Wikileaks

[Old Nan]

He didn't say no conceivable good. He said no conceivable "public good". There's a difference.

[Guest Raidne]

Assange doesn't get the info without someone leaking it, and you'd think someone wouldn't leak it if it wasn't worth it to them to take the risk. I have no idea what the leaker was thinking in this case, but that's on him, not Assange, IMO. If there's no smoking gun, then you have to wonder what kind of mentally unstable people we're giving clearances to these days. Honestly, the leak should be the story. I don't understand why it isn't.

[aimlessgun]

no conceivable good? You can perhaps say that about the strategic places leak, but apart from that you'd argue that the cable leak produced no conceivable good?

That's a pretty bold statement.

If we're talking about wikileaks in general, they have had leaks that didn't produce public good. Like leaking Palin's emails.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

no conceivable good? You can perhaps say that about the strategic places leak, but apart from that you'd argue that the cable leak produced no conceivable good?

That's a pretty bold statement.

Did you see where I emphasized the word everything? I'm not saying that none of the leaked material had no conceivable public good. I'm saying that some of the leaked material had no conceivable public good, and there are people who might otherwise support Assange who are unhappy regarding some of the stuff that was released.

[Altherion]

Assange doesn't get the info without someone leaking it, and you'd think someone wouldn't leak it if it wasn't worth it to them to take the risk. I have no idea what the leaker was thinking in this case, but that's on him, not Assange, IMO. If there's no smoking gun, then you have to wonder what kind of mentally unstable people we're giving clearances to these days. Honestly, the leak should be the story. I don't understand why it isn't.

Because the leak is the single most embarrassing aspect of this story (at least for the US government). Most of the cables are either things people who read stuff on the internet already knew (or at least strongly suspected) or things that are unexpected, but generally embarrassing to somebody else. The problem for the US is that first, as you said, they give clearance to people whom they really should have known can't be trusted (I'm not going to dig it up now, but Manning had been less than trustworthy before this incident) and second, they give access to hundreds of thousands of documents to every junior analyst. They also failed to even notice he was copying the information -- the only reason they caught him is because he couldn't keep his mouth shut online.

[ljkeane]

If there's no smoking gun, then you have to wonder what kind of mentally unstable people we're giving clearances to these days. Honestly, the leak should be the story. I don't understand why it isn't.

Apparently there were something like 3 million people with access to the stuff that was leaked so I don't think it was information the US government has put too much effort into keeping secret.

[Guest Raidne]

Yeah, IMO, that's the interesting part of the story right there in your post.

[CloudFlare]

My theory:

Assange have every single US diplomatic cable from at least 1966, and quite possibly before. The US's anticommunist tactics were very unpleasant. The 1960s Indonesian massacares, Chile, Operation Gladio etc. are all going to come to light. Toss in our dealings with Israel as well.

That is why we're seeing a full court press from the USG.

[CloudFlare]

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?

Wow. So much for giving the guy his day in court. Should we draw and quarter him, or just hang him?

[Horza]

What are you, an idiot?

We scourge him with hot irons and pour lead in the wounds first!

[Jeor]

I have to say, I'm a bit amazed by the near universal criticism of wikileaks in the US media. Even traditionally left leaning places, like huff post, have peen pretty harsh on Assange. The reactions seem totally out of touch with most people who I've talked to about it, who are either indifferent or somewhat supportive.

An article on cnbc.com here seems a bit more supportive of Wikileaks.

I'll also add that Assange, although anti-American, isn't exclusively so. He's published other stuff as well critical of the Australian government, particularly PM Gillard, although mostly in relation to the US.

[gryphon strike]

Here is a column by Assange himself.

Triskele thank you for that link it was very informative and as far as I can tell right in every aspect. So lets stop shooting the messenger and nail the culprits responsible.

Squashing the rights of the media is not something I want to see.

[Cantabile]

My final opinion on Wikileaks: The concept of a media organization that makes transparent the corruption, schemes, and lies of the government is an undeniable virtue to society, though Wikileaks does not live up to their potential. Their release of unnecessary documents is a vice, but as is it's the only organization that is filling the role of unfiltered, raw truths, the pros of Wikileaks outweigh the cons. Enough important information has been made public through Wikileaks that I can forgive them for all the unnecessary dumps. I would much prefer if they focused only on important issues that are being hidden from the public, and stopped with unnecessary classified files, but that doesn't seem like it'll happen.

Bottom line: I'd rather they have massive file dumps with a few important things, than no information at all.

