Government bans workers from reading WikiLeaks

[Broomstick]

He just gave another reason - concerns about planting false information on the site.

Yes, Stark, he doesn't like them saying mean things about the US. Not liking it when people say mean things about your country is sort of normal, you know? It's the reaction after that which counts, which ranges from "I don't like it but if it's truth I won't deny it and yeah, that bit completely sucks and is wrong" to "SILENCE THE INFIDELS!"

I understand your comment that "being 'anti-US' seems like a reasonable position to me", but it sort of sucks for those of us who are Americans who get tarred with the sins of our government whether we agreed with those actions or not, or even if we opposed some of those actions (such as the Iraq war, which many people said was a big mistake and wrong even before it started). People slosh words around and then wonder why folks those words apply to get defensive. For example, when someone says they're "anti-American" do they mean they're against the American government or against Americans as people? Do they want to eliminate the current crowd running the place, or do they want eliminate every single person who is American on the planet? If the former they'll even get a lot of Americans to agree with them, if it's the latter, well, is it that surprising that people get wound up when someone says "you should be exterminated like vermin"? It's an unfortunate ambiguity of the English language that "anti-American" can mean either of those alternatives. A lot of the screaming would be reduced if, when discussing these matters, the distinction is made between which two interpretations are being discussed.

[General Zod]

He just gave another reason - concerns about planting false information on the site.

Just like any other news network?

[Thanas]

Yes, of course, because the US is the only country on the face of the planet doing bad things that need to be exposed. So, then, the Australian government has been a sterling example of purity and goodness, I suppose? No back-room deals, no dirty politics, no PMs jumping on war bandwagons in other countries on pretenses, hmmmm? Must be nice in the Kingdom of Unicorns.

Tu quoque fallacy, strawman and inaccurate to boot. It is not like Stark has been a great supporter of Australia.

And besides, I doubt the damage done by Australians over the past decades even mounts up to Iraq alone.

[Stark]

Yes, Stark, he doesn't like them saying mean things about the US. Not liking it when people say mean things about your country is sort of normal, you know?

It actually isn't. I don't feel bad when people say bad things about Australia, even when they're not true. I say bad things about Australia all the time. Specifically, I think I've been aware of dozens of horrible things various governments have done over the last decade or two.

I don't sit there with my fingers in my ears saying OMG ANYONE WHO SAYS JOHN HOWARD IS A DISGUSTING RACIST HOMOPHOBE SPINMEISTER IS AN ANTI-MATESHIP LIAR. US butthurt is actually fairly unusual, and I guess it stems from the fact you've all been brainwashed to believe the pathetic lies about liberty and justice.

[Thanas]

What I CAN find is part of a Der Spiegel interview, where Daniel Schmitt (nom-de-plume of the former WikiLeaks public spokesman) said the following:

DER SPIEGEL: By the publication of the secret Afghanistan reports, also by DER SPIEGEL, you have come into conflict with the world power of the USA. Washington threatens you with prosecution because of espionage, WikiLeaks supporters have been contacted by the FBI. Bradley Manning, one of your alleged informants, sits in the prison. Are you afraid of great public pressure?

Schmitt: No, public pressure is part of the endeavor. But this direct confrontation with the USA is not what we intended. We were always against corruption and abuse, to uncover the exercise of power wherever that takes place, whether in a small location generally speaking or the whole world.

I am guessing that the NPR interview was part of a follow-up on that. Assange in particular seems more keen on going after the US, and his site follows. Schmitt has in fact left WikiLeaks and intends to set up his own, rival site.

Schmitt apparently also was fired. So we got one source who actually has plenty of reason to go after Wikileaks.

Remember that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for conspiracy to commit treason --the treason had not actually happened yet, they were just convicted of conspiring to do it-- in 1953, when there was no declared war.

There is a reason this case is considered to have been bad judicial precedent.


