Wikileaks and Julian Assange

[Shanghai Alice]

Wikileaks has done a lot of important things like once it released information about how prisoners are badly treated in Guantanamo Bay.

Ah, you're right. We should follow N. Vietnam's example, and treat 'em to a five-star Hanoi Hilton.

(Hint: Not a literal Hilton. At all.)

 

[Richard Lynch]

I doubt Wikileaks is saving anybodies life, either. Leaking confidential military and diplomatic material won't magically make the US, Australia, or any other nation stop what they were doing on a dime. And aside from getting the information out there, I'm not sure it even changes anything. I doubt that Julian Assange, or a single whistle blowing website can singlehandedly blackmail the United States Government, or any other government into accountability. Plus, it seems the powers that be have already found a way to silence Assange with controversial and well timed rape charges.

I doubt it's about blackmailing anyone into accountability. I doubt there really is an agenda beyond "getting information out", and I completely support Wikileaks, and Julian Assange.

Let me put it this way... if you found the perfect mate, the person you could viably spend your entire life with and put your complete trust in... wouldn't you like to know if they're an axe murderer? Or would you actually prefer to remain blissfully ignorant?

It always amuses me how people who demonize these kinds of people always resort to accusing them of childishly proclaiming "the guvment iz evil", or whatever. It's ironic, is it not? Because, believe it or not folks, the government, for the most part, is evil. Not the fire and brimstone Luciferian evil incarnate Americans seem to hold so near and dear to them, but real evil. Corrupt evil that stems straight from too much power, an ego and self-righteousness the size of Russia, a lack of tolerance and patience, complete ignorance of foreign workings, and general stupidity. Grow up, peeps. There is a real world, ya know.

PS: Sarah Palin should be showcased in a museum for lowest IQ. There's more intelligence in my Sharpie Pen than that woman, and it truly frightens me that she was actually up for Vice President.

 

[Livewire]

I doubt it's about blackmailing anyone into accountability. I doubt there really is an agenda beyond "getting information out", and I completely support Wikileaks, and Julian Assange.

Let me put it this way... if you found the perfect mate, the person you could viably spend your entire life with and put your complete trust in... wouldn't you like to know if they're an axe murderer? Or would you actually prefer to remain blissfully ignorant?

It always amuses me how people who demonize these kinds of people always resort to accusing them of childishly proclaiming "the guvment iz evil", or whatever. It's ironic, is it not? Because, believe it or not folks, the government, for the most part, is evil. Not the fire and brimstone Luciferian evil incarnate Americans seem to hold so near and dear to them, but real evil. Corrupt evil that stems straight from too much power, an ego and self-righteousness the size of Russia, a lack of tolerance and patience, complete ignorance of foreign workings, and general stupidity. Grow up, peeps. There is a real world, ya know.

PS: Sarah Palin should be showcased in a museum for lowest IQ. There's more intelligence in my Sharpie Pen than that woman, and it truly frightens me that she was actually up for Vice President.

I don't necessarily think Assange is deliberately blackmailing anybody either, but I do think that's how it comes off as to the Americans, especially if he's threatening to release more information if he's arrested. (Information I'm curious to see)

But if he has no motive, then why go through such great lengths to get this information out? Considering he's risking his own personal freedom in the process, unless he can get to Switzerland.

And yes, as I said earlier. She needs to get sent off to a remote Pacific island somewhere, and she can entertain the local fauna with her stupidity there.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Has Wikileaks killed anyone yet? In interviews, Assange has said that the data Wikileaks have released is not of any tactical value because they're all at least 9 months old. He's said himself "we have withheld approximately 15,000 reports for further harm minimization process. We don't see anything here that is of tactical significance". So basically, current information that could be used in planning attacks on our soldiers hasn't been released.

Also, nobody (not the government or any proper media outlet) has provided any proof that harm has been caused by these releases. By releasing data on the war and letting people scrutinise the actions of the US military, Wikileaks could actually be saving lives right now.

Meet John and Joe the terrorists:
"Hey, Joe, look! This bridge in Michigan is both a high transportation hub and an economic stronghold for the country! They get [x]% of their commerce there! And look, petty security measures will make this a cinch!"
"Yeah, but it IS a big bridge after all. If we want to do any sort of damage we'll need time to gather materials."

