Wikileaks

[kairparavel]

Do you think he released these latest documents only because his assets have been frozen? He has a "doomsday file" in case he is arrested/extradited to the US. These documents appear to have been apart of the original info dump.

And this is my greatest beef with WL and the comparison to 'the free press' and 'transparent media' and anything else along those lines. It's utter bullshit. Does the BBC or the NYTimes or the AP or anyone have insurance files on hand in the event a reporter gets arrested? Did Woodward and Bernstein have a contingency plan to save the most explosive findings if their investigation was quashed? And if somehow the 'regular media' does it's bullshit too. Either the goal is to disseminate information, or it's not. And if it's 'too dangerous/controversial' to be part of any initial dump, releasing it out spite doesn't really, in my mind, make you crusader against the unjust. It just makes you a sensational ass, and a little bit of a sociopath. The media, whether you find it partisan or not is still held to an ethical standard that apparently WL is not, by many.

A spokesman for WikiLeaks called Mr. Assange's arrest an attack on media freedom and said it won't prevent the organization from releasing more secret documents.

"This will not change our operation," Kristinn Hrafnsson told The Associated Press.

But Ms. Hrafnsson also said the group had no plans at the moment to release the key to a heavily encrypted version of some of its most important documents — an "insurance" file that has been distributed to supporters in case of an emergency. Ms. Hrafnsson said that will only come into play if "grave matters" involving WikiLeaks staff occur — but did not elaborate on what those would be.

Taken from today's Globe and Mail article on Assange's surrender to police.

What's the 'emergency' that would dictate the release of these files? The current level of international government and corporate corruption they're supposedly railing against isn't emergency enough? Fuck off, Wikileaks.

[kairparavel]

I think WL made it pretty clear that it was doing this in case Assange was brought in by the US, assassinated, or otherwise acted against unilaterally or outside the law.

And if you really think that any of the places listed have never had a contingency plan should they be threatened with arrest or shutdown, you're pretty naive.

I'm willing to concede that I'm naive enough to think that investigative journalists break stories that need to be told and provide all the necessary information in their stories and anything that isn't necessary or shouldn't be told isn't locked up in a safe in a manilla envelope, waiting to up the ante if 'something should happen'. I'm willing to hold out hope that expose stories are about the greater good and that doesn't involve leverage. The world is full of grey, but I'm pretty black and white on this. Either something really needs to be revealed and it is, or it doesn't need to be, and it isn't. Need to know isn't a sliding scale based on acts against the revealer. But there's that naivete again.

[Guest Raidne]

Altherion - I did not see anything in the memo that forbade commentary or, say, reading NY Times articles, although reading the cables on the NY Times is possibly prohibited, even on my own time on my own computer, although I think that clearly violates my privacy rights as material that's been published is no longer classified, IMO. They must be planning on pressing charges and need to take this action to make their case.

[kairparavel]

What part of the Wikileaks information don't you need to know about?

That's kind of my point. If it needs to be known, if it should be known, then why is there something encrypted being held back and only released in the event of Assange's assassination etc?

[Guest Raidne]

On the leaks, the issue is whether or not the material, if released, would cause grave and irreparable harm, not whether or not it's relevant to any ongoing media narrative. The NY Times has devoted dozens of articles to the material in the leaks - whether they are "newsworthy" is not arguable.

But the point is that - for parties not otherwise contractually bound - the burden is on showing that something should NOT be released. It surprises me that anyone would say that ethics would demand otherwise regarding government information in a Democratic Republic.

[aimlessgun]

On the leaks, the issue is whether or not the material, if released, would cause grave and irreparable harm, not whether or not it's relevant to any ongoing media narrative. The NY Times has devoted dozens of articles to the material in the leaks - whether they are "newsworthy" is not arguable.

But the point is that - for parties not otherwise contractually bound - the burden is on showing that something should NOT be released. It surprises me that anyone would say that ethics would demand otherwise regarding government information in a Democratic Republic.

I don't know how that process would work. Should wikileaks inform the relevant parties before every single leak and let them plead their case for it to remain under wraps? That seems a little ridiculous. And obviously showing something shouldn't have been released after the fact is utterly useless.

Wikileaks has moral responsibility with what they choose to leak and withhold. It's on them to decide whether they think something should be leaked or not. I'd rather they have a thoughtful moral code and agenda than simply just putting everything out there.

That's kind of my point. If it needs to be known, if it should be known, then why is there something encrypted being held back and only released in the event of Assange's assassination etc?

It could be a bluff. Information could be damaging to the US but also not something we need to know.