That said, Coyote, I do not understand your position. Is Wikileaks only "allowed" to publish stuff if they give equal coverage to Bumkistan than they do to the only remaining superpower? Do you disagree that the material was important enough to be released? If so, which parts? According to what criterion should they have filtered the material?

[Stark]

Most importantly, by what standard were they obliged to do so? Loyalty to the state? Consideration for sad Americans? A desire to shield the truth for the sake of delicate sensibilities?

Actually, has anyone even tried to deny the veracity of these documents?

[Broomstick]

Yes, Stark, he doesn't like them saying mean things about the US. Not liking it when people say mean things about your country is sort of normal, you know?

It actually isn't. I don't feel bad when people say bad things about Australia, even when they're not true.

At times, Stark, I question if YOU are normal...

I say bad things about Australia all the time. Specifically, I think I've been aware of dozens of horrible things various governments have done over the last decade or two.

And I say bad things about the US all the time, and have condemned many actions taken by my government as well. This proves.. what? Both cases are anecdotal.

I don't sit there with my fingers in my ears saying OMG ANYONE WHO SAYS JOHN HOWARD IS A DISGUSTING RACIST HOMOPHOBE SPINMEISTER IS AN ANTI-MATESHIP LIAR. US butthurt is actually fairly unusual, and I guess it stems from the fact you've all been brainwashed to believe the pathetic lies about liberty and justice.

Ah, see, there you go - lumping 300 million people together as if we were all identical robots stamped out of identical plastic with the same identical software loaded on board. Naw... not the least bit prejudiced to see all Americans as identical. No individuals here! Hur hur all alike. Of course, pointing out your tendencies towards bigotry is useless because, of course, I am one of those "brainwashed" Americans so I must, by definition, be wrong.

You seem to be missing the point that if you say "the American president is a lying sack of shit" it's different than saying "every American is a lying sack of shit". People sometimes take being called a lying sack of shit in a negative manner. Not logical, perhaps, but then humans aren't logical. Please, do, continue to piss on our leaders (I won't tell you that hating politicians is almost a sport here) but try to keep open the possibility that we aren't all quite identical here. If that's not too much ask.

[Broomstick]

He just gave another reason - concerns about planting false information on the site.

Just like any other news network?

Yep, just like any other news site.

[Broomstick]

Actually, has anyone even tried to deny the veracity of these documents?

No. Actually no one has tried to deny these are the real deal, not even the US government. I actually find that very interesting, since denying the veracity of them would seem to be an obvious thing to do in order to discredit WikiLeaks, wouldn't it?

So... I guess we all agree that they're authentic. Finally! The world agrees on something!

[Zed]

Iran doesn't - they believe the cables were faked and leaked purposefully by the U.S. government.

[someone_else]

It's quite likely then that anyone who blogged about Assange in a positive way who tried to obtain a security clearance would have it refused, and the prospect of government employment eliminated.

Wait a minute, let's talk a little more about this.
You are telling me there are bots surfing the blogisphere to gather names of people that said something good of assange and have also been so fucking stupid to write their own name and address in the blog? That would be BAD, but not particularly difficult nor illegal.
Probably anyone posting their own private life on the net isn't particularly good for handling secret stuff.

But if the bots log even the ones that didn't stupidly write their names, then that's BAD and illegal.

Work around #2: Borrow a friend's or family member's computer and check it out "disguised" as them.

I've got a better one. Find an unprotected wi-fi connection and use it with your laptop. That's how pros do illegal stuff. (protect your wi-fi LAN with a good password)

As for downloading wikileaks stuff, then probably using Tor or similar full-anonimity networks will cover your ass enough. Just don't do it from your workstation.

You can always ask a friend that lives in another country to do it for you and then put it up on a random file hosting site.

It's hard?

Schmitt has in fact left WikiLeaks and intends to set up his own, rival site.

Ooh, rape charges for him too?

[Broomstick]

Iran doesn't - they believe the cables were faked and leaked purposefully by the U.S. government.

