawyers ready to release the passwords protected files for everything to the whole world, inevitably causing war and chaos. what a fucking pile of shit.

Yeah! Fuck him for letting us see what the United States government was hiding.

But seriously, justifying your misguided hate for the release of information by making up ridiculous scenarios is weak.

[EasySkankin]

I find it terrifying that the immediate response to something like this is "kill him"

[FormerClarity]

I bet even Wikileaks is holding onto some shit just so they can release it at a shitty time for governments. They aren't releasing this shit because we deserve to know, they are doing it because they can, And that is the wrong intention.

[caveBEAR]

I bet even Wikileaks is holding onto some shit just so they can release it at a shitty time for governments. They aren't releasing this shit because we deserve to know, they are doing it because they can, And that is the wrong intention.

You know this because you work closely with WikiLeaks, correct?

No? You're just making things up? Got it. :ok:

[Simulcast]

Meh, the guy is a coward.

[Nevuk]

You know this because you work closely with WikiLeaks, correct?

No? You're just making things up? Got it. :ok:
They do keep some stuff in reserve in case Assange is assassinated. There's some interview about it somewhere.

[EasySkankin]

Yeah on the site it'll tell you the ratio of how many documents released and how many total. There are hundreds of thousands yet to come. He plans to release stuff on a certain american bank pretty soon.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm just sick of hearing about WikiLeaks every other week. The idea of the site itself just makes me angry. Even though I believe that we should have access to these things, it shouldn't be because of some asshat leaking them.
Some "asshat" wouldn't need to leak them if the government was straightforward with the people it derives its power and legitimacy from. The government doesn't do this though, so this "asshat" filled the void.

Personally think he should be given the highest form of civilian commendation.

[Simulcast]

Some "asshat" wouldn't need to leak them if the government was straightforward with the people it derives its power and legitimacy from. The government doesn't do this though, so this "asshat" filled the void.

Personally think he should be given the highest form of civilian commendation.

For pursuing a politically motivated agenda? I don't think so.

Now, if he had the balls to attack a criminal state like Russia, or China, THEN maybe he would be worthy of some commendation. He won't though, because he knows he'll be poisoned with polonium days after he releases anything.

[saysmydoctor]

I guess it takes no balls whatsoever to attack the leader of the free world and the world's only superpower.

Also, I would consider the US a criminal state in some ways.

[Simulcast]

I guess it takes no balls whatsoever to attack the leader of the free world and the world's only superpower.

Also, I would consider the US a criminal state in some ways.

At least he'll get his Miranda rights read to him if we we're to attempt anything.

I'm not saying the U.S. is perfect. Far from it. From the looks of what's been released though, we could be doing a lot worse. What I am saying is that the guy took the safe bet. Again, had he tried this with Russia or China, states that probably have a bit more to hide, he'd be dead already.

[saysmydoctor]

You do realize this dude lives in hiding right?

[EasySkankin]

If you have read the news lately, you'd know that russia is actually reaching out to the U.S. recently. In the midst of the important START treaty negotiations, russia has denied a deal with iran selling them anti-aircraft defense systems, revealed by wikileaks (http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/02/09MOSCOW405.html).

Also, while it was generally assumed, wikileaks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8166662/WikiLeaks-China-has-been-hacking-online-files-since-2002.html) gives further evidence china has been employing hackers to seize american intel and attack american websites. Also, pressure is being put on china to stop the transfer of arms from iran to north korea through their country (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/128567). On top of this, it's been revealed that china is becoming more and more worried about the hostility of North Korea and their long-term goals of korean unification (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/210695)

He's claimed he has a lot more dirt on russia, yet to be released...

[Simulcast]

You do realize this dude lives in hiding right?

Yes.

[Mitch]

Mike Huckabee: "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45757.html#ixzz16oKvX9b)

[Simulcast]

Well yeah, that's obvious.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Mike Huckabee: "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45757.html#ixzz16oKvX9b)

Is he referring to Bradley Manning?

[FormerClarity]

You know this because you work closely with WikiLeaks, correct?

No? You're just making things up? Got it. :ok:


Wait so you work for wikileaks right? Conspiracies that involve 'the man' is fine but whenever it's some liberal institution ITS LIKE OMGGGG DONT LAI MANNNN

[loveisdead]

At least he'll get his Miranda rights read to him if we we're to attempt anything.

I'm not saying the U.S. is perfect. Far from it. From the looks of what's been released though, we could be doing a lot worse. What I am saying is that the guy took the safe bet. Again, had he tried this with Russia or China, states that probably have a bit more to hide, he'd be dead already.

Mike Huckabee: "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45757.html#ixzz16oKvX9b)

ha.

[Simulcast]

ha.


... I don't follow. That post was a joke.

[caveBEAR]

Wait so you work for wikileaks right? Conspiracies that involve 'the man' is fine but whenever it's some liberal institution ITS LIKE OMGGGG DONT LAI MANNNN

Ha ha ha, cute. I was referring to you seemingly knowing that Wikileaks is hiding Dr. Doom-style to wait to release these documents in some evil plan to cripple governments. They could be, sure, but neither of us know for for a fact, so to act like you have some insider information on them is ridiculous.

As well, I'd like for you to find a single "conspirac[y] that involv[es] 'the man'" that I believe in.

[saysmydoctor]

Wikileaks is not some liberal institution. It's some guy saying "fuck you" to the world's major superpowers.

[tonighttonight0]

Some "asshat" wouldn't need to leak them if the government was straightforward with the people it derives its power and legitimacy from. The government doesn't do this though, so this "asshat" filled the void.

Personally think he should be given the highest form of civilian commendation.
I absolutely agree that the government should be telling the people what goes on, but obviously that isn't going to happen. The fact is no government will ever do this, because if they let the people know everything that they did there would be riots in the streets. I wouldn't go and say he deserves to be rewarded for what he's doing, but I feel like he isn't doing this solely to make this information available. I feel that he's doing this just to spite the government.

[saysmydoctor]

Slippery slope. You have no idea or proof that there would be riots in the streets. There are no riots in the streets now. So, I mean, null point.

And I don't get that argument. He doesn't get anything out of spiting the government except grief from said government. He has contrived rape charges against him in Sweden, he lives a life in hiding never staying the same place for very long. If he is doing it for himself, I don't see what he gets out of it. Unless he likes the thrill. And based off the interviews I've seen, he doesn't come off as that type at all. So. Yeah.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

I feel rather mixed on the whole thing. It brings up some really important issues in terms of contact relating to aggressive action in Iraq and really all over the world. At the same time, it says a lot of things already known (however does illuminate a lot) and reveals pointless opinions on world leaders that I can imagine gets in the way more than helps. Both sides kinda of have their points to this. The wikileaks founded doesn't seem like the most objective guy either but calls for his execution is even worse.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't get these calls for Clinton to resign. Why? She didn't do anything different than any other previous secretary of state. These countries all know our diplomats basically acted as part of the US intelligence network. This is no secret. There's just a paper trail now. The moral outrage from some of these folks is hilarious.