It's not like people can grab the secret code, plan a bomb attack, haul their ass over there and set it up in one ****ing night.

I'm no fearing cuckoo head or anything but telling publicly insecure parts of a nation's security serve little purpose to inform the public. Tell me HOW this would be interesting to the public in any way. Seriously, most people would probably respond like me (i.e., "WTH Assange? I thought you were representing freedom of speech, not leaking critical spots in national security), especially if like me they live near the said area and would be influenced directly by an attack on that particular area. Of course, you don't anywhere live near that area and thus don't feel the direct influence of that threat. I don't know a single person around where I live who liked what Assange was doing after that little act.

At first, I honestly didn't care all too much. You really can't do much but bring a bit of upset to the American public if you tell them secret things the military is doing. But then when you go around posting security threats its an entirely different issue...

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Wikileaks has revealed how US soldiers used Iraqi civilians as human bomb detectors. source
Wikileaks revealed that unharmful websites were also on Australia's planned internet censorship. source
Wikileaks revealed how the CIA kidnapped an innocent German and tortured him for months, then attempting to stop Germany from arresting its operatives. source
Wikileaks detailed December 2006, the bloodiest month in Iraq's war, with 103 civilians dying every day. source

Nothing that we needed to know, right? Wikileaks has probably damaged many relations, but what's more important, these relations or doing what's right? This next thing is from the top of my head but yeah now there's apparently some UN or European investigation into the torture of Iraqis and stuff by the US, which may not have happened without Wikileaks revealing what the US has done in Afghanistan.



Has Wikileaks killed anyone yet? In interviews, Assange has said that the data Wikileaks have released is not of any tactical value because they're all at least 9 months old. He's said himself "we have withheld approximately 15,000 reports for further harm minimization process. We don't see anything here that is of tactical significance". So basically, current information that could be used in planning attacks on our soldiers hasn't been released.

Also, nobody (not the government or any proper media outlet) has provided any proof that harm has been caused by these releases. By releasing data on the war and letting people scrutinise the actions of the US military, Wikileaks could actually be saving lives right now.

But that's not what I was referring. That kind of information is good. Needless stuff like what a random diplomat thinks of the equivalent of the French first lady? No, now you're just a **** disturber

One does not justify, the other

I think Assange went about this the wrong way though... there's no reason to post files that actually compromise our security/put our soldiers in danger. He had the potential to become somewhat of a white knight if he had just posted the right stuff, but in the end he's acting like more of a terrorist. He's just 'high' on the attention that he's getting for all of this, and is doing whatever he can to keep it going.

I agree with this. Maybe not white knight, but whistle blowers are good

 

[Meduza]

He's making all this trouble for nothing.

I hope he gets all his WikiLeaks websites taken down for good, along with all the information he has.

 

[Ivysaur]

I still would like to see where is that information so important for the terrorists. I have only seen behind-the-scenes information explaining the political events all over the world during the last decade from the embassadors' point of view; and information about the US involvement in other countries' home affairs, and information about the US breaking the internatonal treaties and laws on Human Rights, which is something I believe is quite interesting for the everybody to know. Maybe it's just that all the European newspapers have trimmed the vital info about the American troops and all the thing that "put American citizens in danger", but I honestly can't see what a terrorist can do by knowing the views of the US embassador in Argentina about the Argentinian Government.

Honestly, if you want to punish someone, punish the guy who leaked all the stuff to Assange who was just a nobody with a website. You might as well punish Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward for revealing the secrets about the Watergate issue! Plus, it's not like Assange has actually committed a crime on the US nor broken an international law (and several US citizens are seen committing crimes against those in said papers and nothing has happened to them so it would be kind of an injustice), so you have to really twist justice to punish him for anything related to the issue.

But trying to take some incredibly famous information down from the Internet is like trying to kill someone by taking the oxygen out of the city where they live. It just won't work as the hundreds of mirror websites that have spawned all over the Internet, with the help of several hacking groups (4chan is supporting him, for instance).

