[Proculation]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Proculation Proculation:

The "cables" were stolen. By accepting them knowing they were stolen and using them is criminal. Divulging 'secret' informations is also criminal. All that is not covered by freedom of press. It's disregard of the law. It's anarchy. Even Reporters Without Borders condemn Assange's reckless attitude.

If that is your measure, Nixon would have been a great president. Because 'Watergate' would never have happened. Neither would the whole Valerie Plame thing, someone should have been guilty of treason there. Can you remember the start of the Nicaraguan/El Salvadorian war, where the US government said that Nicaragua (?) was going to buy all sorts of Soviet Jets and start a war with El Salvador? And the Nicaraguans said "We are?". The US then forced El Salvador to buy lots of military hardware they couldn't afford. That started a huge war, and a civil war in El Salvador. (I might have that backwards, it was the 70's after all)

Media organizations beat the war drums hard, even though it was all bullshit.

It's the job of the media to reveal information that comes into their influence. Where it came from is irrelevant. And the information was given to every major news organization before it appeared on the website.

Assange may be reckless, but that isn't a crime punishable by death. The US government performs similar espionage like this all the time! Big US corporations even hide the spies and give them cover for a share in the information!

The US government has strayed very far from it's founding ideals. They pay lip service at best to 'freedom of speech', 'freedom of the press', 'a free market' and 'democratic government of the people. . .'. And the citizens need to know that. The big media companies won't tell them that, as EB points out, they do what brings the greatest profit when it suits them. If the little media guys have to do it, at the risk of their lives, I applaud that.

I repeat that there's a limit to what should be public and what should remain private. Journalists don't tell the name of minors in criminal cases. Women don't tell everything to their 'friends'. Companies don't invite their competitors to their negotiation. You don't tell you hate your mother in law.

[Zipperfish]

Proculation Proculation:

The "cables" were stolen. By accepting them knowing they were stolen and using them is criminal. Divulging 'secret' informations is also criminal. All that is not covered by freedom of press. It's disregard of the law. It's anarchy. Even Reporters Without Borders condemn Assange's reckless attitude.

Funny, don't recall you expressing this sentiment when emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia were stolen. Seem to recall you were quite in favour of that one.

In other words, what we have here from you is sheer partisan hackery. If your side does it, it's good. If the other side does it, it's bad.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Bodah Bodah:

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

I'm hopeful that Assange isn't the only thing holding this together, considering how he's at risk now.

Good I hope he's hunted down like a dog.

Just a matter of time...

If he goes another will take his place.

That's his job. He's just the face of Wikileaks.

[DrCaleb]

Proculation Proculation:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Proculation Proculation:

The "cables" were stolen. By accepting them knowing they were stolen and using them is criminal. Divulging 'secret' informations is also criminal. All that is not covered by freedom of press. It's disregard of the law. It's anarchy. Even Reporters Without Borders condemn Assange's reckless attitude.

If that is your measure, Nixon would have been a great president. Because 'Watergate' would never have happened. Neither would the whole Valerie Plame thing, someone should have been guilty of treason there. Can you remember the start of the Nicaraguan/El Salvadorian war, where the US government said that Nicaragua (?) was going to buy all sorts of Soviet Jets and start a war with El Salvador? And the Nicaraguans said "We are?". The US then forced El Salvador to buy lots of military hardware they couldn't afford. That started a huge war, and a civil war in El Salvador. (I might have that backwards, it was the 70's after all)

Media organizations beat the war drums hard, even though it was all bullshit.

It's the job of the media to reveal information that comes into their influence. Where it came from is irrelevant. And the information was given to every major news organization before it appeared on the website.

Assange may be reckless, but that isn't a crime punishable by death. The US government performs similar espionage like this all the time! Big US corporations even hide the spies and give them cover for a share in the information!

The US government has strayed very far from it's founding ideals. They pay lip service at best to 'freedom of speech', 'freedom of the press', 'a free market' and 'democratic government of the people. . .'. And the citizens need to know that. The big media companies won't tell them that, as EB points out, they do what brings the greatest profit when it suits them. If the little media guys have to do it, at the risk of their lives, I applaud that.

