-
How can you be so certain Sweden’s not a US puppet till you’ve read the so far unpublished Swedish WikiCables?
-
The rape charges seem phoney, based on what’s been reported, and it seems greatly excessive to put him on Interpol’s “Most Wanted” list for rape charges (how many people with similar charges got on that list), and the timing is astounding.
-
Don’t you think even the Swedes have lots of dirty laundry they don’t want aired out in public? Doesn’t everyone? I would imagine lots of governments (as well as banks and others) are a little nervous they could be exposed next.
-
the last 100 years of history
-
All I know is he is now wanted on criminal charges unrelated to the leaks.
-
the Swedes? No I don’t. What have they been trying to destabilize Norway again?
Someone else has posted a few on Fcom, and as I wrote the TT mentioned one yesterday.[/quote]
I started posting what is available so far here: Wikileaks Cablegate: Taiwan related posts
Here is some stuff in Taipei Times:WikiLeaks says it has Taiwan cables - Taipei Times
I saw an interview on Bloomberg with Lee Kuan Yew a couple of years ago saying exactly that. He is a very candid person actually and punches well above his weight class in regional politics. Like you said that revelation is hardly something for which we need wikileaks.
I think business, governments, and individuals require secrets to move forward, organize, and engage in outcomes that benefit one another and society as a whole. The capacity to keep a secret is one of our most treasured and respected human characteristics. A philosophy based solely on outing secrets because the government has secrets doesn’t make any sense. However, to ensure the social contract so that citizens willingly give up their sovereignty to a government for the sake of social order, there needs to be media that can shine a light on dark secrets. I wholly agree with that and it is honorable, but requires Solomon like discretion and wisdom or otherwise cart blanche might be the only way – they are the horns of the dilemma. However, the darkest secret agreements probably won’t be found on paper. The machinations and correspondence of state department officials seem pretty harmless to me. Who never believed that government officials and diplomats weren’t spying on their counterparts, forming opinions, expressing them in the same office parlance everyone uses, what else would anyone expect? That stuff is just a waste of time. Like a lawyer drowning you in paper. That’s probably what they are doing to Assange – flooding him and his tiny band with misdirection and manageable (from a government point of view) nonsense.
No dirty laundry in Sweden?
Here’s a few scandals that have been outed.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z16vdvuIgI
english.aljazeera.net/news/europ … 54521.html
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/e … cation=rss
nytimes.com/2007/05/11/busin … 72628.html
Who knows (but Julian Assange) what Swedish dirt hasn’t yet been revealed?
Isn’t it possible they, like all other governments, may wish to silence him?
[quote=“Jaboney”]
Let me get this straight:
A) He’s a [color=#0000FF]crusader for transparency[/color], but B) has [color=#BF0000]no clear objective[/color].[/quote]
OK, what, other than ruffling some diplomatic feathers, has his quest for transparency achieved? In other words, yes, that’s great Mr. Assange, you’ve exposed these ‘secrets.’ Now what? It appears to me that he’s more than happy to pat himself on the back. I don’t see any altruistic motivation from this guy. Sarkozy is embarrassed. Putin would be embarrassed if he had any shame. O’Reilly and Palin have something to yap about for the next week. Ho-hum. Nothing has changed except – and this is debatable – the U.S. is going to be a little more cautious about protecting information. Was that Assange’s goal? Certainly fucking not. This is not my original sentiment but something I heard on The Daily Show: so what happens when everything and everybody becomes transparent? We can’t see a thing! Assange has stated that he wants the world to know what goes on in these nefarious diplomatic circles, as if it’s something the average Joe Six-pack really needs or cares about. Now, if Assange comes out and says, “I’m pursuing this sense of transparency with the hopes of toppling certain governments,” then, yes, that’s an objective. Right now, he’s basically doing a poor imitation of a Jackson Pollack painting with information.
[quote=“Jaboney”]
C) There’s clearly a [color=#0000FF]need for organizations like Wikileaks[/color], but D) [color=#BF0000]nothing he’s doing will make a positive difference[/color].
