The Wikileaks dessemination megathread (Cablegate and beyond)

[yllus]

The people filing the cables (US diplomats) are in no danger of being killed. The local informants who discussed potentially sensitive information with the US diplomats are in danger.

Yeah... No kidding. I take it that part of the problem here is that you don't "get" things very quickly.

He is endangering people around the world from many different countries, not US diplomats. These people range from earnest informants disenfranchised with their corrupt governments, to obvious panderers seeking status or money.

Then if the various government(s) affected care about those people's lives, they'll be extra careful to ensure he's not subject to any extralegal retaliation.

yllus, unfortunately the average citizen of these countries are blinded by idealism and stupidity, much like yourself. The fact is that Iran is a dangerous country that could easily destabilize world peace, and that the terrorist sites in their respective countries do the world no good. While the governments have to please simpleton citizens, they also live in the real world and are intelligent enough to recognize evil and confront it, albeit discretely.

This is the crux of your argument: You see clearly and are intelligent, they are not - thus things should happen the way you want them to.

You know what? Policy wise, I agree with you - I want those drone attacks and special forces raids to continue. Unlike you, however, I am not blind to my own motives - I want these things to stay secret because they benefit me, not because they are right. It's an amazingly ignorant thing to claim that you have the moral high ground over Yemenis when it's they who are faced with the spectre of drone attacks in the middle of the night.

*edit* I forgot about one thing. I directly confronted your discussion of what you deem as illicit means to apprehend Mr. Assange. I said paypal was perfectly within their right, that Post Finance seemed to provide a reasonable explanation, and that the Swedish government seems to have created trumped up charges. How would you like me to further address this?

Also about the head in the sand comment. While it would be easy to google ways to finance criminal & terrorist groups it doesn't mean Anandtech should have a how to thread regarding such methods. I personally think Wikileaks is as dangerous as any criminal group, even if they aren't exactly breaking laws.

You idea of confrontation apparently involves regurgitating the party line. And nowhere did I deem what PayPal or Amazon or others did as illicit. They are well within their rights to refuse service to anyone. That's not in question. Whether or not congressional pressure was applied on those companies to make them take that action - that's the question, and it's already been answered.

 

[CLite]

Ok,

1) Your first response makes no sense, I will just assume you don't care about the lives of our local informants.

2) You don't see anything morally wrong with me planting a bomb in a civilian location that could kill 1,000 civilians and saying that if anything illicit happens to me I will detonate the bomb? Keep in mind that I'm a paranoid megalomaniac that could perceive a change in weather as a hostile act by the U.S. government.

3) The terrorist camps are faced with the specter of drone attacks, and these terrorist camps endanger Yemen lives which is why the Yemen government has chosen it's course of action.

4) What party line? I have voted Democratic for national elections the last 3 elections. The only reference in the article you link to Paypal being under government pressure is a quote from wikileaks. Regarding Amazon, the article only states that congressional staffers started asking questions. What kind of pressure does your conspiracy driven little mind dream up? I'm sure the worst of it boiled down to "we are exploring a criminal case so can you give us more information" and the companies decided to just drop Wiki instead of facing legal cases in the future. Would this represent some evil government applying undo pressure?

 

[yllus]

Oh great, more analogies. Yes CLite, planting a bomb to kill a thousand people is exactly like what Assange is doing.

Yes, all terrorists hide in clearly marked camps and civilians are never inadvertently killed by missile attacks. That's why they're called surgical strikes, don't ya know?

LOL, you're "sure the worst of it boiled down to 'we are exploring a criminal case so can you give us more information'"? I'd laugh it wasn't obvious that you weren't being naive but dishonest.

 

[Infohawk]

Isn't his whole insurance thing an obvious sign that he really doesn't have good intentions at heart? Either the information is important to the world population and should be released now, or the information is just damaging and disruptive and should never be released. These are only good choices for a selfish douche.

 

[Harvey]

Isn't his whole insurance thing an obvious sign that he really doesn't have good intentions at heart? Either the information is important to the world population and should be released now, or the information is just damaging and disruptive and should never be released.

Not necessarily. Assange has been vetting and corroborating his facts and working with outside sources to identify info that should be redacted. He even tried to work with the U.S. government before he released anything, and all they did was turn their backs on him.

He may still be working on vetting his future releases and only threatening to release all the info if he's attacked.

These are only good choices for a selfish douche.

That's a bit presumptuous. It's also the only good choice for a guy who may be the same kind of hero as Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers.

AFIK, no official agency from any nation has denied the truth in what has been released, and as far as the Swedish charges, I have no reason to believe the Obama administration isn't doing what Nixon did to Ellsberg, sending out the "plumbers" to sabotage and discredit Assange.

What do you have beyond your own speculation to prove he isn't exactly who and what he says he is?

 

[Nebor]

He may still be working on vetting his future releases and only threatening to release all the info if he's attacked.

