WikiLeaks

[jsteele]

Caution, if you have a security clearance, you may not want to post in this thread.

I'm surprised that the subject of WikiLeaks has not come up here so far. So, I'll be the first to start. I'm am appalled by the reaction of the US Government and many Americans to the latest documents made available by WikiLeaks. The amount of misinformation being spread is ridiculous. It's as if no one has any regard for the truth. Here are a few items of which most people are probably not aware:

1) Has WikiLeaks "dumped" 250,000 unedited documents on the Internet? No. WikiLeaks has allowed several news organizations including the New York Times and The Guardian to select a handful of documents to publish. The news organizations redact the names of individuals who might be endangered by the publishing of the documents and then publish the documents themselves. Only after the news organizations have published the documents does WikiLeaks post the documents on its own website. The documents WikiLeaks publishes include the redactions made by the news organizations. So far, less than 200 documents have been published.

2) Is Julian Assange a rapist? Not by most definitions of the term. Last August, Assange was invited to speak in Sweden. The woman who invited Assange to speak also invited him to stay in her apartment. The night before his speech, they had consensual sex and the condom broke (this turns out to be important). The next day during his talk, Assange met another Swedish woman. Subsequently, he spent the night with her and they had consensual sex at night and in the morning. At night, they used a condom, but not in the morning. While the two women did not know each other prior to this, they met subsequent to their encounters with Assange. A week or so afterwards, they went to the police station to ask advice as to how they might force Assange to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. The second woman reported that she had asked Assange to use a condom and he had not. This led to a "rape" charge. When the first woman told her story, it led to a second sex crime charge. Neither woman suggests that Assange forcibly had sex with them. The first woman has previously posted an article on the web encouraging women to seek legal revenge against men who scorn them.

3) Has WikiLeaks broken any laws? It doesn't appear to have. At any rate, it has done nothing different than the New York Times.

4) What has been the US Government reaction? The US Government has reacted without regard for the law. While the released documents are available on the Internet and available to any enemy of the US, the US Government has sought to restrict access by US citizens. Obama has ordered US Governmental agencies to prevent their employees from viewing the documents. One Department warned employees that their computers would be "scrubbed" if they were caught viewing the documents. Employees with security clearances have been warned that their clearances could be in danger if they were caught discussing the documents on Facebook. The Government has pressured private companies into cutting ties with WikiLeaks, resulting in Amazon, PayPal, MasterCard, and Visa dropping services to WikiLeaks. All of this without a single legal charge or court order.

5) What is the funniest thing you have seen in the past week? This press release from the US Department of State:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm

After all the actions taken against WikiLeaks, the DOS announces plans to host "World Press Freedom Day". The Press Release says the following:

"New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information."

6) Have the WikiLeaks documents endangered sources or revealed methods used by US intelligence agencies. To date, not a single individual has said to have suffered harm as a result of the leaked documents. Secretary of Defense Gates has testified before Congress that the documents have not revealed key intelligence information.

The Bush Administration set many precedents in its total disrespect for the law. But, at least at that time Democrats and liberals complained about it and there was some push back. The Obama administration has taken lawlessness to new heights with little in the way of criticism. WikiLeaks has not been charged with a single crime. Not a single court ruling has been issued regarding the organization. All that is happening is no different than the type of things that happens in societies such as China or Saudi Arabia. Mike Huckabee even said that Assange should be put to death. Can you imagine the outrage if a North Korean politician had called for killing a US journalist? WikiLeaks may or may not have revealed US secrets. But, the organization has certainly caused the US to reveal its true nature as a state with little to no regard for the rule of law.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Caution, if you have a security clearance, you may not want to post in this thread.