Those seem to be blatantly contradictory statements, interspersed with denunciations for his being “self-important” and indecent.[/quote]
I don’t think I need to remind you that computer hackers consistently hide behind this idea that what they’re doing may be illegal, but they’re doing it for some ambiguous common good, as in, pointing out security weaknesses, etc. It’s still fucking illegal. This is the same Robin Hood mentality that allows people like Bernie Madoff to sleep at night. So, yes, it’s nice to know that orgs like Wikileaks are out there, it just sucks when they’re run by chronic law-breakers with questionable aims. I refuse to be an apologist for cyber-rebels. And I’m hardly the world’s most law-abiding citizen. If I get tossed in Tucheng for smoking a joint, is anybody going to come to my ideological defense? HA! No chance. And until Assange puts something on the table that makes a difference in my life, your life, the lives starving refugees in Darfur, then he’s just another hacker, who deserves zero credit for making waves in an already murky pool of chaos.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”]1. the last 100 years of history
-
All I know is he is now wanted on criminal charges unrelated to the leaks.
-
the Swedes? No I don’t. What have they been trying to destabilize Norway again?[/quote]
-
It’s diplomacy. Sweden doesn’t really care about assange and probably wants him gone as well. He’s been the enemy of virtually every state since the Iraq war logs.
-
Pretty much he just showed the world “this is what happens when you piss off governments.”
-
Never. Trust. The. Swedes.
Assange looks like he’s autistic and probably wants attention. Every country has dirt. Even New Zealand. Most of the logs are just a tad surprising how much the world hates Iran and how much China wants to distance itself from NK. Hell everyone knew the Libyan president is a nutter. I wouldn’t be surprised if he kept a lion as a pet (although that’d be more in the badass category).
Theresa: I commented on the whole white hairs thing.
I think Assange is releasing the docs so he can gloat over himself from the media attention and how he’s greater than governments. Till he leaks something bad about Russia and Putin will probably strangle him personally. Assange just wants to watch the world burn. Hell imagine if he leaked the locations of US nuclear subs. Not. Good. For. Anyone.
[quote=“super_lucky”][quote=“Jaboney”]
Let me get this straight:
A) He’s a [color=#0000FF]crusader for transparency[/color], but B) has [color=#BF0000]no clear objective[/color].[/quote]
OK, what, other than ruffling some diplomatic feathers, has his quest for transparency achieved? In other words, yes, that’s great Mr. Assange, you’ve exposed these ‘secrets.’ Now what? It appears to me that he’s more than happy to pat himself on the back. I don’t see any altruistic motivation from this guy. Sarkozy is embarrassed. Putin would be embarrassed if he had any shame. O’Reilly and Palin have something to yap about for the next week. Ho-hum. Nothing has changed except – and this is debatable – the U.S. is going to be a little more cautious about protecting information. Was that Assange’s goal? Certainly fucking not. This is not my original sentiment but something I heard on The Daily Show: so what happens when everything and everybody becomes transparent? We can’t see a thing! Assange has stated that he wants the world to know what goes on in these nefarious diplomatic circles, as if it’s something the average Joe Six-pack really needs or cares about. Now, if Assange comes out and says, “I’m pursuing this sense of transparency with the hopes of toppling certain governments,” then, yes, that’s an objective. Right now, he’s basically doing a poor imitation of a Jackson Pollack painting with information.
[quote=“Jaboney”]
C) There’s clearly a [color=#0000FF]need for organizations like Wikileaks[/color], but D) [color=#BF0000]nothing he’s doing will make a positive difference[/color].