Hopefully he's the only one with the 256-bit key to unlock the info, and his accident leaves virtually no chance of survival.

 

[Infohawk]

Harvey,

Why would the US government negotiate with someone who is disseminating classified materials? It doesn't make any sense. Again, his vetting is pathetic. Why release lists of targets the US considers sensitive? That doesn't help anyone.

What is my proof that he's a douche? His actions. The information he's released has been petty at best and dangerous at worse. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced this poison pill nonsense show's he's more interested in attention and less interested in changing the world.

Please tell me how it's anything other than a selfish choice? Again, if the documents are important, he should release them now. I mean his goal is to show corruption right? Why should people have to wait until he's arrested. If they aren't necessary to improve the world, then he should not release them at all. It's basically blackmail.

 

[Infohawk]

Hopefully he's the only one with the 256-bit key to unlock the info, and his accident leaves virtually no chance of survival.

Unfortunately, he's not.

 

[yllus]

Hopefully he's the only one with the 256-bit key to unlock the info, and his accident leaves virtually no chance of survival.

He's not under any pretenses about who he's pissing off here; no doubt he's got the Web equivalent of a dead man's switch set up to get that key out if the worst occurs.

 

[Infohawk]

He's not under any pretenses about who he's pissing off here; no doubt he's got the Web equivalent of a dead man's switch set up to get that key out if the worst occurs.

So he's saving the best stuff to cover his butt? A real hero... If it's so good he should release it now to embetter humanity.

 

[yllus]

So he's saving the best stuff to cover his butt? A real hero... If it's so good he should release it now to embetter humanity.

More likely the same stuff we'd see anyhow, but without the names redacted.

Who cares if he's a hero? Is there some odd compulsion Americans suffer from that requires you to simplify everything into black and white? His morals and mindset are besides the point, it's the information conveyed via his organization that matters.

 

[Infohawk]

More likely the same stuff we'd see anyhow, but without the names redacted.

Who cares if he's a hero? Is there some odd compulsion Americans suffer from that requires you to simplify everything into black and white? His morals and mindset are besides the point, it's the information conveyed via his organization that matters.

You're already resorting to making generalizations about Americans?

So if it's just the same stuff... is it really that important? It sounds like you're saying he's bluffing. Unless you're saying he's going to put individuals at risk. In which case he's a selfish prick.

Well apparently you don't care if he's a hero. Most supporters on this board and elsewhere seem to think he is.

We'll see as more information is released. Like I said, so far it's been petty at best and dangerous at worse.

 

[yllus]

You're already resorting to making generalizations about Americans?

So if it's just the same stuff... is it really that important? It sounds like you're saying he's bluffing. Unless you're saying he's going to put individuals at risk. In which case he's a selfish prick.

Well apparently you don't care if he's a hero. Most supporters on this board and elsewhere seem to think he is.

We'll see as more information is released. Like I said, so far it's been petty at best and dangerous at worse.

Oh please, you've been parading around in threads all day attributing quotes to people defending Assange. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Ultimately is it just a bluff. Know why? Because the governments affected don't really care about the safety of their sources. They're just tools. From their perspectives, it's much more important to make an object lesson out of Assange than it is to keep those people safe. (And anyways, people like you will just blame him instead.)

 

[Nebor]

He's not under any pretenses about who he's pissing off here; no doubt he's got the Web equivalent of a dead man's switch set up to get that key out if the worst occurs.

Then maybe he needs to be interrogated to determine the location and nature of any contingencies. Guantanamo Bay isn't closed yet, and he's essentially an enemy combatant, waging an information war against the United States.

 

[Infohawk]

Oh please, you've been parading around in threads all day attributing quotes to people defending Assange. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Ultimately is it just a bluff. Know why? Because the governments affected don't really care about the safety of their sources. They're just tools. From their perspectives, it's much more important to make an object lesson out of Assange than it is to keep those people safe. (And anyways, people like you will just blame him instead.)

So what you're saying is he's playing poker with people's lives? Sounds like a douche to me who's no better than the governments he's so worried about.

 

[Harvey]

Harvey,

Why would the US government negotiate with someone who is disseminating classified materials?

I have yet to see ANY reports that anything in the released documents is truly "classified," at least classified as "secret," unless you want to call "embarrassing" an official classification of secrets.

It doesn't make any sense. Again, his vetting is pathetic. Why release lists of targets the US considers sensitive? That doesn't help anyone.

I'm old enough to remember that that's what Nixon and his cronies said about Ellsberg. That's what the Bushwhackos said about Joseph Wilson blowing holes in your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief's claims that Saddam had acquired yellow cake uranium from Niger.

Forty years later, we know that Nixon and his assholes were the "douches" who were lying and attacking Ellsberg in a vain attempt to cover their own criminal asses. Less than a decade later, we know that's what the Bush "douches" did to Joseph Wilson while outing his wife, Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA operative.