[Simulcast]

I don't get these calls for Clinton to resign. Why? She didn't do anything different than any other previous secretary of state. These countries all know our diplomats basically acted as part of the US intelligence network. This is no secret. There's just a paper trail now. The moral outrage from some of these folks is hilarious.

Especially from Assange himself.

[saysmydoctor]

I like how what WikiLeaks did is illegal, but the US has no qualms about the denial of service attacks on their website. My guess is because the US is probably behind them. Though, a DoS attack seems like the low-lying fruit with everything at the US' disposal. Maybe I'm just being all conspiratorial.

[EasySkankin]

I love how defensive the established media is about this. They're just lapping up the government's rhetoric because these guys did what the media didn't have the balls to do. At least it's getting some airtime now

[Matt Chylak]

I love how defensive the established media is about this. They're just lapping up the government's rhetoric because these guys did what the media didn't have the balls to do. At least it's getting some airtime now

i like this post

[loveisdead]

... I don't follow. That post was a joke.

The joke made me laugh haha.

[yves.]

This situation wouldn't have happened if all governments were more up front about what they do. :shrug:

[kofiadrian]

Best take I have read about this whole scenario by far. (http://www.slate.com/id/2276312/)

[jaimage]

I love how defensive the established media is about this. They're just lapping up the government's rhetoric because these guys did what the media didn't have the balls to do. At least it's getting some airtime now

Quoted again for truth. It really to goes to show how far downhill our supposed "media" has gone as far as upholding their "journalistic integrity". It almost makes me literally l-o-l just typing the words "journalistic integrity".

[Simulcast]

Speaking of journalistic integrity, here's the New York Times:

“The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”–New York Times, on the Climategate emails, Nov. 20, 2009

“The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. . . . The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.”–New York Times, on the WikiLeaks documents, Nov. 29, 2010

[Jason Tate]

Speaking of journalistic integrity, here's the New York Times:
Eh, makes sense ... seeing as "Climategate" was not a story and were private conversations.

[Simulcast]

Eh, makes sense ... seeing as "Climategate" was not a story and were private conversations.

I would think the possibility of forged data concerning something considered important by many would be a story. :shrug:

Technically the cables were private, and not intended for public viewing. I don't know.

[Jason Tate]

I would think the possibility of forged data concerning something considered important by many would be a story. :shrug:

Technically the cables were private, and not intended for public viewing. I don't know.
And the "possibility" of unicorns raining from the sky would be a story? Nah. It actually has to have merit before it becomes a story. "Climategate" was nothing.

No, the cables were not between "private" citizens.

[Jason Tate]

WikiLeaks (http://www.wikileaks.org/) was briefly down this morning not only because of ongoing DDoS attacks (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/WikiLeaks-website-pummeled-by-apf-2762807500.html?x=0&.v=1), but because it was actually taken off Amazon Web Services by Amazon and moved back to a Swedish provider, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40455720) according to a statement (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/wikileaks_wire/wikileaks_wire.html#112) from Senator Joe Lieberman: “This morning Amazon informed my staff that it has ceased to host the Wikileaks website. I wish that Amazon had taken this action earlier based on Wikileaks’ previous publication of classified material. The company’s decision to cut off Wikileaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies Wikileaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. I call on any other company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them.
Wikileaks’ illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. No responsible company – whether American or foreign – should assist Wikileaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials. I will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with Wikileaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information.”
WikiLeaks has been in the news every single day since it released 251,287 U.S. diplomatic cables to major media organizations on Sunday. Yesterday founder Julian Assange was put on Interpol’s Wanted list (http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks-julian-assange/) for non-WikiLeaks related charges.

[jawstheme]

I like this Julian Assange more everyday. Assuming he isn't a rapist, of course.

[jawstheme]

I don't get these calls for Clinton to resign. Why? She didn't do anything different than any other previous secretary of state. These countries all know our diplomats basically acted as part of the US intelligence network. This is no secret. There's just a paper trail now. The moral outrage from some of these folks is hilarious.

I'm not sure if this is tied to clinton or not, but the fact that our government pressured Spain to cover up murder is pretty bad, and people should be outraged.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/1/us_pressured_spain_to_drop_case

[Jason Tate]

I'm not sure if this is tied to clinton or not, but the fact that our government pressured Spain to cover up murder is pretty bad, and people should be outraged.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/1/us_pressured_spain_to_drop_case
We should be outraged that Spain are pussies and caved in?

[jawstheme]

We should be outraged that Spain are pussies and caved in?

I don't know about us, but the people of Spain definitely should be.

[Jason Tate]

I don't know about us, but the people of Spain definitely should be.
They're always outraged at politics in Spain.

[jawstheme]

They're always outraged at politics in Spain.

Is this a bad thing?

[Jason Tate]

Is this a bad thing?
Ever been to Spain? Politics are a joke. Yes, it's a bad thing.

[FormerClarity]

Ha ha ha, cute. I was referring to you seemingly knowing that Wikileaks is hiding Dr. Doom-style to wait to release these documents in some evil plan to cripple governments. They could be, sure, but neither of us know for for a fact, so to act like you have some insider information on them is ridiculous.

As well, I'd like for you to find a single "conspirac[y] that involv[es] 'the man'" that I believe in.



I swear the guy who founded wikileaks looks like some pussy now. In hiding after releasing sensitive material....What the fuck did he expect? The governments to just get over it?

[Simulcast]

What do people think about the effects of this leak on Hillary's political ambitions?

[jawstheme]

Ever been to Spain? Politics are a joke. Yes, it's a bad thing.

I've never been there. It seems like politics are a bit of a joke here though too.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Mike Huckabee: "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45757.html#ixzz16oKvX9b)
lol @ fatty mike.

[Mitch]

I swear the guy who founded wikileaks looks like some pussy now. In hiding after releasing sensitive material....What the fuck did he expect? The governments to just get over it?

??

[caveBEAR]

I swear the guy who founded wikileaks looks like some pussy now. In hiding after releasing sensitive material....What the fuck did he expect? The governments to just get over it?

This, beyond being non-sensical, had absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted of mine.

Try again.

[Mitch]

Why do I get the feeling that something awful is going to happen to Assange soon?

[EasySkankin]

Why do I get the feeling that something awful is going to happen to Assange soon?
Because if he thought he had enemies with the various governments of the world he's in for a ride once the banks are exposed in the global limelight

[Zeran]

wikileaks wouldn't stop though even if he was caught and arrested, right?