I'm a bit skeptical about Assange's doomsday files; seems like a bluff to me.

[Tempra]

Looks like the UK was under intense pressure to release Al-Megrahi.

The UK feared harsh action by Libya against British interests if the Lockerbie bomber died in jail, cables published by Wikileaks claim.

The US cables say London's fully supported the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi by the Scottish authorities.

...

"The Libyans have told HMG [Her Majesty's Government] flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly," he said.

In January 2009 the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, confirmed that "dire" reprisals had been threatened against the UK, and the British were braced to take "dramatic" steps for self-protection.

The Libyans "convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison… would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied… specific threats have included the immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishment or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities.

Mr Cretz added: "[Libyan] officials also implied, but did not directly state, that the welfare of UK diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk."

I'm sure the release wasn't at all politically motivated though :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11944645

[Old Nan]

My final opinion on Wikileaks: The concept of a media organization that makes transparent the corruption, schemes, and lies of the government is an undeniable virtue to society, though Wikileaks does not live up to their potential. Their release of unnecessary documents is a vice, but as is it's the only organization that is filling the role of unfiltered, raw truths, the pros of Wikileaks outweigh the cons. Enough important information has been made public through Wikileaks that I can forgive them for all the unnecessary dumps. I would much prefer if they focused only on important issues that are being hidden from the public, and stopped with unnecessary classified files, but that doesn't seem like it'll happen.

Bottom line: I'd rather they have massive file dumps with a few important things, than no information at all.

I'm a bit skeptical about Assange's doomsday files; seems like a bluff to me.

What's "important"? Is the importance of an activist who wants to see the foreign adventurism of the U.S. curtailed more important than the importance of a historian who just loves collating new files?

[Guest Raidne]

Wow. So much for giving the guy his day in court. Should we draw and quarter him, or just hang him?

A tangent, but this kind of cow-like fail to reason drives me nuts.

No, I don't think he should be sentenced without a trial. But I think he's a jerk. He doesn't get to have a court weigh the evidence and determine whether or not he's a jerk. And I think he's the kind of jerk that might do what these women describe. I have friends who date jerks, sometimes. Sometimes some of them do stuff like that. They don't get their day in court, either, before I decide what I'm going to believe. I read bunch of different articles about what supposedly happened, noted the accounts of the witnesses, their consistency, etc., and made an educated guess. If different information comes out, I might change my mind. I can do that because I'm not sworn to determine whether or not he should go to jail. And if I were, I would sit on the bench and tell the judge that I was, in fact, wholly capable of listening to the evidence presented and making decision based only the evidence, as a juror, but that is unlikely to happen since I am not Swedish and don't even know how they voir dire jurors over there. Probably better than we do in the states from everything else I understand about Sweden.

At any rate, even I, the legally obsessed, make decisions all the time, every day, about what people are like and what they may or may have not done without a jury of my peers deciding it for me.

And sometimes, it even goes so far that I still think O.J. did it, for sure, 100%, and am still unsure that Scott Peterson did do it, even though a jury determined that he did.

It's okay to think for yourselves, even when a jury might make a similar decision at some point. You're not sending them to jail. A person's criminal rights are distinct from the court of public opinion. Always have been.

You know what I would like to know, though? What kind of sentence does the kind of charge against Assange carry?

ETA: I'd like to add, in case it's not clear, that I have no problem with Wikileaks or anything, for the most part, that Assange has done relative to Wikileaks and the fact that he seems like the kind of guy I'd expect to see chumming around with Kellhus changes none of that.

[mormont]

Looks like the UK was under intense pressure to release Al-Megrahi.

I'm sure the release wasn't at all politically motivated though :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11944645

Well, the Wikileaks information relates to pressure the UK government was under and the perception of the US ambassador of the UK government's position. And it remains the case that the UK government did not take the decision and were not in a position to direct the Scottish government, who did. So... basically, nothing new here. Unless you don't actually understand the difference between the UK and Scottish governments, which of course many Americans do not.

[snake]

Seems WikiLeaks has found an ally. Story.

Also, it seems Australia has put the blame for the leaks on the US government. Story.

I think the Aussies got this one right.

[Arthmail]

Personally, i support this group, Anonymous. A little bit of civil disobedience in the face of government excess is not a bad thing in my books. Governments serve the people, not the other way around.

[Arthmail]

So Mastercard and VISA cut off Wikileaks. And now this comes out the day after:

Here