I'm surprised that the subject of WikiLeaks has not come up here so far. So, I'll be the first to start. I'm am appalled by the reaction of the US Government and many Americans to the latest documents made available by WikiLeaks. The amount of misinformation being spread is ridiculous. It's as if no one has any regard for the truth. Here are a few items of which most people are probably not aware:

1) Has WikiLeaks "dumped" 250,000 unedited documents on the Internet? No. WikiLeaks has allowed several news organizations including the New York Times and The Guardian to select a handful of documents to publish. The news organizations redact the names of individuals who might be endangered by the publishing of the documents and then publish the documents themselves. Only after the news organizations have published the documents does WikiLeaks post the documents on its own website. The documents WikiLeaks publishes include the redactions made by the news organizations. So far, less than 200 documents have been published.

2) Is Julian Assange a rapist? Not by most definitions of the term. Last August, Assange was invited to speak in Sweden. The woman who invited Assange to speak also invited him to stay in her apartment. The night before his speech, they had consensual sex and the condom broke (this turns out to be important). The next day during his talk, Assange met another Swedish woman. Subsequently, he spent the night with her and they had consensual sex at night and in the morning. At night, they used a condom, but not in the morning. While the two women did not know each other prior to this, they met subsequent to their encounters with Assange. A week or so afterwards, they went to the police station to ask advice as to how they might force Assange to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. The second woman reported that she had asked Assange to use a condom and he had not. This led to a "rape" charge. When the first woman told her story, it led to a second sex crime charge. Neither woman suggests that Assange forcibly had sex with them. The first woman has previously posted an article on the web encouraging women to seek legal revenge against men who scorn them.

3) Has WikiLeaks broken any laws? It doesn't appear to have. At any rate, it has done nothing different than the New York Times.

4) What has been the US Government reaction? The US Government has reacted without regard for the law. While the released documents are available on the Internet and available to any enemy of the US, the US Government has sought to restrict access by US citizens. Obama has ordered US Governmental agencies to prevent their employees from viewing the documents. One Department warned employees that their computers would be "scrubbed" if they were caught viewing the documents. Employees with security clearances have been warned that their clearances could be in danger if they were caught discussing the documents on Facebook. The Government has pressured private companies into cutting ties with WikiLeaks, resulting in Amazon, PayPal, MasterCard, and Visa dropping services to WikiLeaks. All of this without a single legal charge or court order.

5) What is the funniest thing you have seen in the past week? This press release from the US Department of State:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm

After all the actions taken against WikiLeaks, the DOS announces plans to host "World Press Freedom Day". The Press Release says the following:

"New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information."

6) Have the WikiLeaks documents endangered sources or revealed methods used by US intelligence agencies. To date, not a single individual has said to have suffered harm as a result of the leaked documents. Secretary of Defense Gates has testified before Congress that the documents have not revealed key intelligence information.

The Bush Administration set many precedents in its total disrespect for the law. But, at least at that time Democrats and liberals complained about it and there was some push back. The Obama administration has taken lawlessness to new heights with little in the way of criticism. WikiLeaks has not been charged with a single crime. Not a single court ruling has been issued regarding the organization. All that is happening is no different than the type of things that happens in societies such as China or Saudi Arabia. Mike Huckabee even said that Assange should be put to death. Can you imagine the outrage if a North Korean politician had called for killing a US journalist? WikiLeaks may or may not have revealed US secrets. But, the organization has certainly caused the US to reveal its true nature as a state with little to no regard for the rule of law.

What can I say? I totally agree. What can we do?

[Anonymous]

I'm just really sorry that the latest big dump was diplomatic cables and not the evidence of corporate corruption that Assange says he's going to release in January. I'm worried that the pushback on this last dump (the rape charges, Visa's actions yesterday, loss of web service, etc.) will prevent him from being able to go forward with the corporate stuff. As a tool for reforming institutions and practices that are causing serious harm, the documents on corporate/banking malfeasance seem much more important. Unlike the revelations about torture in Iraq-- which was important and necessary-- the diplomatic cables don't seem to indicate any serious misbehavior, at least by Americans. If anything, they make the State Dept look quite professional and effective.