What is my proof that he's a douche? His actions. The information he's released has been petty at best and dangerous at worse. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced this poison pill nonsense show's he's more interested in attention and less interested in changing the world.

In a word, BULLSHIT! I doubt that you're in any position to know what is "at best and dangerous at worse," let alone evaluate it. His threat to release all remaining documents may be his only means to his own preservation.

If you have evidence that he's wrong, put it out there. If not, you may want to remember that, in our system of justice, Assange is entitled to be considere innocent until proven guilty.

Please tell me how it's anything other than a selfish choice?

Ask Daniel Ellsberg and Joseph Wilson.

Again, if the documents are important, he should release them now. I mean his goal is to show corruption right? Why should people have to wait until he's arrested. If they aren't necessary to improve the world, then he should not release them at all. It's basically blackmail.

If his goal is to show corruption while minimizing collateral damage from errors in his raw data, he's doing it right. I don't care that you don't agree, but if you're going to make declarative statements of his guilt, try proving it, instead of spewing an uninformed, ill considered opinion.

I don't know where this ends. I don't want to see anyone harmed as a result of the leaks, but if you want to blame someone for any harm that befalls those our government put in harm's way, blame the liars, not the tellers of truth.

Sometimes, the only disinfectant to kill the stench of lies is the bleach of clear sunlight and truth.

 

[yllus]

Then maybe he needs to be interrogated to determine the location and nature of any contingencies. Guantanamo Bay isn't closed yet, and he's essentially an enemy combatant, waging an information war against the United States.

A more effective action would have been to watch him for a few days or a week and snoop all of his traffic to see what machines he was talking to. Kill those machines, and only then swoop in and arrest him.

Which, come to think of it, is probably exactly what happened over the last few days. He did report that he was being monitored for quite a few days before being arrested. But it's all moot since he probably prepared against that contingency by having triggers of varying timers set, plus actually telling a few key people the password face to face.

In any case, this isn't a Jack Bauer world. If he wants it to, that information will come out - no matter what. Try spending your time more productively by tightening up computer security over in the U.S. military and State Department, though that ain't going to help much either in the long run. This is going to become a trend.

 

[Infohawk]

Harvey, I'm not really sure what your point is. Assange himself admits he's disseminating classified materials, doesn't he? I don't have an opinion on whether he actually committed rape. What do you think is in the documents? Either it's nothing or he's protecting himself with other people's lives? What are you saying he is innocent of?

You say I am not in a position to say what information released is dangerous or petty. Why can't I pass judgment on that? We know what's been released so far right? Do you think any of it has been useful? I don't. Is there ANY good reason to disclose a list of sites that the government deems sensitive? I don't see one. I'm willing to listen to your argumens.

I'm judging Assange based on his actions and the documents he's releasing. You seem to be assuming he's what he says he is based on other people and other governments have done in the past. He's not those people. We can make opinions about him based on what he himself has already done.

 

[extra]

Nice name calling, but no real substance. No one, including U.S. Government sources has claimed that anything posted on WikiLeaks is false. You have yet to disprove anything they've posted, let alone any of your lame fear mongering that they could be infected.

As I said, that's the same kind of shit you and the rest of the right wingnut noise factory were spewing when you pimped your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents.

And for the record, I'm none too pleased with Obama's failure live up to his promises and commitments to change that.

To be fair, everything that I've seen leaked from the "cables" makes the U.S. look awesome and respectable, it even makes China look all right. It makes european countries look like douches, though.

 

[between]

..

 

[Throckmorton]

I think I know why so many libertarian and liberal Americans support WikiLeaks and idolize Julian Assange. They take security and stability for granted. Live through an Islamist coup and then try saying you support absolute transparency even if it means releasing the identities of people who have acted against the Taliban.

 

[Infohawk]

Julian Assange has an article in today's Australian, explaining what he is trying to achieve with wikileaks - it's worth a read:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...mfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332

Already read it. The list of things he thinks are important are embarrassingly unimportant. None of it appears to be illegal either.

 

[between]

..

 

[Nebor]

Already read it. The list of things he thinks are important are embarrassingly unimportant. None of it appears to be illegal either.

My liberal friends on facebook are getting spun into a tizzy over state department employees being directed to secretly obtain information & biometrics from other diplomats. I was like, "lulz, google 'spy diplomat' and try to count the number of countries that have been caught doing this."

 

[Throckmorton]

just to clarify, wikileaks does redact the names of e.g., informants, people who might be harmed, from their releases. let's not pretend they don't.

O RLY?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html

"There was no consideration about civilian lives," Nadery said, noting a rise in assassinations of Afghan civilians seen as government collaborators.
"We said that in the future the names should be redacted and the ones that are already there need to be taken down. Even though it's late, it still worth doing," Nadery said. He said the group had not yet received any response to its requests.