Julian Assange (Wikileaks) arrested

[cfimages]

[quote=“super_lucky”][quote=“antarcticbeech”]
Um, a lot of transparency?[/quote] And? What do we see that we didn’t see before?

@super_lucky

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=“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?[/quote]

Apples and oranges.

[Mick]

@super_lucky

@antarcticbeech

Um, a lot of transparency?

And? What do we see that we didn’t see before?

We got a toothless media controlled by multi billion dollar corporations spoon feeding the public what they want to hear, politicians who lie about anything and everything, and political correctness that stops the politicians actually saying what we all already know. This piece had this which is worth quoting.

News media presents an image of reality that people sense is bullshit but would like to live up to anyway. As an example, Wikileaks revealed that American diplomats think England’s Prince Andrew is a rude asshole, but suddenly that’s controversial when it’s leaked. Why? Because Prince Andrew probably is an asshole but that isn’t allowed to be known, voicing that experience off the record by those who’ve met him is a non allowable media experience, instead, the media consensus (and so the manufactured one) is that Prince Andrew is automatically good because he’s a prince. No reporter ever ran the story of Prince Andrew being a prick as it doesn’t make for a good story because the rich don’t like the idea of it and the plebs don’t need to know anyway. When Wikileaks document dumps the truth that American diplomats who’ve met him think that way, everyone ends up shocked.

Wikileaks and the death of American badassery.

[cfimages]

@Satellite TV Jr

@cfimages

@super_lucky

@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].

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

I gave you a suitable analogy on the other thread before u talked about Bush and his legal cocaine.

Put it this way - Rosa Parks got arrested on a bus. We don’t remember her a criminal, do we?

[sandman]

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.

Bingo. Wikileaks is no more than Fark for people who think they’re grownups. A waste of precious Internet resources.

[Mucha_Man]

@sandman

[quote]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.

Bingo. Wikileaks is no more than Fark for people who think they’re grownups. A waste of precious Internet resources. [/quote]

Sure, if you believe there is such a thing as secret societies and deepest darkest agreements that are signed in blood oaths and all that other skull and crossbones nonsense.

Governments record things because they have to have bureaucracies to function; and bureaucracies have to have records.

[almas_john]

Loretta, yes, strikes me as a nutter, and a sexual deviant. Of course, after that boozy weekend at the farm we’re not really in a position to throw stones.

Wikileaks is obviously crap. Anyone else notice the lack of references to Jews? Secret skulduggery always involves the sons of Moses. I searched the wikileaks site for material on a subject that I have been researching for a book (Jewish infiltration and control of the buxiban industry in Taiwan) and found nothing.

[touduke]

Here is a interesting but also troubling read about the way Wikileaks might expose people who act as informants.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/wikileaks-just-made-the-world-more-repressive/article1818157/

[Satellite_TV_Jr]

[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“Satellite TV Jr”][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]

I gave you a suitable analogy on the other thread before u talked about Bush and his legal cocaine.

Put it this way - Rosa Parks got arrested on a bus. We don’t remember her a criminal, do we?[/quote]

Yeah because fighting racism and hacking computer systems is the same thing. Tell that to the FBI.

edit: informationweek.com/news/sof … ed_IWK_All

That kid did the right thing but still is a criminal. Civil disobedience is still disobedience. Like those students who occupied Conservative Party HQ in the UK. You’re still breaking the law.

[Fox]

@Mucha Man

[quote=“sandman”][quote]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.

Bingo. Wikileaks is no more than Fark for people who think they’re grownups. A waste of precious Internet resources. [/quote]

Sure, if you believe there is such a thing as secret societies and deepest darkest agreements that are signed in blood oaths and all that other skull and crossbones nonsense.

Governments record things because they have to have bureaucracies to function; and bureaucracies have to have records.[/quote]

Does Watergate ring a bell?

Nixon’s alleged role in ordering a cover-up came to light after the testimony of John Dean. In July 1973, White House aide Alexander Butterfield testified that Nixon had a secret taping system that recorded his conversations and phone calls in the Oval Office. Unlike the tape recordings by earlier Presidents, Nixon’s were subpoenaed.

If it weren’t for the tapes there would have been no provable case against Nixon. Ironically, he recorded his own downfall. I think the recording devices were put in by Kennedy to keep track of what was going on in the oval office for himself. They were government property, however, and belonged to the people. If the tapes hadn’t existed then history might be quite different. The idea was to have nothing on paper. Why if you were about to commit a crime would you leave a public record?

There is very little of interest in the Wikileaks stuff in terms of the State Department cables. It is just a bunch of banter that anyone who had ever been involved with those types would tell you goes on all the time. Wikileaks has no idea of it’s own sources they could just be being drowned in paper.

[bereal]

I commend him for his efforts but have to agree with super_lucky,nothing really much has really been achieved except for pissing off alot of world leaders. I fully expect this guy to die of a heart attack or die in a plane crash in the near future.
Meanwhile, dissedents who expose this incidious corruption which has plauged this planet get catorgorized,labled and demonized according to one’s’ political/Philosophical beliefs and debated takes presidence over common sense and the obvious… I just don’t get it.

[bereal]

[quote]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[/quote].

Two wrongs don’t make a right or fight fire with fire?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warran … ontroversy

That kid did the right thing but still is a criminal. Civil disobedience is still disobedience. Like those students who occupied Conservative Party HQ in the UK. You’re still breaking the law.[/quote]

Who makes the laws(statutes) and for what purpose?