[Simulcast]

I take back what I said before. The guy does have balls (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2028283,00.html).

Too bad he'll be dead soon.

[EasySkankin]

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/26095/?p1=A4
qwlATf9xse4&feature=player_embedded
Probably one of the coolest things i've ever seen

[FormerClarity]

This, beyond being non-sensical, had absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted of mine.

Try again.


It was intended to provoke your response. Pretty sure it worked :)

[caveBEAR]

It was intended to provoke your response. Pretty sure it worked :)

Seeing 'Quoted (1)' in the top corner provoked my response more than you did. It's a message board, getting a chubby when someone quotes you back is retarded.

[KingsCrossing]

Stolen from a FB status: in a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.

[LostAllways]

Stolen from a FB status: in a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.

So true.

[Lueda Alia]

While I don't disapprove of websites like this, they definitely make me nervous because of what could possibly happen between countries due to these leaked documents.

[LostAllways]

While I don't disapprove of websites like this, they definitely make me nervous because of what could possibly happen between countries due to these leaked documents.

It makes me more nervous when I have no idea at all what goes on between these countries. I'd much rather know, to be honest. Not a fan of the whole 'ignorance is bliss' thing.

[Lueda Alia]

It makes me more nervous when I have no idea at all what goes on between these countries. I'd much rather know, to be honest. Not a fan of the whole 'ignorance is bliss' thing.
I never said otherwise. However, this could jeopardize many relationships between various countries, which could escalate to conflicts that would put many lives at risk.

And just to point this out before anyone brings it up, yes, I do think it's important to know the truth about our governments and all the shady/inhumane things that they do. That does not change what I said above about being nervous, though.

[Simulcast]

While I don't disapprove of websites like this, they definitely make me nervous because of what could possibly happen between countries due to these leaked documents.

Agreed. There is definitely a factor of irresponsibility involved with both Manning and Assange's actions.

[saysmydoctor]

Nope, that falls on the governments.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Seeing 'Quoted (1)' in the top corner provoked my response more than you did. It's a message board, getting a chubby when someone quotes you back is retarded.

http://www.geekologie.com/2009/06/11/pew%20pew.gif

Did this get your attention?

[FormerClarity]

I bet it did, And harhar getting a chubby! Haven't heard that one in awhile.

[Scrandon]

I bet it did, And harhar getting a chubby! Haven't heard that one in awhile.
:appl:

[caveBEAR]

http://www.geekologie.com/2009/06/11/pew%20pew.gif

Did this get your attention?

Hahaha, actually, yeah. I just stared at that for like 5 minutes...

[sweetieoz22au]

Fair enough that Wikileaks exposes coverups of atrocities and the like, that is what freedom of information is all about. However, what is said behind closed doors between diplomats of various countries concerning national security discussions is NOT for public consumption. This whole leaked cable business is very irresponsible, and very dangerous.

[caveBEAR]

Fair enough that Wikileaks exposes coverups of atrocities and the like, that is what freedom of information is all about. However, what is said behind closed doors between diplomats of various countries concerning national security discussions is NOT for public consumption. This whole leaked cable business is very irresponsible, and very dangerous.

Why?

[Spartan789013]

Personally, I'm happy these documents got out and that the truth is out. I think its bullshit that we are being lied to. A patron of the country has the right to know what the government is doing.

[loveisdead]

Mitch McConnell is calling this guy a "high-tech terrorist."

Guess I have a different definition of terrorism.

[Simulcast]

Why?

I imagine that if discussions about the OSS between British and American officials were made public 64 years ago, the outcome of WW2 may have been very different.

[Jason Tate]

Personally, I'm happy these documents got out and that the truth is out. I think its bullshit that we are being lied to. A patron of the country has the right to know what the government is doing.

I don't want to know everything the government is doing.

[Jason Tate]

Stolen from a FB status: in a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.

Words like "free" get tossed around a whole lot by people not knowing what "free" and "truth" really mean. They really don't want the truth. Jack was right. We can't handle it.

I think people want the truth until they realize what it may mean.

[Lueda Alia]

I don't want to know everything the government is doing.
Agreed.

I'm not really sure why people think that it's a good idea to know about everything that the government is doing. I think if our governments were that transparent, it would put us at risk.

[Spartan789013]

I don't want to know everything the government is doing.

Agreed.

I'm not really sure why people think that it's a good idea to know about everything that the government is doing. I think if our governments were that transparent, it would put us at risk.

Ok good point, Maybe ALL is a bit strong.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Ignorance is bliss, that's my motto.

And besides, if government were transparent regarding extraterrestrial evidence, the alien conspiracy myths wouldn't be as interesting.

[LostAllways]

Words like "free" get tossed around a whole lot by people not knowing what "free" and "truth" really mean. They really don't want the truth. Jack was right. We can't handle it.

I think people want the truth until they realize what it may mean.

Agreed.

I'm not really sure why people think that it's a good idea to know about everything that the government is doing. I think if our governments were that transparent, it would put us at risk.

Ok good point, Maybe ALL is a bit strong.

Ignorance is bliss, that's my motto.

And besides, if government were transparent regarding extraterrestrial evidence, the alien conspiracy myths wouldn't be as interesting.

This isn't "everything that the government is doing." Not even close. All these leaks probably amount to hardly a percentile out of all of the secrets the worlds' governments keep hushed from the people. Wikileaks serves the purpose of telling people they shouldn't trust their governments and that's it. It isn't to cause some sort of rebellion or riot, but just to show people that investing all of their trust blindly into their governments is wrong. Question everything.

[Lueda Alia]

This isn't "everything that the government is doing." Not even close. All these leaks probably amount to hardly a percentile out of all of the secrets the worlds' governments keep hushed from the people. Wikileaks serves the purpose of telling people they shouldn't trust their governments and that's it. It isn't to cause some sort of rebellion or riot, but just to show people that investing all of their trust blindly into their governments is wrong. Question everything.
I don't blindly trust my government. That's not what this is about.

I find that post to be extremely naive because you are making assumptions that any hesitations regarding this are due to the fact that we like/would prefer to turn a blind eye to the wrongs that are happening. That couldn't be further from the truth.

[evanmaldonado]

So i'm still being introduced to this entire thing, but does WikiLeaks only have American cables, or are there other countries who have to worry about their private information being leaked too?