I repeat that there's a limit to what should be public and what should remain private. Journalists don't tell the name of minors in criminal cases. Women don't tell everything to their 'friends'. Companies don't invite their competitors to their negotiation. You don't tell you hate your mother in law.

And that's why all identifiable information was removed from the cables, before they were released. Or have you not been paying attention?

[EyeBrock]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Bodah Bodah:

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

I'm hopeful that Assange isn't the only thing holding this together, considering how he's at risk now.

Good I hope he's hunted down like a dog.

Just a matter of time...

If he goes another will take his place.

Obviously. But the US military will be revamping their security over Manning's alleged treasonous/traitorous behaviour and that fact that some other wanker will take Assanges place doesn't make what he did right or honourable.

Applying these terms to Pfc Manning is quite correct and not meant to whip up emotions (not from me anyway). He swore an oath and he broke that oath knowing the consequences. He should be held accountable. I find it difficult to believe anybody who has ever served in the military can think otherwise on Manning.

Any of those wiki-leak chaps who venture into the US can be charged under the ancient US Espionage Act.
Hunting them down and killing them, well that would be jolly but we shouldn't stoop down to that level (while anybody is watching).

[Proculation]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Proculation Proculation:

The "cables" were stolen. By accepting them knowing they were stolen and using them is criminal. Divulging 'secret' informations is also criminal. All that is not covered by freedom of press. It's disregard of the law. It's anarchy. Even Reporters Without Borders condemn Assange's reckless attitude.

Funny, don't recall you expressing this sentiment when emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia were stolen. Seem to recall you were quite in favour of that one.

In other words, what we have here from you is sheer partisan hackery. If your side does it, it's good. If the other side does it, it's bad.

I condamn the stealing of informations, everywhere. However, I agree with whistleblowing of informations of public interests. I just think there is a line to be drawn between what should be public and what should not. I totally agreed some previous work of Wikileaks. I'm not against Wikileaks. I'm against its irresponsibility of releasing some informations that are not of public interests. Without diplomacy, we would constantly be at war.

My point in the quoted text up was just to underline that it was criminal and that he could face persecutions. By his attitude, Assange is weakening the credibility that Wikileaks had by winning numerous freedom of press awards.

[Proculation]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And that's why all identifiable information was removed from the cables, before they were released. Or have you not been paying attention?

I've not read all that was released. Like everyone, I look at the summaries in the media. In July, Wikileaks revealed informations about Afghanis that helped the allies there, compromising them. Some informations about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia is also compromising.

[Scape]

Proculation Proculation:

Scape Scape:

Hold it. Leaking that Harper was invited to the D-Day anniversary out of sympathy from the French president is the same as leaking to the Nazi's the time and date of the D-Day invasion?

What colour is the sky on your world again?

Stop that strawman. You know that's not what I was saying. But what would you think Assange would do with classified notes about the future strategies of the US military in Afghanistan ?

If you prefer, I will say that I'm more with the point of view of Reporters Without Borders, one of the most respected association for the freedom of press.

If he did that then he could be charged then just the same as Novak was charged for his leak on Plame right? A leak of political convenience should have the same penalty as one created out of sheer incompetence such as this one. I should also add that if wiki leaks were to get access to such intel that says far more about the handlers and protocol of such intel then of wiki leaks. Our REAL enemies wouldn't be publishing it, they would keep silent and keep alive the goose that is laying golden eggs for them. Wiki has done a favor in forcing the issue because this intel should have NEVER been handled like this to begin with.

[EyeBrock]

I agree Scape.

The US military share some of the blame here. Manning had a piss poor military record yet he was dealing with sensitive material and managed to get away with stealing thousands of sensitive documents? WTF? Somebody, nay many people in the US Army should be wearing this too.

