WikiLeaks

[Anonymous]

I think the idea that this is all just a ruse is paranoia. But having said that, I would not be at all surprised if the powers that be now used this as a Trojan Horse to pass legislation restricting freedom of the internet.

As a side note, my view of the State Dept. has gone up immeasurably since reading the telegrams. I have always found their employees a little tedious in person, but their telegrams are well informed and make good reading.

They should publish more of them.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:The documents have been published in newspapers. They can hardly be considered "secret" at this time.

jsteele wrote:I am sure that there are any number of legal violations...
Second, I am told by a lawyer...

You have clearly demonstrated your ignorance in both US Security Clearance requirements and US law. It's no wonder that you are "surprised" and "appalled" about this "ridiculous" situation.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The documents have been published in newspapers. They can hardly be considered "secret" at this time.

jsteele wrote:I am sure that there are any number of legal violations...
Second, I am told by a lawyer...

You have clearly demonstrated your ignorance in both US Security Clearance requirements and US law. It's no wonder that you are "surprised" and "appalled" about this "ridiculous" situation.

You'd be surprised about my knowledge of US security clearance requirements. Why don't you explain what I got wrong? It's pretty easy to name call, but that doesn't prove anything. If you are so much smarter and more knowledgeable than me, put up or shut up.

[Anonymous]

This is interesting:
WikiLeaks cables: Pfizer 'used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-pfizer-nigeria

[jsteele]

Here is a good article in which a Department of Homeland Security official complains that Obama's attempt to block access to WikiLeaks by federal employees is causing more damage than reading them would:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/us-ban-staff-wikileaks-official

"US department of homeland security staff are hampered in their work analysing foreign affairs because of a government ban on the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables, an official has said."

"More damage will be done by keeping the federal workforce largely in the dark about what other interested parties worldwide are going to be reading and analysing," the official said.

"It has even been suggested that if it is discovered that we have accessed a classified Wikileaks cable on our personal computers, that will be a security violation. So, my grandmother would be allowed to access the cables, but not me. This seems ludicrous."

"National security classification is a means, and not an end in itself. What any reader in the world can discover is no longer a national security secret. We should not pretend otherwise."

[ end of quotes ]

This really is a case of the emperor having no clothes. Instead of Obama standing naked and declaring how beautiful his robe is -- while his minions agree that it is a beautiful robe indeed -- he is declaring that these documents are still secret. Actual thinking adults agree with him. Where is the child who will speak the truth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a man who doesn't hide the fact that his main goal is to cripple the US and dismantle it.

For that, I find no desire to defend his actions.

Which is why he initially went after Kenya? And many other nations before anything involving America, right?

[Anonymous]

Here's the Guardian story about the unredacted Swedish police report on Julian Assange. It's a classic date rape scenario -- nasty, exploitative, and complicated enough that they'll never get a conviction. Really, folks, if the CIA were going to frame Julian Assange, don't you think they'd have made it a much more straightforward case of rape?

We need to fight to preserve Wikileaks but let's not make this man into a hero, okay? He's revolting.

[Anonymous]

17:30 again. Forgot the link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden?CMP=twt_gu

[Anonymous]

Assenge is not the issue. He is the easy target, but you are falling for a trap if you use his personality in order to decide the main point. The reason he is not the issue is that he is not the only one who is/wants to do this.

There are internal Wikileaks people who have left the organization to found a new group, Openleaks, with more transparency and better governance. So yes, they agree with some of the criticisms of the guy. But the effort will go on.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,719619,00.html

And if that fails, there will be another one and then another one.

So the issue is whether a leaking organization like this serves a valid social function - as a whistleblower or a news organization or something else - or whether it is an enemy of nations.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the Guardian story about the unredacted Swedish police report on Julian Assange. It's a classic date rape scenario -- nasty, exploitative, and complicated enough that they'll never get a conviction. Really, folks, if the CIA were going to frame Julian Assange, don't you think they'd have made it a much more straightforward case of rape?

We need to fight to preserve Wikileaks but let's not make this man into a hero, okay? He's revolting.

Asking for Assange to be treated fairly by the various legal systems involved is a far cry from making him a hero. Even assholes have rights. How many others accused of similar crimes have been held for nine days in solitary confinement?

Nate Silver has an interesting take on the case here:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/a-bayesian-take-on-julian-assange/

What will you do if the US manages to extradite Assange instead of Sweden?

[Anonymous]

I am sure that there are any number of legal violations that, for instance, relate to Hillary Clinton's interfering with WikiLeaks' legal business practices. Since I am not a lawyer, I can't cite section and paragraph of the law. But, if you owned a business and a letter from Hillary Clinton that was not based on a court order or legal ruling prevented you from processing credit card transactions, I am sure that you would hire a lawyer who would not have the same short-comings that I do.