[sweetieoz22au]

So i'm still being introduced to this entire thing, but does WikiLeaks only have American cables, or are there other countries who have to worry about their private information being leaked too?

well thats just it isnt it. Wikileaks seems to just focus on being Anti American. There are alot of other countries they could focus on "exposing" if they wanted too. Why dont they expose the chinese goverments own atrocities to its own people? cause a civil uprising? Because if they were to target china and russia then Julain Assange would be dead within a few hours of posting the leaks.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

The idea that we ought to know everything that world leaders talk about behind closed doors is foolish to me. I'm not saying corruption shouldn't be exposed in some instances. But when it comes to what we should know, its not black and white to me.

That said, hearing elected officials and Fox News hosts calling for Assange's head is disconcerting to me.

[Matt Chylak]

So i'm still being introduced to this entire thing, but does WikiLeaks only have American cables, or are there other countries who have to worry about their private information being leaked too?

other countries as well

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I'll admit I didn't feel like checking if anyone had posted this but it's a great New Yorker piece (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian) about Assange and WikiLeaks

[sweetieoz22au]

Its only a matter of time for him though. Sadly, sooner or later someone is going to get that guy.

[Simulcast]

well thats just it isnt it. Wikileaks seems to just focus on being Anti American. There are alot of other countries they could focus on "exposing" if they wanted too. Why dont they expose the chinese goverments own atrocities to its own people? cause a civil uprising? Because if they were to target china and russia then Julain Assange would be dead within a few hours of posting the leaks.

I take back what I said before. The guy does have balls (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2028283,00.html).

Too bad he'll be dead soon.

Here you go.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

wikileaks (http://twitter.com/wikileaks) Sarah Palin says Julian should be hunted down like Osama bin Laden--so he should be safe for at least a decade.
24 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/11620256778821632) via web

[Lueda Alia]

wikileaks (http://twitter.com/wikileaks) Sarah Palin says Julian should be hunted down like Osama bin Laden--so he should be safe for at least a decade.
24 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/11620256778821632) via web
Just retweeted it. I found that funny.

[Simulcast]

Safe inside a cave with kidney failure, and in need of dialysis. Not a great way to live.

[Mitch]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

[Lueda Alia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766
What the hell?

If this is what I think it is, then I'm having a really hard time figuring out what the purpose of releasing these documents was.

[SlappedActor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

If this is true...wow.

[loveisdead]

Yikes.

[KingsCrossing]

Words like "free" get tossed around a whole lot by people not knowing what "free" and "truth" really mean. They really don't want the truth. Jack was right. We can't handle it.

I think people want the truth until they realize what it may mean.

I don't agree entirely with the status, I just thought it was an interesting quote and posted it to see what others here thought. I can agree with you on the last part of your comment though, especially in light of the most recent information revealed (see above).

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

That doesn't seem helpful to anyone...

[studskalny]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

Wtf? I really haven't been opposed to their previous leaks, but this is messed up. I don't see how this would help anything or be productive in any way. With the other leaks, the information was at least arguably useful to the public. This leak just gives the media and officials more ammo to degrade their agenda, while also losing them a lot of credibility. Sigh.

[Healthy Scratch]

Wtf? I really haven't been opposed to their previous leaks, but this is messed up. I don't see how this would help anything or be productive in any way. With the other leaks, the information was at least arguably useful to the public. This leak just gives the media and officials more ammo to degrade their agenda, while also losing them a lot of credibility. Sigh.
oh, it does a little more than that.

[Simulcast]

Nope, that falls on the governments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

Right.

[Matt Chylak]

i don't understand how that new leak fits into their mission

[Simulcast]

i don't understand how that new leak fits into their mission

Perhaps our understanding of their "mission" is flawed.

[Jason Tate]

Agreed.

I'm not really sure why people think that it's a good idea to know about everything that the government is doing. I think if our governments were that transparent, it would put us at risk.
Well, that and I am of the mindset that my government is going to do stuff I don't like. I know this already (tax money going to bombs, etc.). If this is a reality, then I don't want to know some of the other shit that goes on. I don't want to know how the sausage is made. There's a level of secrecy that's needed for things to run in business and government; as 100% of the population will never agree with the choices made (difficult ones). I just think ignorance is bliss in some of this shit.

[Jason Tate]

This isn't "everything that the government is doing." Not even close. All these leaks probably amount to hardly a percentile out of all of the secrets the worlds' governments keep hushed from the people. Wikileaks serves the purpose of telling people they shouldn't trust their governments and that's it. It isn't to cause some sort of rebellion or riot, but just to show people that investing all of their trust blindly into their governments is wrong. Question everything.
I find it more disturbing that anything needs to occur to "tell" people to not trust their government. That should be a default setting.

[Jason Tate]

The idea that we ought to know everything that world leaders talk about behind closed doors is foolish to me. I'm not saying corruption shouldn't be exposed in some instances. But when it comes to what we should know, its not black and white to me.

That said, hearing elected officials and Fox News hosts calling for Assange's head is disconcerting to me.
This.

Well said.

[Jason Tate]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766
Well, that's going to lose the PR battle really fucking fast.

[Mitch]

Pretty much.

[Mitch]

"The founder of WikiLeaks has warned that his supporters are primed to publish a 'deluge' of leaked government documents should his activities be curtailed by any country.
Julian Assange has distributed to fellow hackers an encrypted 'poison pill' of damaging secrets, thought to include details on BP and Guantanamo Bay.
He believes the file is his 'insurance' in case he is killed, arrested or the whistleblowing website is removed permanently from the internet.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335888/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-release-damaging-secrets-killed-arrested.html#ixzz17M3R4mwZ"

[EasySkankin]

it's not exclusive, it's available via torrent

[evanmaldonado]

Assange isn't making his site look like it's just providing transparency anymore to me. It seems like he's using the cables as a threat to a country's security now, mainly the US.

[EasySkankin]

“The latest release from the Embassy Cables reveals US embassies were asked to gather information on key infrastructure and resources without the knowledge of, or consultation with, their host governments.
“This further undermines claims made by the US government that its embassy officials do not play an intelligence gathering role.
“In terms of security issues, while this cable details the strategic importance of assets across the world, it does not give any information as to their exact locations, security measures, vulnerabilities or any similar factors – though it does reveal the US asked its diplomats to report back on these matters.
“This leaked cable was, like the rest of the Embassy Cables, available to 2.5 million people, including civilian, military and private sector personnel – a very wide distribution for information claimed to be of such high sensitivity, and relating to so many foreign governments”.
..

[Jason Tate]

"The founder of WikiLeaks has warned that his supporters are primed to publish a 'deluge' of leaked government documents should his activities be curtailed by any country.
Julian Assange has distributed to fellow hackers an encrypted 'poison pill' of damaging secrets, thought to include details on BP and Guantanamo Bay.
He believes the file is his 'insurance' in case he is killed, arrested or the whistleblowing website is removed permanently from the internet.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335888/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-release-damaging-secrets-killed-arrested.html#ixzz17M3R4mwZ"
This sounds like a bad movie. Seriously.