[DrCaleb]

Proculation Proculation:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And that's why all identifiable information was removed from the cables, before they were released. Or have you not been paying attention?

I've not read all that was released. Like everyone, I look at the summaries in the media. In July, Wikileaks revealed informations about Afghanis that helped the allies there, compromising them.

I posted, in this thread, that they did not post any such information. The 'Afghanis' was a single person who was a US informant, and the Taliban killed him 2 years before the July 'leak'. No one was compromised.

It's amazing to watch a lie be repeated often enough that people think it's the truth. Even in this thread.

Edit: And so what if Iran, Saudis or Russians are compromised? The American people need to know who their friends aren't.

[EyeBrock]

What? Afghans were killed because of wikileaks? See, told ya!

[Proculation]

Scape Scape:

Proculation Proculation:

Scape Scape:

Hold it. Leaking that Harper was invited to the D-Day anniversary out of sympathy from the French president is the same as leaking to the Nazi's the time and date of the D-Day invasion?

What colour is the sky on your world again?

Stop that strawman. You know that's not what I was saying. But what would you think Assange would do with classified notes about the future strategies of the US military in Afghanistan ?

If you prefer, I will say that I'm more with the point of view of Reporters Without Borders, one of the most respected association for the freedom of press.

If he did that then he could be charged then just the same as Novak was charged for his leak on Plame right? A leak of political convenience should have the same penalty as one created out of sheer incompetence such as this one. I should also add that if wiki leaks were to get access to such intel that says far more about the handlers and protocol of such intel then of wiki leaks. Our REAL enemies wouldn't be publishing it, they would keep silent and keep alive the goose that is laying golden eggs for them. Wiki has done a favor in forcing the issue because this intel should have NEVER been handled like this to begin with.

I agree. But I will make a parallel with 'real' hackers. If a hacker finds a critical hole that could be of great consequences if it is discovered, he will create a proof of concept and let the software company knows so that they can issue a patch BEFORE releasing the proof of concept to the public. That's having moral.

[Proculation]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Proculation Proculation:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And that's why all identifiable information was removed from the cables, before they were released. Or have you not been paying attention?

I've not read all that was released. Like everyone, I look at the summaries in the media. In July, Wikileaks revealed informations about Afghanis that helped the allies there, compromising them.

I posted, in this thread, that they did not post any such information. The 'Afghanis' was a single person who was a US informant, and the Taliban killed him 2 years before the July 'leak'. No one was compromised.

It's amazing to watch a lie be repeated often enough that people think it's the truth. Even in this thread.

Edit: And so what if Iran, Saudis or Russians are compromised? The American people need to know who their friends aren't.

I'm just repeating what Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders said.

Anyway, less than 1000 cables out of the 250,000 were released yet. This is only the beginning. Assange plans to release them over months to have the best coverable of their content.

[EyeBrock]

According to Newsweek, the Tallies are all over this and looking to kill anybody mentioned helping the US, Brits, Canadians, Aussies etc. The Germans are ok because they stayed in their barracks, only coming out to shag whores. Why didn't I join the BoxHeads?


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/tali ... leaks.html

And the UK's Daily Telegraph add to it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... mants.html


And the NY Daily News has a bit on it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2 ... for_w.html

[DrCaleb]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

And the NY Daily News has a bit on it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2 ... for_w.html

$1:

Before publishing the documents, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, told Channel 4 that he and his team had reviewed the material and withheld 15,000 documents to protect sensitive information.

But the New York Times, one of three major media outlets to publish the documents, reported that the material it was given by WikiLeaks disclosed identifying information about "dozens of Afghan informants, potential defectors and others who were cooperating with American and NATO troops."

The Times says it only posted samples from the documents after redacting names and other identifiers to protect the lives of Afghan informants.

When asked by Channel 4 if the leak could lead to deaths, Assange said: "I think it’s unlikely that this will happen. We’ve worked hard to make sure there’s not a significant chance of anybody coming to harm."

Isn't that what I've been saying? It's like I'm not using my 'out loud' fingers.