Those seem to be blatantly contradictory statements, interspersed with denunciations for his being “self-important” and indecent.[/quote]
I don’t think I need to remind you that computer hackers consistently hide behind this idea that what they’re doing may be illegal, but they’re doing it for some ambiguous common good, as in, pointing out security weaknesses, etc. It’s still fucking illegal. This is the same Robin Hood mentality that allows people like Bernie Madoff to sleep at night. So, yes, it’s nice to know that orgs like Wikileaks are out there, it just sucks when they’re run by chronic law-breakers with questionable aims. I refuse to be an apologist for cyber-rebels. And I’m hardly the world’s most law-abiding citizen. If I get tossed in Tucheng for smoking a joint, is anybody going to come to my ideological defense? HA! No chance. And until Assange puts something on the table that makes a difference in my life, your life, the lives starving refugees in Darfur, then he’s just another hacker, who deserves zero credit for making waves in an already murky pool of chaos.[/quote]
I posted links and quotes about the hacker claim in the other thread, but it was 20 years ago and he basically got let off with the judge saying there was nothing malicious about it. Continuing to call him a hacker now when there’s no evidence of it is simply misleading and wrong.
[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“super_lucky”][quote=“Jaboney”]
Let me get this straight:
A) He’s a [color=#0000FF]crusader for transparency[/color], but B) has [color=#BF0000]no clear objective[/color].[/quote]
OK, what, other than ruffling some diplomatic feathers, has his quest for transparency achieved? In other words, yes, that’s great Mr. Assange, you’ve exposed these ‘secrets.’ Now what? It appears to me that he’s more than happy to pat himself on the back. I don’t see any altruistic motivation from this guy. Sarkozy is embarrassed. Putin would be embarrassed if he had any shame. O’Reilly and Palin have something to yap about for the next week. Ho-hum. Nothing has changed except – and this is debatable – the U.S. is going to be a little more cautious about protecting information. Was that Assange’s goal? Certainly fucking not. This is not my original sentiment but something I heard on The Daily Show: so what happens when everything and everybody becomes transparent? We can’t see a thing! Assange has stated that he wants the world to know what goes on in these nefarious diplomatic circles, as if it’s something the average Joe Six-pack really needs or cares about. Now, if Assange comes out and says, “I’m pursuing this sense of transparency with the hopes of toppling certain governments,” then, yes, that’s an objective. Right now, he’s basically doing a poor imitation of a Jackson Pollack painting with information.
[quote=“Jaboney”]
C) There’s clearly a [color=#0000FF]need for organizations like Wikileaks[/color], but D) [color=#BF0000]nothing he’s doing will make a positive difference[/color].
Those seem to be blatantly contradictory statements, interspersed with denunciations for his being “self-important” and indecent.[/quote]
I don’t think I need to remind you that computer hackers consistently hide behind this idea that what they’re doing may be illegal, but they’re doing it for some ambiguous common good, as in, pointing out security weaknesses, etc. It’s still fucking illegal. This is the same Robin Hood mentality that allows people like Bernie Madoff to sleep at night. So, yes, it’s nice to know that orgs like Wikileaks are out there, it just sucks when they’re run by chronic law-breakers with questionable aims. I refuse to be an apologist for cyber-rebels. And I’m hardly the world’s most law-abiding citizen. If I get tossed in Tucheng for smoking a joint, is anybody going to come to my ideological defense? HA! No chance. And until Assange puts something on the table that makes a difference in my life, your life, the lives starving refugees in Darfur, then he’s just another hacker, who deserves zero credit for making waves in an already murky pool of chaos.[/quote]
I posted links and quotes about the hacker claim in the other thread, but it was 20 years ago and he basically got let off with the judge saying there was nothing malicious about it. Continuing to call him a hacker now when there’s no evidence of it is simply misleading and wrong.[/quote]
Yeah that’s like saying oh I delt drugs a couple of years ago, its ok it was only like 5 grams of weed. He’s still a hacker and probably got smart and didn’t get caught.
[quote=“super_lucky”][quote=“Jaboney”]
Let me get this straight:
A) He’s a [color=#0000FF]crusader for transparency[/color], but B) has [color=#BF0000]no clear objective[/color].[/quote]
OK, what, other than ruffling some diplomatic feathers, has his quest for transparency achieved? [/quote]
Um, a lot of transparency?
In 2009 WikiLeaks won a media award from Amnesty International for helping expose over 500 extra-judicial killings in Kenya by the Kenyan police force. Wikileaks also published an internal report on the dumping of toxic chemicals in the Ivory Coast by the Trafigura company - killing 17 and causing 100 000 others to seek medical attention. This exposure contributed to the company being forced to pay $46 million in compensation to the victims.