Dammit! I was hoping for a clean sweep!

[Broomstick]

But if the bots log even the ones that didn't stupidly write their names, then that's BAD and illegal.

When you go in for a government background check they ask about aliases you use on the internet. At least, they have done so in some cases I am aware of. So be sure not to use your usual alias. For example, I probably shouldn't use "Broomstick" if I were in that position. Of course, if someone else uses my alias, that could be sticky... hmm.... just sign with numbers I guess. Or punctuation marks.

Work around #2: Borrow a friend's or family member's computer and check it out "disguised" as them.

I've got a better one. Find an unprotected wi-fi connection and use it with your laptop. That's how pros do illegal stuff. (protect your wi-fi LAN with a good password)

Ah, forgot about that one - I'm an old fart, I haven't caught up with wi-fi yet and I guess it shows.

Schmitt has in fact left WikiLeaks and intends to set up his own, rival site.

Ooh, rape charges for him too?

How dull - maybe they can come up with something new? Maybe child porn charges.

[Coyote]

I see. So, I have said that WikiLeaks exposing actually dangerous bullshit that undermines our own credibility is fine with me...

...however, because I also said they are selectively targeting only the US to the point where they are passing gossip as "news" while ignoring other dangerous places in the world makes me a ZOMFGSPARTAFREEDOMERICAUBERALLES apologist. Gotcha.

Let's see-- I said several times that exposing the hard parts, like torture, is worthwhile. America says they're this great democracy, with freedom, but they have political prisoners and torture... just as WikiLeaks is this great bastion of transparency and freedom of speech but they focus mostly on US abuses and ignore any complicity that every other country may have had. Things like... rendition, perhaps?

WikiLeaks lacks credibility in my eyes not because the few gems of useful information exposing abuse is invalid, but they lack credibility because they put more effort into gossip that makes the US look bad than hunting down exposing stories on other worthwhile places in the world.

Congo rapes
Russian journalist murders
Sudan secession vote
North Korean nuclear program
Syrian WMD program
Turkey's dealing with Iran
Israel/Palestine

--these are a handful of things I can think of off the top of my heard that are actually worth the effort to expose, instead of reams and reams of time-wasting crap about who called who Putin's meat puppet. But, hey, none of those make the US look bad, so I guess they're just not worth it. Gotta keep perspective, you know.

[Thanas]

I see. So, I have said that WikiLeaks exposing actually dangerous bullshit that undermines our own credibility is fine with me...

...however, because I also said they are selectively targeting only the US to the point where they are passing gossip as "news" while ignoring other dangerous places in the world makes me a ZOMFGSPARTAFREEDOMERICAUBERALLES apologist. Gotcha.

Let's see-- I said several times that exposing the hard parts, like torture, is worthwhile. America says they're this great democracy, with freedom, but they have political prisoners and torture... just as WikiLeaks is this great bastion of transparency and freedom of speech but they focus mostly on US abuses and ignore any complicity that every other country may have had. Things like... rendition, perhaps?

WikiLeaks lacks credibility in my eyes not because the few gems of useful information exposing abuse is invalid, but they lack credibility because they put more effort into gossip that makes the US look bad than hunting down exposing stories on other worthwhile places in the world.

Congo rapes
Russian journalist murders
Sudan secession vote
North Korean nuclear program
Syrian WMD program
Turkey's dealing with Iran
Israel/Palestine

--these are a handful of things I can think of off the top of my heard that are actually worth the effort to expose, instead of reams and reams of time-wasting crap about who called who Putin's meat puppet. But, hey, none of those make the US look bad, so I guess they're just not worth it. Gotta keep perspective, you know.

Last warning - read up on wikileaks and understand that they do not hunt down anything. They publish stuff people give them. Your cross-posting and spamming the board with what essentially are the same damned claims restated over and over again with a frequency that borders from ignorant to wholly obstinate will no longer be tolerated.