So yeah, maybe it's just that I'm an European journalist who has bothered to read most of the revealed cables. But I can't see the harm for anything else other than the political prestige of the US... which is kind of their own fault for not being careful enough when badmouthing other countries. And that's what free press is supposed to do, right?

And I'll say it again: show me a cable that actually exposes a vital defense point that could cause any damage to innocent citizens or the death of soldiers on the war. 1112 cables have been released so far, and you can check them all here: https://213.251.145.96/

(You could argue that the Afghanistan war logs released in July are more likely to have vital data... except that 4 famous newspapers trimmed the names and important data to prevent this, and no Afghanistan news since the release of aid info since then have ever mentioned Wikileaks again so... it might be hard to relate both. https://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkpoint-washington/2010/07/wikileaks_afghanistan_war_log.html)

 

[Alice]

Honestly, if you want to punish someone, punish the guy who leaked all the stuff to Assange who was just a nobody with a website.

They already did. It was an army private.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po-VxrDc0s4

 

[twocows]

It's a tough issue. I can see the arguments for both sides. He's making a bold statement by releasing these documents, namely that a government by the people should never have secrets from those people. I'm not sure whether I agree or not. Some people are saying those documents may have cost lives. I don't know if that's true or not, but even if it is, should we protect an individual's right to free expression if it potentially causes harm to others? I'm inclined to say we should, but I think it's also our obligation to prevent unnecessary loss of life. And should we be doing things that we need to keep secret to begin with? Maybe it would be better policy if we didn't, or maybe that's just naivety.

This is an issue I just can't make my mind up on.

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

Meet John and Joe the terrorists:
"Hey, Joe, look! This bridge in Michigan is both a high transportation hub and an economic stronghold for the country! They get [x]% of their commerce there! And look, petty security measures will make this a cinch!"
"Yeah, but it IS a big bridge after all. If we want to do any sort of damage we'll need time to gather materials."

It's not like people can grab the secret code, plan a bomb attack, haul their ass over there and set it up in one ****ing night.

1 night =/= 5 months

I'm no fearing cuckoo head or anything but telling publicly insecure parts of a nation's security serve little purpose to inform the public. Tell me HOW this would be interesting to the public in any way.

I don't think documents detailing bridges would be interesting to the public in any way (apart from maybe somebody who wants to make the area more secure or something, I guess), but I don't think these documents unjustify the impacts of all these other secrets that the governments keep from us. Given the option of having Wikileaks or it never to have happened, the former is clearly the right choice. Is it better to be ignorant about that video showing US helicopter pilots firing on journalists? About the planned internet censorship? About the tortured innocent from Germany? I believe human rights and making the public aware of the wrongdoings of their government is more important than silencing these security leaks, which so far haven't killed a single person.

Don't get me wrong, I have no idea why Assange wants to release that information either. But I am much more concerned about the government trying to silence the site altogether, especially when the majority of these security leaks aren't even dangerous anymore.

But that's not what I was referring. That kind of information is good. Needless stuff like what a random diplomat thinks of the equivalent of the French first lady? No, now you're just a **** disturber

One does not justify, the other

I don't like In Through The Out Door, does that mean I should stop listening to Led Zeppelin? What I'm saying is that why does this matter? "Oh no, Julian, stop releasing this pointless information on what diplomats think of each other, you might bore me to death!" I don't get how the pointless information unjustifies the important leaks detailing civilian deaths and bad government.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I wonder if the so called Wikileak supporters (the hackers) will continue the "Cyber war" or if they will be stopped...

 

[Everyone Esplode Noaw]

Ugh, goodness, this fellow is the troll of real life. As if the world need even more drama...

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I don't like In Through The Out Door, does that mean I should stop listening to Led Zeppelin? What I'm saying is that why does this matter? "Oh no, Julian, stop releasing this pointless information on what diplomats think of each other, you might bore me to death!" I don't get how the pointless information unjustifies the important leaks detailing civilian deaths and bad government.

I didn't say it unjustifies it. I made a follow up post for clarification.

I'm good with the whistleblowing stuff.