And what the fuck is this quote: "Palin, a narrow loser in the race to become the Republican presidential candidate in 2008"

Not so narrow.

...

Now this whole thing reeks of wanting fame and money. Otherwise you release everything now. The incremental leaking just screams for attention.

[sweepthenation]

I don't know how anyone can now support Wikileaks after they published the list of facilities worldwide which are essential to US security and livelihood.

[serenab1221]

I don't know how anyone can now support Wikileaks after they published the list of facilities worldwide which are essential to US security and livelihood.

Whoa, for real? Yeah, I don't support that at all.

If you could give me a link or something to this, it would be greatly appreciated.

[kyle is hk]

Yikes I was all for wikileaks, but "publishing key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security." eek.

[sweepthenation]

Whoa, for real? Yeah, I don't support that at all.

If you could give me a link or something to this, it would be greatly appreciated.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T1

[serenab1221]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T1

Well, damn. Thanks.

You know, I was cool with WikiLeaks at first as it uncovers the crazy shit that goes on that we should know about but gets covered up. This, though, is taking it way too far. Needs to be stopped.

[sweepthenation]

Well, damn. Thanks.

You know, I was cool with WikiLeaks at first as it uncovers the crazy shit that goes on that we should know about but gets covered up. This, though, is taking it way too far. Needs to be stopped.

I think it proves Assange cares more about embarassing/hurting the United States than he does about transparency.

[serenab1221]

I think it proves Assange cares more about embarassing/hurting the United States than he does about transparency.

Pretty much. I hope they're doing as much as they can to stop this.

[EasySkankin]

Hahaha so all of a sudden this is exempt from the "This isn't new you could find it anyway" argument?

[Jason Tate]

Hahaha so all of a sudden this is exempt from the "This isn't new you could find it anyway" argument?
So what is the point of Wikileaks promoting/posting it then? Pure self aggrandizing?

[crackedthesky]

The whole cables thing was petty bullshit. Calling that "transparency" is like saying that a business should have to release audio tapes of everything their employees say when they gather at the water fountain. I think WikiLeaks could've been something great, and instead they've chosen a position as the world's loudest gossip rag.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766
:appl:

I think I'm the only one who thinks this is more of the stuff he should be leaking.

[Jason Tate]

:appl:

I think I'm the only one who thinks this is more of the stuff he should be leaking.
Fuck yeah! Publicize ways to really hurt people! What is wrong with you?

[Simulcast]

:appl:

I think I'm the only one who thinks this is more of the stuff he should be leaking.

You're delusional.

[SlappedActor]

:appl:

I think I'm the only one who thinks this is more of the stuff he should be leaking.

Yeah, let's put lives at risk. Awesome.

[Mitch]

:appl:

I think I'm the only one who thinks this is more of the stuff he should be leaking.

Why?

[EasySkankin]

So what is the point of Wikileaks promoting/posting it then? Pure self aggrandizing?
“The latest release from the Embassy Cables reveals US embassies were asked to gather information on key infrastructure and resources without the knowledge of, or consultation with, their host governments.
“This further undermines claims made by the US government that its embassy officials do not play an intelligence gathering role.
“In terms of security issues, while this cable details the strategic importance of assets across the world, it does not give any information as to their exact locations, security measures, vulnerabilities or any similar factors – though it does reveal the US asked its diplomats to report back on these matters.
“This leaked cable was, like the rest of the Embassy Cables, available to 2.5 million people, including civilian, military and private sector personnel – a very wide distribution for information claimed to be of such high sensitivity, and relating to so many foreign governments”.

More wood to the fire emphasizing that diplomats play less of the role of negotiator and more of the intelligence agent. Given our history of funding 3rd party terrorists who's to say one day one of these places won't becomes our target? There's other things you could take from this too, like how our country isn't economically independent and all the imagined supremacys we have are actually a product of global cooperation. I really don't think at this point they need to exaggerate their impact at all; they're constantly on the news.

In many ways the secrecy between these embassies creates false impressions that can perpetuate problems. For example, take the israeli-palestinian ordeal. For at least 2 years there's been information available that Hamas is more than ready to accept co-existence of the states under the 1967 borders, however he didn't want to say it in public because he felt he would lose support from the people. Now, 2 years later, wikileaks has made this information much more public and you can see the reverberations of it in politics (http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/brazil_recognizes_palestine_2010120 5). The popular notion that negotiations from either side are unrealistic are shown to be wholly untrue. Should this have been kept secret? Would it have benefited the situation? I think not.

[Jason Tate]

More wood to the fire emphasizing that diplomats play less of the role of negotiator and more of the intelligence agent. Given our history of funding 3rd party terrorists who's to say one day one of these places won't becomes our target? There's other things you could take from this too, like how our country isn't economically independent and all the imagined supremacys we have are actually a product of global cooperation. I really don't think at this point they need to exaggerate their impact at all; they're constantly on the news.

In many ways the secrecy between these embassies creates false impressions that can perpetuate problems. For example, take the israeli-palestinian ordeal. For at least 2 years there's been information available that Hamas is more than ready to accept co-existence of the states under the 1967 borders, however he didn't want to say it in public because he felt he would lose support from the people. Now, 2 years later, wikileaks has made this information much more public and you can see the reverberations of it in politics (http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/brazil_recognizes_palestine_2010120 5). The popular notion that negotiations from either side are unrealistic are shown to be wholly untrue. Should this have been kept secret? Would it have benefited the situation? I think not.
That doesn't answer my question.

[EasySkankin]

That doesn't answer my question.
Yes it does, 1st paragraph

EDIT: If you view each leaked cable as having a "point" then you are entirely missing the point.

[Jason Tate]

Yes it does, 1st paragraph

EDIT: If you view each leaked cable as having a "point" then you are entirely missing the point.
No, it really doesn't. I was responding to your original statement that the information was already out there for mass consumption and therefore not a big deal. So, as you yourself are using as an argument - they aren't leaking anything, just calling attention to something.

Which ... is nothing except self promotion. It serves no real purpose.

So, no you have still not answered my question.

Edit: And yes, there needs to be a larger point to doing something, especially something that could lead casualties: besides wanting to see your name in the paper.

[EasySkankin]

No, it really doesn't. I was responding to your original statement that the information was already out there for mass consumption and therefore not a big deal. So, as you yourself are using as an argument - they aren't leaking anything, just calling attention to something.

Which ... is nothing except self promotion. It serves no real purpose.

So, no you have still not answered my question.
But the masses weren't consuming it. All this has been discussed before. For example, plenty of us have conjectured china was deliberately hacking google, and now we have proof. All this stuff was "out there", but not many people were talking about it. Now you see it repeated daily on the news, which is a much greater purpose.