Your point is probably valid, but I'm willing to let them slide with some practical hypocrisy considering the forces arrayed against them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I just heard Assange was denied bond. Is tha true?

[Usotsuki]

I just heard Assange was denied bond. Is tha true?

He was refused bail and remanded in custody until the 14th.

[Cantabile]

I just heard Assange was denied bond. Is tha true?

That's what I read as well.

I'm skeptical of how efficient attacking figureheads is in any campaign. This is the similar to when all those people viewed Osama as the personification of terrorism, and that if he was taken down, then as a consequence terrorism would die as well. Assange is the figurehead of Wikileaks, but my understanding is that there are a few hundred members, and a handful of people who could take the leadership if Assange disappears. Freezing their bank accounts, pressuring their server hosts, and removing their ability to receive donations through Visa or Paypal are all great obstacles, but Wikileaks will still continue to function.

And the rape charges are pretty transparent bullshit if you ask me.

[The Iceman of the North]

The justice department has an ongoing criminal investigation against assange/wikileaks, as does the FBI.

Is it common practice to freeze the accounts of people or organizations under "investigation" by the FBI or the US DoJ? Have there been an actual indictment?

[adamsputnik]

The Australian newspaper posted this article in today's online edition. Might be more relevant to Australians than anyone else but thought I'd put it out there anyway.

Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths

[Darkostar]

Quotes from Hillary, 2009:

This administration is filled with lying hacks.

Moreso than most?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So Assange didn't use a condom once and gets arrested.

Osama bin Laden is a mass murderer and walks free.

Remember America: the government is concerned about your safety.

[MinDonner]

:lmao:

Sorry Tormund, but that wins the Most Ridiculous Analogy of the Year award, hands down.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Is it common practice to freeze the accounts of people or organizations under "investigation" by the FBI or the US DoJ? Have there been an actual indictment?

Did the U.S. government freeze his accounts? I wasn't aware that he had any assets under U.S. jurisdiction.

Now, if other governments or organizations have frozen his accounts, it likely is due to the Interpol warrant, because you don't want fugitives having access to ready cash.

[Arthmail]

:lmao:

Sorry Tormund, but that wins the Most Ridiculous Analogy of the Year award, hands down.

Though i think that Tormund will not survive the ZA because a revolution will start in his fortress and he'll be murdered by a trusted friend, his body dumped into the icy waters of wherever-the-fuck he's hiding, i don't think he's entirely wrong here.

The amount of pressure that has come down on Assange over this has been staggering, and sickening. The US had the chance to move directly into Afghanistan, and perhaps actually catch Osama, but instead they decided Iraq was a better target and focused their efforts there.

Its sickening, what is going on, to be honest.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But for Assange himself, I do think its different as he hasn't sought to acquire the information,

Well, if you set up a website and invite people to send to you secret government documents, how is that not having "sought to acquire the information?

and although his actions clearly have the potential to cause harm, that isn't actually his purpose (nor is it to hurt the governments the documents belong to).

And we know that...how? That's sort of the point. From what I've read, Assange isn't motivated solely by some neutral journalistic opposition to secrecy as a matter of principle, applied equally to all nations. Rather, he has been particularly outspoken in his opposition to the U.S. military presence and actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn't seem much of a leap at all to assume that he is releasing this stuff precisely because of his desire to defeat/end those actions.

[C S]

Though i think that Tormund will not survive the ZA because a revolution will start in his fortress and he'll be murdered by a trusted friend, his body dumped into the icy waters of wherever-the-fuck he's hiding, i don't think he's entirely wrong here.

The amount of pressure that has come down on Assange over this has been staggering, and sickening. The US had the chance to move directly into Afghanistan, and perhaps actually catch Osama, but instead they decided Iraq was a better target and focused their efforts there.

Its sickening, what is going on, to be honest.

To be fair, Osama had most likely been out of Afghanistan for a year before Iraq started.

[Guest Raidne]

Oh I think he probably did it, he probably just didn't realize that it's rape to keep going when the condom breaks in Sweden. I mean, kudos to Sweden, IMO, but god knows I've been violated a couple of times if that's how it is. He's very likely guilty, IMHO. Fits with what we know of his character, also. Seriously, listen to him and you're like...you're the kind of dick who keeps going when the condom breaks, aren't you pal?

[Old Nan]

It doesn't seem much of a leap at all to assume that he is releasing this stuff precisely because of his desire to defeat/end those actions.

Is there a necessary contradiction between this and the quotation you responded to?