So, zero credit huh?
[quote=“Loretta”]I don’t know why, but I get a bad feeling about this guy. I didn’t really know anything about him until I saw this video interview:
Without listening to what he says, just looking at his mannerisms, I have the feeling that he’s mentally unstable.
[/quote]
You’re just jealous because he’s mentally unstable but famous and influential, while you’re only, well, you know… 
Just kidding.
Regarding your question: I don’t think he’s a nutter, but he’s a bit eccentric.
Doesn’t crushing bastards make the world a better place?
Umm… you know they move around a lot, don’t you?
[quote=“antarcticbeech”]
Um, a lot of transparency?[/quote] And? What do we see that we didn’t see before?
[quote=“antarcticbeech”]In 2009 WikiLeaks won a media award from Amnesty International for helping expose over 500 extra-judicial killings in Kenya by the Kenyan police force. Wikileaks also published a internal report on the dumping of toxic chemicals in the Ivory Coast by the Trafigura company, killing 17 and causing 100 000 others to seek medical attention. This exposure contributed to the company being forced to pay $46 million in compensation to the victims.
So, zero credit huh?[/quote]
Yeah, zero credit. As a matter of fact, The N.Y. Times, BBC, de Volksrant, The Guardian et al were on to Trafigura way back in 2006. Here’s another case of Wikileaks playing a tangential role in what amounted to a corporate slap on the wrist. Furthermore, that $46 million represented about 10% of Trafigura’s annual profit, and they simply started dumping the toxic waste somewhere else.
P.S. ctimages: is calling Assange a ‘hacker’ any more misleading and wrong than exposing hundreds if not thousands of civilians to untold recriminations for their complicity in diplomatic SOP?
Umm… you know they move around a lot, don’t you?[/quote]
They’re usually stationed at specific grids. It’s like releasing flight plans. Everything is planned out before hand, they just don’t move in a random pattern. Most flight plans today are still classified info.
Wikileaks future operations will be pretty hard as countries are gonna tighten their security networks a lot more internally and DDOS wikileaks.
edit: in the collateral murder video, there was so much bias commentary. If you just looked at the video without commentary you could not have known those were reporters.
Indeed, I look forward to reading the missive instructing Fred Smith to infiltrate the foreign chat sites to spread pro-Bush propaganda. 
Indeed, I look forward to reading the missive instructing Fred Smith to infiltrate the foreign chat sites to spread pro-Bush propaganda. [/quote]
You mean Obama, new President 
Indeed, I look forward to reading the missive instructing Fred Smith to infiltrate the foreign chat sites to spread pro-Bush propaganda. [/quote]
You mean Obama, new President [/quote]
I didn’t realize Obama was president during the Chen Shui Bian era.
Indeed, I look forward to reading the missive instructing Fred Smith to infiltrate the foreign chat sites to spread pro-Bush propaganda. [/quote]
You mean Obama, new President [/quote]
I didn’t realize Obama was president during the Chen Shui Bian era.[/quote]
Same policies.
Indeed, I look forward to reading the missive instructing Fred Smith to infiltrate the foreign chat sites to spread pro-Bush propaganda. [/quote]
You mean Obama, new President [/quote]
I didn’t realize Obama was president during the Chen Shui Bian era.[/quote]
Same policies.[/quote]
No. But I admire your effort to never leave one misreading at that. 
[quote=“Satellite TV Jr”]They’re usually stationed at specific grids. It’s like releasing flight plans. Everything is planned out before hand, they just don’t move in a random pattern. Most flight plans today are still classified info.
[/quote]
Grids or zones but not precise locations. The precise location of nuclear missile subs is one of the most closely guarded secrets in the military. Not something Assange would likely ever get his hands on, or choose to reveal publicly. And if he did, the navy would just change their location pronto (unless the ULF was out of whack, and Gene Hackman had to face off with Denzel Washington ) So, no real connection to the Assange Wikileaks matter.