[Jason Tate]

But the masses weren't consuming it. All this has been discussed before. For example, plenty of us have conjectured china was deliberately hacking google, and now we have proof. All this stuff was "out there", but not many people were talking about it. Now you see it repeated daily on the news, which is a much greater purpose.
Then your argument about it "being out there" is moot. You can't play it both ways. There was already proof that China was "hacking" Google. Google themselves said so (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html). Everything wikileaks has released was already "out there"? Eh. And I don't think a target list of places vital to US being repeated daily on the news serves any greater purpose.

[EasySkankin]

Then your argument about it "being out there" is moot. You can't play it both ways. There was already proof that China was "hacking" Google. Google themselves said so (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html). Everything wikileaks has released was already "out there"? Eh. And I don't think a target list of places vital to US being repeated daily on the news serves any greater purpose.
what? I don't follow

[Jason Tate]

what? I don't follow
You can't play this card (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=80961292#post80961 292):

Hahaha so all of a sudden this is exempt from the "This isn't new you could find it anyway" argument?

As a defense to why people are upset about it being out there ... and then turn around and say:

But the masses weren't consuming it ... Now you see it repeated daily on the news, which is a much greater purpose.

Do you see the ridiculousness of this yet?

[EasySkankin]

I wasn't playing that card at all, I just pointed out the convenience of its absence. I agree with it, but I don't agree with the sentiment behind it.

[Jason Tate]

I wasn't playing that card at all, I just pointed out the convenience of its absence. I agree with it, but I don't agree with the sentiment behind it.
When you use that as an argument multiple (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=80946352#post80946 352) times (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=80961292#post80961 292) ... you're playing that card.

[EasySkankin]

When you use that as an argument multiple (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=80946352#post80946 352) times (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=80961292#post80961 292) ... you're playing that card.
I fail to see it... I wasn't making an argument. The "insurance" assange was talking about is available via torrent, I have a copy. I recognize that this information isn't new, but imo that doesn't make wikileaks irrelevant because of the attention it is getting.

[Jason Tate]

I fail to see it... I wasn't making an argument. The "insurance" assange was talking about is available via torrent, I have a copy. I recognize that this information isn't new, but imo that doesn't make wikileaks irrelevant because of the attention it is getting.
I'm done trying to have a linear conversation with someone who appears stoned.

[EasySkankin]

I'm done trying to have a linear conversation with someone who appears stoned.
Don't you mean circular?

[believethehyph]

I was in school with Bradley Manning. Can't believe someone I know has caused this chaos.

[Simulcast]

Don't you mean circular?

You might want to read that post of his again.

[saysmydoctor]

Fuck yeah! Publicize ways to really hurt people! What is wrong with you?

You're delusional.

Yeah, let's put lives at risk. Awesome.
Please, there are thousands upon thousands of targets that the US considers vital to its national security that we don't even really know what is vital to national security. But I think it's even more delusional to think that they weren't already aware of a lot of these targets. The terrorists didn't need this list to figure out what they were going to target the Twin Towers and the Pentagon . They don't need one now.

Don't take this as I'm glad that people's lives are in danger. I think that sucks. But it's not like there was any serious initiatives being undertaken by the US in order to avoid that. Almost 10 years after 9/11 and we've yet to find Osama Bin Laden and have instead gotten mired in two countries where we know he is definitely not in but yet we are still there, wasting money while he is still free in another country (Pakistan) who we funnel money to who then funnels that money to Bin Laden.

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be more outraged at what Assange is doing compared to what the US hasn't done.

[EasySkankin]

You might want to read that post of his again.
idk I felt like the conversation was going in circles. Maybe I should read it stoned next time :shrug:

[Midget Pirates]

:appl:

I think I'm the only one who thinks this is more of the stuff he should be leaking.

:hitself:

[Jason Tate]

Please, there are thousands upon thousands of targets that the US considers vital to its national security that we don't even really know what it is vital to national security.
I'm sure there are not "thousands upon thousands" - and I am sure we do have an idea what is vital to national security; as much as I am sure the government is even more aware of what is vital.

But I think it's even more delusional to think that they weren't already aware of a lot of these targets.
Doesn't change anything. Everyone at a school knows an attack in the cafeteria means more chaos ... it's the kid that writes it down that starts looking fucked up.

The terrorists didn't need this list to figure out what they were going to target the Twin Towers and the Pentagon . They don't need one now.
Which would work just as well as a reason to not publish this information, therefore going against your "applause" post.

Don't take this as I'm glad that people's lives are in danger. I think that sucks. But it's not like there was any serious initiatives being undertaken by the US in order to avoid that.
How do you know there aren't serious initiatives being undertaken by the US in order to avoid their lives being in danger? Where's the evidence of that?

Almost 10 years after 9/11 and we've yet to find Osama Bin Laden and have instead gotten mired in two countries where we know he is definitely not in but yet we are still there, wasting money while he is still free in another country (Pakistan) who we funnel money to who then funnels that money to Bin Laden.
We know where he's definitely not? Bin Laden himself matters very little. The terrorism network is not attached to one man. He could be dead, or alive, and that's of no real relevance.

[saysmydoctor]

An insulin plant in Denmark, a mine in Congo, ports in China. It's not hard to extrapolate what the US is going for when it is calling something a vital portion of national security. So, therefore, I think it's safe to assume perhaps....mines in the US are vital. Insulin plants in the US are probably important. Hell, even our domestic ports are probably vital. How many ports are there in the US? I don't even know, I'm going to just look at how many large population centers there are on the coasts and just assume there are a lot.

Fair enough point, but it's not he is the one who made the list. He just leaked it. I guess the US itself is the school shooter in this equation? Or at least a bureaucrat?

Well, our intelligence for the most part tells us he is in Pakistan, he was never in Iraq and we lost the chance to capture him in Afghanistan. Yet, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan and are dealing with an "ally" who is helping the enemy. However, what you said is true. But then the network has moved a large portion of its operations to Pakistan, Yemen, and the Horn of Africa. So, again, why are we still devoting resources to Iraq and Afghanistan?

[SlappedActor]

Fair enough point, but it's not he is the one who made the list. He just leaked it. I guess the US itself is the school shooter in this equation? Or at least a bureaucrat?

Yeah, the government totally shouldn't make an internal list of sites that they consider vital to security if they don't want it leaked. Hopefully they've learned their lesson.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, the government totally shouldn't make an internal list of sites that they consider vital to security if they don't want it leaked. Hopefully they've learned their lesson.
That's not what I'm saying, but the US hasn't really done anything to make itself less susceptible to such leaks--if anything, they've made it worse. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/)

[Jason Tate]

That's not what I'm saying, but the US hasn't really done anything to make itself less susceptible to such leaks--if anything, they've made it worse. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/)
We don't know what they've done. They're not going to come out and tell anyone. This is one of those cases where the victories are never going to actually be known ... only the failures.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm not talking about the success of the intelligence community. I'm talking about how it is leak-prone. When some one million people have security clearance, some who are fresh out of college, you're increasing the likelihood of classified material getting out.