But, in my eyes, the "useless" information is more for attention-grabbing and does endanger those diplomats and affects relations. Also, even if they're government employees - I see such information as private opinions. So, why someone's personal opinion should be forced into the public and then have it reflect on country is beyond me. I think it discredits his whole operation.

He should filter what he posts.

 

[Livewire]

I didn't say it unjustifies it. I made a follow up post for clarification.

I'm good with the whistleblowing stuff.

But, in my eyes, the "useless" information is more for attention-grabbing and does endanger those diplomats and affects relations. Also, even if they're government employees - I see such information as private opinions. So, why someone's personal opinion should be forced into the public and then have it reflect on country is beyond me. I think it discredits his whole operation.

He should filter what he posts.

I agree with you. I'm still a bit on the fence on this one, because like you mentioned, it kinda seems like attention grabbing, or that he has some motive to release all this info. But on the other hand, It's making governments accountable, and he's risking his personal freedom in the process.

 

[Ivysaur]

He should filter what he posts.

Again, that's why he gave the information to five different newspapers, the most prestigious around the US and Europe, weeks before posting the leaks. So professionals could filter and put some context on the material instead of just uploading it at once.

 

[poopnoodle]

these aren't just dirty little secrets that are being revealed. he's not "starting drama," some of these leaks point to some serious corruption that go on behind the scenes that the public deserves to know about.

https://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/

what Assange has done isn't illegal, and the rape charge doesn't seem legitimate. also, free bradley manning etc.

tbqh imho, citizens under the care of a corrupt government are just as entitled to understand some of the inner goings-on* as an individual is entitled to their petty secrets.

 

[champagnepapi]

I'm going to start by saying that the execution talk is pretty much ridiculous, you would think, in this day and age we would be a tad more civilized. As for Wikileaks, there is a difference between people "deserving the right to know" and exposing documents that put the US at risk. What I would really like to know, is what exactly is Assange's motivation for posting these documents, is it to give people access to information he feels they should know, or is it simply an attempt at internet fame? I think that the government does cover up their own faults such as a navy seal dying during training or a soldier in Iraq being killed by friendly fire, which is really no different than a kid setting a rug on fire and hiding the match, imho, While joining the military arm of the United States may be a confidential commitment, these are real people they are sending into war, and I believe their families and friends deserve to know every detail of their loved one's brave sacrifice. I consider Assange a journalist, rather than a terrorist as he could have easily sold these documents and footage to an extremist group in a private deal upon obtaining them. I do believe Assange has crossed the line, by releasing anything other than the aforementioned that pertains to the privacy of the US government. I do apologize if I've rambled a bit.

EDIT: Poopnoodle, that link that you posted has pretty much convinced me to be 50-50 on this matter.

 

[Livewire]

While I agree that transparency in the Government is a good thing, I still stand by what I mentioned earlier. Wikileaks won't end the corruption. Does it expose the tyranny and corruption? Yes. Will it magically end it? No. Especially not if they bag Assange on those bogus charges, which I agree is a horrible attempt to silence an innocent man.

 

[Richard Lynch]

I don't necessarily think Assange is deliberately blackmailing anybody either, but I do think that's how it comes off as to the Americans, especially if he's threatening to release more information if he's arrested. (Information I'm curious to see)

But if he has no motive, then why go through such great lengths to get this information out? Considering he's risking his own personal freedom in the process, unless he can get to Switzerland.

Well, the way I see it, he's a simple activist. Truth activist, freedom of speech activist, information activist, whatever you want to call it. The threats to release more information may seem like blackmail or "terrorism" to the common American, but I feel that's a pretty wise thing to do when you've got Americans saying he should be murdered. Most activists don't mind going to jail or whatever because it can make them seem like a martyr, but what they don't realize is that it renders their resources pointless. Assange is just ensuring that he can keep doing what he's doing without having to worry about his life or freedom.

In other words, if you have a means of getting your views across to people, would you risk losing that means to prove a point? Isn't the greater point to keep using your means at all costs? I always thought that's what makes a good (and intelligent) activist.

 

[Yukimi]

I'm not sure what to make of it, I just think it's a very interesting situation. I'll sit back and watch how things play out, that doomsday file has me very interested.