It probably depends how the letter was worded. For example, any private company in the US can refuse service to anyone they want. I can own a private golf course and refuse to sell membership to blacks. It might make me an asshole, but it is perfectly legal for private companies to do this. So if credit card companies and amazon and the like decided they didn't want to do business with him for any reason, that isn't illegal.

If Hillary Clinton sent them a letter saying he was publishing classified information that constituted a national security risk and their involvement made them an accessory to his actions, that isn't illegal. If she said "You are breaking the law," then that is one step further and probably would be illegal.

There was a long article in the Washingtonian a year or so ago that talked about various leaks of classified information and what exactly the law says and how exactly it gets prosecuted. I found it really interesting - I remember being shocked by how gray the whole area of law actually is. Wish I could remember the details - if I can find a link I'll post it.

[Anonymous]

here it is http://www.washingtonian.com/print/articles/6/0/16336.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assenge is not the issue. He is the easy target, but you are falling for a trap if you use his personality in order to decide the main point. The reason he is not the issue is that he is not the only one who is/wants to do this.

There are internal Wikileaks people who have left the organization to found a new group, Openleaks, with more transparency and better governance. So yes, they agree with some of the criticisms of the guy. But the effort will go on.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,719619,00.html

And if that fails, there will be another one and then another one.

So the issue is whether a leaking organization like this serves a valid social function - as a whistleblower or a news organization or something else - or whether it is an enemy of nations.

I'm not using his personality to decide the main point. I believe that Wikileaks is important and should be defended. But what has been happening is that people have been minimizing the allegations against him because they can't separate him from Wikileaks. The rape allegations against him should be investigated and people should not be apologizing for alleged rapes just because they like his politics. In other words, because of the main point, they are too quick to assume that he couldn't possibly have done what he was accused of doing.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the Guardian story about the unredacted Swedish police report on Julian Assange. It's a classic date rape scenario -- nasty, exploitative, and complicated enough that they'll never get a conviction. Really, folks, if the CIA were going to frame Julian Assange, don't you think they'd have made it a much more straightforward case of rape?

We need to fight to preserve Wikileaks but let's not make this man into a hero, okay? He's revolting.

Asking for Assange to be treated fairly by the various legal systems involved is a far cry from making him a hero. Even assholes have rights. How many others accused of similar crimes have been held for nine days in solitary confinement?

Nate Silver has an interesting take on the case here:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/a-bayesian-take-on-julian-assange/

What will you do if the US manages to extradite Assange instead of Sweden?

Yes, even assholes have rights. That's why I support a full investigation of the rape allegations against Assange. But maybe you'd like to extend the same consideration to the women who accused him who are now being vilified by left liberal celebrities using the same old accusations that have always been thrown against rape survivors. They deserve to be treated fairly by the legal system as well and they deserve to have their accusations taken seriously. Instead, a lot of left-liberals have had a hard time accepting that Assange could be doing a good thing in one part of his life and be a misogynistic user in another part of his life -- and you know what, minimizing rape allegations just ensures that the next rape survivor will keep her mouth shut and people like Assange will go on sowing a path of destruction because their fans are too willing to keep things quiet for the cause.

Nate Silver says:

in a world of limited information, the political motivation behind the charges might be the most important clue we have in evaluating their merit.

Have you ever thought what that sounds like to someone who has survived a sexual assault? I know people who were assaulted by very popular guys, whom no one would want to believe anything bad about. Yeah, I can just see how they'd feel if they were in a similar situation and I said to them -- too bad, doesn't matter that this guy injured you in a very personal way. Because the authorities clearly have a political agenda, your personal pain doesn't matter, the investigation should not go forth, and justice for you should be denied. Are you really okay with that kind of statement?

Oh and puh-lease, what will I do if he is extradited to the United States? Protest the extradition of course. It is possible to criticize the motives of the US and Swedish government and NOT minimize rape allegations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assenge is not the issue. He is the easy target, but you are falling for a trap if you use his personality in order to decide the main point. The reason he is not the issue is that he is not the only one who is/wants to do this.

There are internal Wikileaks people who have left the organization to found a new group, Openleaks, with more transparency and better governance. So yes, they agree with some of the criticisms of the guy. But the effort will go on.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,719619,00.html

And if that fails, there will be another one and then another one.

So the issue is whether a leaking organization like this serves a valid social function - as a whistleblower or a news organization or something else - or whether it is an enemy of nations.

I'm not using his personality to decide the main point. I believe that Wikileaks is important and should be defended. But what has been happening is that people have been minimizing the allegations against him because they can't separate him from Wikileaks. The rape allegations against him should be investigated and people should not be apologizing for alleged rapes just because they like his politics. In other words, because of the main point, they are too quick to assume that he couldn't possibly have done what he was accused of doing.

Well, I think so too. But that point is moot. The swedes are going to prosecute him.