I'd also disagree with your premise but that's another debate.

[EasySkankin]

And he's arrested
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

[loveisdead]

And he's arrested
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

Came to post this.

[serenab1221]

Still not clear what they're going to end up doing to him, though. And WikiLeaks is still operational, which blows.

[caveBEAR]

How is the posting of 'vital' positions so horrible? I mean, I'm sure anyone wishing could do damage can figure out to bomb a port rather than a cowfield, and wasn't the point of the memos to beef up security in those places?

Maybe I'm not grasping the entire situation in it's proper context, but I really don't understand why he's getting cast as the new anti-Christ. I would think we should point the finger at the 24 hour news cycles just mindlessly re-hashing the shit in it more than him.
:shrug:

[loveisdead]

How is the posting of 'vital' positions so horrible? I mean, I'm sure anyone wishing could do damage can figure out to bomb a port rather than a cowfield, and wasn't the point of the memos to beef up security in those places?

Maybe I'm not grasping the entire situation in it's proper context, but I really don't understand why he's getting cast as the new anti-Christ. I would think we should point the finger at the 24 hour news cycles just mindlessly re-hashing the shit in it more than him.
:shrug:

I'm with you.

[serenab1221]

How is the posting of 'vital' positions so horrible? I mean, I'm sure anyone wishing could do damage can figure out to bomb a port rather than a cowfield, and wasn't the point of the memos to beef up security in those places?

Maybe I'm not grasping the entire situation in it's proper context, but I really don't understand why he's getting cast as the new anti-Christ. I would think we should point the finger at the 24 hour news cycles just mindlessly re-hashing the shit in it more than him.
:shrug:

That makes sense.

[caveBEAR]

I'm with you.

I feel like, I'd rather have someone leaking too much information than no one leaking anything. It's up to us and our media to decide how to use that information and report on it, and I'd say they failed more than anything else.

That makes sense.

Well, I'm glad to hear that, because it was you saying '[a]nd WikiLeaks is still operational, which blows' that prompted me to type it out.

[Mitch]

How is the posting of 'vital' positions so horrible? I mean, I'm sure anyone wishing could do damage can figure out to bomb a port rather than a cowfield, and wasn't the point of the memos to beef up security in those places?

Maybe I'm not grasping the entire situation in it's proper context, but I really don't understand why he's getting cast as the new anti-Christ. I would think we should point the finger at the 24 hour news cycles just mindlessly re-hashing the shit in it more than him.
:shrug:

I'm with you on the last paragraph but I still don't think I support the leak of the "vital locations."

[caveBEAR]

I'm with you on the last paragraph but I still don't think I support the leak of the "vital locations."

I agree, I think that's something that someone along the line at Wikileaks could have said, 'yeah, no one needs to know this' and not released it, but let's be realistic; in all the floods and floods of information they leaked, if the cable news networks hadn't told us about the 'vital locations' leak...(essentially) none of us would have known about it.

As far as things like us trading Guantanamo Prisoners for whatever the hell we traded for to those other countries, that's fair game as far as I'm concerned. I think we should know that kind of shit is going on behind closed doors.

[crackedthesky]

I agree, I think that's something that someone along the line at Wikileaks could have said, 'yeah, no one needs to know this' and not released it, but let's be realistic; in all the floods and floods of information they leaked, if the cable news networks hadn't told us about the 'vital locations' leak...(essentially) none of us would have known about it.

As far as things like us trading Guantanamo Prisoners for whatever the hell we traded for to those other countries, that's fair game as far as I'm concerned. I think we should know that kind of shit is going on behind closed doors.

I have to disagree with your "nobody would've known" statement. Sure, the American public might not have known, but they are by no means the only ones watching this story. There's a high possibility that, say, the Taliban or Al-Qaeda has people scoping Wikileaks for information that could help them out, such as vital locations.

[Jason Tate]

How is the posting of 'vital' positions so horrible? I mean, I'm sure anyone wishing could do damage can figure out to bomb a port rather than a cowfield, and wasn't the point of the memos to beef up security in those places?

Maybe I'm not grasping the entire situation in it's proper context, but I really don't understand why he's getting cast as the new anti-Christ. I would think we should point the finger at the 24 hour news cycles just mindlessly re-hashing the shit in it more than him.
:shrug:
Everyone at a school knows an attack in the cafeteria means more chaos ... it's the kid that writes it down/gets caught talking about it that starts looking fucked up.

[LostAllways]

Everyone at a school knows an attack in the cafeteria means more chaos ... it's the kid that writes it down/gets caught talking about it that starts looking fucked up.

You've used that line twice now, and I'm not sure I completely understand it (no offense). Can you explain?

[Simulcast]

I have to disagree with your "nobody would've known" statement. Sure, the American public might not have known, but they are by no means the only ones watching this story. There's a high possibility that, say, the Taliban or Al-Qaeda has people scoping Wikileaks for information that could help them out, such as vital locations.

Even more plausible - small timers like the Portland bomber who now have a greater array of targets to choose from. Information such as the locations of major global blood suppliers and landfalls for the transatlantic cables should not be broadcast like this. So what if the media is complicit in spreading this information. Do people believe Assange is innocent because of this, that he was unaware this would happen?

[crackedthesky]

Even more possible - small timers like the Portland bomber who now have a greater array of targets to choose from. Information such as the locations of major global blood suppliers and landfalls for the transatlantic cables should not be broadcast like this. So what if the media is complicit in spreading this information. Do people believe Assange is innocent because of this, that he was unaware this would happen?

Exactly. People seem to forget that certain things are secret for a reason. Look at all of the terrorist attacks stopped because of undercover agents. Wikileaks would love to reveal every single one of them. This isn't about transparency. It might've started that way, but it isn't anymore. This is like Cheney revealing the full name of that CIA agent, but on a global scale. The media covering it isn't the problem (for once.) this stuff is available to anyone willing to look, whether the media magnifies it or not. And there are a LOT of people out there who are willing to look.

[Jason Tate]

You've used that line twice now, and I'm not sure I completely understand it (no offense). Can you explain?
I'm not really sure how to explain it any better. The point is that most intelligent people know how to do fucked up things. If I wanted to inflict the most harm on a school ... I could describe the weakest points, how to hurt the most people, etc. etc. etc.

But you don't go around publicizing that information. It's just bad form and fucked up.