[Anonymous]

Rape in the US is not the same as rape in other countries

If you are a woman and asked the guy to use a condom what would you do?

there is not enough out there to pass judgment at this time after all OJ was convicted in the media eye and then he wasn't convicted but look where he ended up, not comparing this to OJ but just comparing how people are tried in the media and it is not always the right "verdict" time will tell

[jsteele]

Why would Visa and Mastercard drop a customer who has not been charged with any crimes and against whom no court order has been issued? Paypal says the State Department sent them a letter saying that what WikiLeaks is doing is illegal. But, since when is Hillary Clinton both judge and jury? She doesn't get to decide what's legal or not. Mastercard and Visa may well have also received such a letter. But, another reason can be found in one of the documents released by WikiLeaks:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/246424

This document describes how the US Embassy has been lobbying Russian official with regard to a draft law that would disadvantage Visa and Mastercard. Obviously, Visa and Mastercard can afford to hire their own lobbyist in Moscow, but why not just have the US Embassy help out? Of course, if the Russsian Embassy were lobbying US politicians regarding our finance laws, we might see things differently. But, never mind. Obviously, in return for the assistance by the US Embassy in Moscow, Visa and Mastercard don't need to trouble themselves with legal issues. They are happy to return the favor to the Department of State.

[Anonymous]

I'll be short here, since I'm not normally a poster on this particular board.

I think that this whole thing with Wikileaks is a ruse. It has been allowed to happen in order to pass internet legislation to give the government yet more control over our lives and the dispersement of information.

Wether or not the information leaked is true or not...I don't know, and I particularly don't care. But the fact that it has made the news makes me highly suspicious of "WHY" this has been made into such a big deal. After all, Alex Jones has been leaking sensative information for years now with zero repercussions (and I'm NO AJ fan!!).

Just like 911 was used to pass the Patriot Act and create Homeland Security, and just like the Swine Flu scare was created to pass Obamacare, this whole Wikileaks thing has been created, or allowed to happen, in order to pass more controlling legislation.

At least, that's my humble opinion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'll be short here, since I'm not normally a poster on this particular board.

I think that this whole thing with Wikileaks is a ruse. It has been allowed to happen in order to pass internet legislation to give the government yet more control over our lives and the dispersement of information.

I would not be surprised if you are correct. I hope you will become a normal poster on this board as you probably have a lot of interesting ideas to share.

[Anonymous]

So much for transparency.

[Anonymous]

I agree with everything posted previously.

All I hope is that he has made plans to have his organization continue without him.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be short here, since I'm not normally a poster on this particular board.

I think that this whole thing with Wikileaks is a ruse. It has been allowed to happen in order to pass internet legislation to give the government yet more control over our lives and the dispersement of information.

Scary. Probably true.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Why would Visa and Mastercard drop a customer who has not been charged with any crimes and against whom no court order has been issued? Paypal says the State Department sent them a letter saying that what WikiLeaks is doing is illegal. But, since when is Hillary Clinton both judge and jury? She doesn't get to decide what's legal or not. Mastercard and Visa may well have also received such a letter. But, another reason can be found in one of the documents released by WikiLeaks:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/246424

This document describes how the US Embassy has been lobbying Russian official with regard to a draft law that would disadvantage Visa and Mastercard. Obviously, Visa and Mastercard can afford to hire their own lobbyist in Moscow, but why not just have the US Embassy help out? Of course, if the Russsian Embassy were lobbying US politicians regarding our finance laws, we might see things differently. But, never mind. Obviously, in return for the assistance by the US Embassy in Moscow, Visa and Mastercard don't need to trouble themselves with legal issues. They are happy to return the favor to the Department of State.

So what? Assange is a foreign national who is, by his own words, acting to subvert the interests of the United States. He has picked a fight with a sovereign nation, which is, not surprisingly, using its not-inconsiderable resources to hit back. What did he, or anyone else for that matter, expect?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
So what? Assange is a foreign national who is, by his own words, acting to subvert the interests of the United States. He has picked a fight with a sovereign nation, which is, not surprisingly, using its not-inconsiderable resources to hit back. What did he, or anyone else for that matter, expect?