[cfimages]

[quote=“bereal”][quote]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[/quote].

Two wrongs don’t make a right or fight fire with fire?

[/quote]

The claim Wikileaks is run by chronic lawbreakers is misleading at best but more likely downright wrong. There’s nothing that shows Wikileaks is run by chronic lawbreakers, no evidence that suggests it at all. Unless a single instance by one founder 20 years ago for which he received a slap on the wrist counts as chronic lawbreaking.

[divea]

The guy leaked this amon other things.

¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”

There’s more on Pakistan, including

The ambassador starkly informed Washington that “no amount of money” from the US would stop the Pakistani army backing Islamist militants and the Afghan Taliban insurgency.

Did we know that??? Sure. Here is the official confirmation.
Assange may be a nutter, who cares? As long as the documents revealed are true and not fakes.

[Satellite_TV_Jr]

[quote=“bereal”]

That kid did the right thing but still is a criminal. Civil disobedience is still disobedience. Like those students who occupied Conservative Party HQ in the UK. You’re still breaking the law.[/quote]

Who makes the laws(statutes) and for what purpose?[/quote]

Parliament/Congress aka the people who were voted in as legislators.

[BigJohn]

Who makes the laws(statutes) and for what purpose?

The law is an indispensable way to hold people accountable. But so is leaking information, which happens all the time with journalists and insiders. When the former violates the latter, then it is not always a bad thing, overall. Unless you’re a legal positivist, that is.

[Satellite_TV_Jr]

@BigJohn

[quote] Who makes the laws(statutes) and for what purpose?

The law is an indispensable way to hold people accountable. But so is leaking information, which happens all the time with journalists and insiders. When the former violates the latter, then it is not always a bad thing, overall. Unless you’re a legal positivist, that is.[/quote]

No most of the time when journalists release gov data they check with the gov first. They might not charge you with anything if you release it, but they can make your life a living hell. The government itself “leaks” false information to the press for misinformation during wartime. Worked really well in Gulf War 1 when Saddam’s only reliable source on American attacks was CNN. You leak classified information you can be tried for treason. No matter how damning some information is, it’s still classified. 99% of classified information isn’t wowing stuff either, it’s mostly a bunch of reports of what happened. If a news agency reported classified info without informing the government, you can bet your ass they’ll start to lose ratings over time due to huge amount of restrictions imposed on them. They’ll be the last guys to know any information that the gov releases to other agencies. AFAIK the FCC can put a tight grip on any news report that is a threat to national security.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6180682.stm sometimes You don’t want to end up like that guy. I think Russia was just sending a message.

[fenlander]

[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:

ted.com/talks/lang/eng/julia … leaks.html

Without listening to what he says, just looking at his mannerisms, I have the feeling that he’s mentally unstable.

When he talks, yes, it makes a degree of sense. But he seems to be motivated by a desire to share his version of the truth rather than reaching a balanced informed opinion. After all, does anyone really believe that in a representative selection of political communication going back to 1986, there will be no instances of diplomats urging their masters to send humanitarian aid, to reward struggling democratic governments, to relax policies that are counter-productive.

These leaks seem to be selective, designed to embarass rather than to inform.

I’m not a big fan of the US government’s behaviour, but I think we owe it to ourselves to be objective rather than just focus on the facts that fit our political viewpoint.

Anyone else have an opinion about the messenger, not the message? I’d be grateful if we could avoid discussing the US’ actions, and keep this focused on the man and his mission.

Cheers[/quote]
He looks fine. Just needs to put on weight especially if he is going to an American jail :roflmao: He’d get raped every day.

[yuli]

@Loretta

Julian Assange (Wikileaks) - is he a nutter?

Julian Assange is just one person (even if it is easy to think of him as the figurehead) associated with wikileaks. There are many others, and the attacks on Julian are going to increase their numbers. Julian Assange may get killed or stashed away before long, and nobody will be surprised. It’s a war - it has always been a war, and it won’t stop tomorrow, but a dead or jailed Julian Assange will even be more of a hero and martyr, and it is not only the Taliban that are motivated by heros and martyrs. Is he a nutter? W We habitually elect nutters to screw us around, so what difference does it make?

[BigJohn]

[quote=“Satellite TV Jr”]
No most of the time when journalists release gov data they check with the gov first. They might not charge you with anything if you release it, but they can make your life a living hell.[/quote]

Are you speaking from personal experience as a journalist? Because I am. Many great stories come from insiders, and the press are happy to jump on it. Now, if you are talking about CNN in post 911 America, then you have a point. But your point doesn’t contradict my point. There are many cases where leaks have occurred in the last few years to the press and there was little done about it.

[Satellite_TV_Jr]

[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Satellite TV Jr”]
No most of the time when journalists release gov data they check with the gov first. They might not charge you with anything if you release it, but they can make your life a living hell.[/quote]

Are you speaking from personal experience as a journalist? Because I am. Many great stories come from insiders, and the press are happy to jump on it. Now, if you are talking about CNN in post 911 America, then you have a point. But your point doesn’t contradict my point. There are many cases where leaks have occurred in the last few years to the press and there was little done about it.[/quote]

I’m not saying there aren’t insiders, it’s just most news stories aren’t exactly a threat to national security. The US gov usually leaks info to the press from “insiders,” they’re pretty good at intelligence operations.