And it goes well with how I see Assange: self-aggrandizing.

[J.C.]

What the hell?

If this is what I think it is, then I'm having a really hard time figuring out what the purpose of releasing these documents was.

Most of the recent information hasn't seemed to serve a purpose, other than to keep their name in the news. They're looking more like 4chan at this point.

[Jason Tate]

Most of the recent information hasn't seemed to serve a purpose, other than to keep their name in the news. They're looking more like 4chan at this point.
This is said much more succinctly than I was able to.

[LostAllways]

Most of the recent information hasn't seemed to serve a purpose, other than to keep their name in the news. They're looking more like 4chan at this point.

That's quite a stretch, there. You make it seem as if the information vital to the securities of governments was released in an entirely different, new leak. No. The information was all released at once, and people just found that vital information amongst the masses of information.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

That's quite a stretch, there. You make it seem as if the information vital to the securities of governments was released in an entirely different, new leak. No. The information was all released at once, and people just found that vital information amongst the masses of information.

I don't think this is true. I could be wrong, but haven't they been releasing a certain amount of information every day or every couple days?

[Jason Tate]

I don't think this is true. I could be wrong, but haven't they been releasing a certain amount of information every day or every couple days?
Well, as that recent link says they're on cable 351 (or something) of 250,000.

[EasySkankin]

Most of the recent information hasn't seemed to serve a purpose, other than to keep their name in the news. They're looking more like 4chan at this point.
Maybe to us as U.S. citizens. What about this (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2006/05/06MANAGUA1002.html) leak?

960 out of 251,287 documents released. How can you expect all of them to be 100% relevant and mind-blowing?

[LostAllways]

I don't think this is true. I could be wrong, but haven't they been releasing a certain amount of information every day or every couple days?

That's true, they do release cables every couple of days (EDIT: every day), but it's not as if they specifically released one cable in which they revealed that vital-to-security information. They just found it amongst the many cables already released. Wikileaks didn't blatantly and explicitly reveal the sites of the Congo mines or the vaccine factories or whatever, they were just there amongst other information, relevent to those specific cables.

[Jason Tate]

Maybe to us as U.S. citizens. What about this (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2006/05/06MANAGUA1002.html) leak?

960 out of 251,287 documents released. How can you expect all of them to be 100% relevant and mind-blowing?
There haven't been any that are "mind-blowing" - and I suppose "relevance" is subjective.

[serenab1221]

I feel like, I'd rather have someone leaking too much information than no one leaking anything. It's up to us and our media to decide how to use that information and report on it, and I'd say they failed more than anything else.



Well, I'm glad to hear that, because it was you saying '[a]nd WikiLeaks is still operational, which blows' that prompted me to type it out.

Lol. Well I never really thought of it from that perspective, you know? Benefits of being open minded :-)

[crackedthesky]

That's true, they do release cables every couple of days (EDIT: every day), but it's not as if they specifically released one cable in which they revealed that vital-to-security information. They just found it amongst the many cables already released. Wikileaks didn't blatantly and explicitly reveal the sites of the Congo mines or the vaccine factories or whatever, they were just there amongst other information, relevent to those specific cables.

Oh, okay. They aren't guilty because they didn't know what they were releasing, just that they were releasing something we wouldn't like it. Gotcha.

[caveBEAR]

I have to disagree with your "nobody would've known" statement. Sure, the American public might not have known, but they are by no means the only ones watching this story. There's a high possibility that, say, the Taliban or Al-Qaeda has people scoping Wikileaks for information that could help them out, such as vital locations.

I'm sure al-Qaeda could have someone scoping WikiLeaks, sure, but now (due to the 24 hour news cycle) everyone knows about it. My point was that to demonize Ass-something because he reveled 'vital locations' seems ridiculous, especially since it seems whenever a news site, blog, etc., bitches about the fact that he leaked them, they include links to the 'vital locations' or how to find them.

[crackedthesky]

I'm sure al-Qaeda could have someone scoping WikiLeaks, sure, but now (due to the 24 hour news cycle) everyone knows about it. My point was that to demonize Ass-something because he reveled 'vital locations' seems ridiculous, especially since it seems whenever a news site, blog, etc., bitches about the fact that he leaked them, they include links to the 'vital locations' or how to find them.

That's a good point... But there's still the fact that said blogs and media wouldn't be able to link to them if he didn't post them to begin with.

[caveBEAR]

That's a good point... But there's still the fact that said blogs and media wouldn't be able to link to them if he didn't post them to begin with.

Agreed, and that's pretty much what I've been wrestling with. I think I'm settling on - I'd rather him have not posted the 'vital positions' and really scanned/judged what he leaked better, but I'm happier with someone leaking too much than too little. Although that last part of that sentence waivers. I guess I don't feel like I really have a way to guage exactly what positivity/negativity can spiral out from the leaking of the information.
:shrug:

[Matt Chylak]

Agreed, and that's pretty much what I've been wrestling with. I think I'm settling on - I'd rather him have not posted the 'vital positions' and really scanned/judged what he leaked better, but I'm happier with someone leaking too much than too little. Although the last part of that sentence waivers. I guess I don't feel like I really have a way to guage exactly what positivity/negativity can spiral out from the leaking of the information.
:shrug:

really, really disagree with the bolded, despite the underlined.

[caveBEAR]

really, really disagree with the bolded

Why?

[Matt Chylak]

Why?

well, what's "too little"? some of these leaks are needless and could potentially hurt innocent people. i think that's an example of "too much," and i disagree with it.

[crackedthesky]

Agreed, and that's pretty much what I've been wrestling with. I think I'm settling on - I'd rather him have not posted the 'vital positions' and really scanned/judged what he leaked better, but I'm happier with someone leaking too much than too little. Although that last part of that sentence waivers. I guess I don't feel like I really have a way to guage exactly what positivity/negativity can spiral out from the leaking of the information.
:shrug:

I'd have to disagree. Here's why:

WikiLeaks posts a video of an American helicopter assault on what turned out to be innocent civilians. Major fuckup on America's part.
The video can yield two results:

1. We don't fuckup like that again. (positive)
2. People get pissed off at America. (negative)

But the problem is that it was an accident. You can't just choose not to make them. You can work harder to prevent them from happening, but there's still no guarantee that it won't happen again. Thus, the leak yielded a greater negative effect than a positive one.

Basically, the result of leaking too much = potentially, people get killed, and our image among the rest of the world suffers. The result of leaking too little = we aren't aware of other peoples' fuckups and can't blather on about them on the media.

Perhaps this is an incorrect assessment, but can you give me an example of some positive outcome WikiLeaks has had, thus far? Because right now, it seems that it's just making ALL of America look bad over what a very, very few people have done or said.