I don't know what Assange expected. But, I expected my country to follow the law. What did you expect?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So what? Assange is a foreign national who is, by his own words, acting to subvert the interests of the United States. He has picked a fight with a sovereign nation, which is, not surprisingly, using its not-inconsiderable resources to hit back. What did he, or anyone else for that matter, expect?

I don't know what Assange expected. But, I expected my country to follow the law. What did you expect?

Umm, what law is being broken? I'm not aware of any, and believe that the U.S. government has reasonably broad freedom of action in responding to this kind of incident. It not like they've assassinated him. Putting commercial pressure on Wikileaks strikes me as fair game in this type of situation, but if there is a federal law forbidding it, that might change my view.

[Anonymous]

2) Is Julian Assange a rapist? Not by most definitions of the term. Last August, Assange was invited to speak in Sweden. The woman who invited Assange to speak also invited him to stay in her apartment. The night before his speech, they had consensual sex and the condom broke (this turns out to be important). The next day during his talk, Assange met another Swedish woman. Subsequently, he spent the night with her and they had consensual sex at night and in the morning. At night, they used a condom, but not in the morning. While the two women did not know each other prior to this, they met subsequent to their encounters with Assange. A week or so afterwards, they went to the police station to ask advice as to how they might force Assange to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. The second woman reported that she had asked Assange to use a condom and he had not. This led to a "rape" charge. When the first woman told her story, it led to a second sex crime charge. Neither woman suggests that Assange forcibly had sex with them. The first woman has previously posted an article on the web encouraging women to seek legal revenge against men who scorn them.

Jeff, now the report is that Assange had intercourse without a condom with the one woman while she was asleep and that he forced the other woman to have sex without a condom. If I woke up and found that a guy had fucked me without a condom while I was asleep, how do you think I would feel about that? If that is what happened, that's sexual assault in my book.

Ultimately I think 10:06 is right. We don't know enough to say for sure at this point. But I've been rather disturbed by the way some on the left have felt this need to minimize what happened in Sweden without knowing all the facts. I don't know them either -- let's wait to hear more before we assume it's minimal.

And even more importantly we need to separate the question of whether Assange is guilty in the Swedish case from the reaction to WikiLeaks. Here's an article that addresses that and says it all for me:

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/cmon_we_can_do_this_acting_like_grown_ups_thing/

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:1) Has WikiLeaks "dumped" 250,000 unedited documents on the Internet? No. ... So far, less than 200 documents have been published.

According to a screenshot of the WikiLeaks homepage on Wikipedia, WikiLeaks has released 20,000 files and has made available an archived copy of all of them.

jsteele wrote:2) Is Julian Assange a rapist? Not by most definitions of the term...

Are you well versed in the legal definition of rape in Sweden? Me neither.

jsteele wrote:3) Has WikiLeaks broken any laws? It doesn't appear to have.

And there isn't a warrant for his arrest in the US, either.

jsteele wrote:4)Obama has ordered US Governmental agencies to prevent their employees from viewing the documents. One Department warned employees that their computers would be "scrubbed" if they were caught viewing the documents. Employees with security clearances have been warned that their clearances could be in danger if they were caught discussing the documents on Facebook.

This is required for all federal employees and information systems. Materials deemed as requiring Secret Clearance are not allowed to reside on systems which are not secure. You are not allowed to have a Secret document saved on your work computer or a department's server if that computer/server is not secured. You can't even view a Secret document over non-secure networks since it would require transmitting the information over said network. In addition, no federal employee is allowed to view materials unless they have the proper level of security clearance. This isn't something Obama came up with out of the blue; it's how our national security systems and regulations operate and have operated for some time.

jsteele wrote:The Government has pressured private companies into cutting ties with WikiLeaks, resulting in Amazon, PayPal, MasterCard, and Visa dropping services to WikiLeaks.

The Government has done this? Please provide your sources.

jsteele wrote:Mike Huckabee even said that Assange should be put to death.

Yes, Huckabee is an idiot. Nothing new there.