Unless you like a stay in the HoS.

[Edi]

Congo rapes
Russian journalist murders
Sudan secession vote
North Korean nuclear program
Syrian WMD program
Turkey's dealing with Iran
Israel/Palestine

--these are a handful of things I can think of off the top of my heard that are actually worth the effort to expose

If you bother to even cursorily keep up with any decent non-American news source, none of these topics have a whole lot of new revelations available about them. As far as Syria goes, the US and Israelis have been accusing them of a WMD program since forever, but strangely enough there have not been any worthwhile news stories about that even from the US media, which on a good day is utterly servile to the government.

This leak of US diplomatic cables is significant for one reason and one reason alone: They are tangible evidence of many things that everyone with two working brain cells knew without a shred of doubt were going on but which the US always vehemently denied. Now there is incontrovertible proof of it. That's all it does, really.

There is not that much really new stuff.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Not sure it merits its' own thread, but wikileaks just published a list of locations and installations that the US deems vital to national security, and UK targets as well.

Pretty much all the obvious targets, but also the overlooked ones. Not sure if he's striking back or if it's coincidental.

[Siege]

He just gave another reason - concerns about planting false information on the site.

It's not like they just blindly publish anything they're handed, you know. Wikileaks has been working with the New York Times, Guardian and Der Spiegel newspapers in order to spit through and verify the material they're handed before releasing it on their website. And it's not like this is a new partnership either, because as I recall they did the same thing with several of their previous publications -- and even if it didn't perform checks themselves, it's not like proper news organizations would just copy Wikileaks like meek lemmings without performing their own double-checks first. This is a pretty obvious non-argument.

[Broken]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this diplomatic infodump still stuff being sorted through that WikiLeaks was given via that US military personal that got caught? Or is this new information from a new source? As for whether they are anti-US or not; doesn't WikiLeaks only post information they are given (do they attempt to verify information like they did with the various US related leaks or were those the exception)? So far as I know, they are not a news organization and do not do their own investigative journalism.

[Gil Hamilton]

Why do I recall the criticisms of the Daily Show in the Bush Administration?

"The Daily Show is a liberal attack show, because they demonstratably spend most of their time making fun of President Bush and his administration! Why don't they go after any other worthy targets? Huh, huh?"

Perhaps they report what is given to them, and the Bush Administration provided so much damn material. The same could be said for WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks reports the best bits of what is handed to them, and the US has provided them with ALOT of material. That doesn't mean that they are specifically anti-US, it also could mean than the US has done much to be exposed.

But even if WikiLeaks was specifically anti-US in what it published, what does that change? This still seems to me that the argument is "I don't like what they publish, so they should stop." Let's say there was an organization dedicated to getting secret documents out of Iran or North Korea, making sure they were real, and then publishing them for all to see. Would ANYONE here being going "Oh, why oh why are they only focusing on Iran?! There are so many other places they could work on! This is clear bias!" or be concerned that innocent lives may be harmed with the publication of this data? Of course not, they'd probably be cheering them on for exposing certain regime's underbellies. Therefore, they really don't have a leg to stand on here.

[Molyneux]

Why do I recall the criticisms of the Daily Show in the Bush Administration?

"The Daily Show is a liberal attack show, because they demonstratably spend most of their time making fun of President Bush and his administration! Why don't they go after any other worthy targets? Huh, huh?"

Perhaps they report what is given to them, and the Bush Administration provided so much damn material. The same could be said for WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks reports the best bits of what is handed to them, and the US has provided them with ALOT of material. That doesn't mean that they are specifically anti-US, it also could mean than the US has done much to be exposed.

But even if WikiLeaks was specifically anti-US in what it published, what does that change? This still seems to me that the argument is "I don't like what they publish, so they should stop." Let's say there was an organization dedicated to getting secret documents out of Iran or North Korea, making sure they were real, and then publishing them for all to see. Would ANYONE here being going "Oh, why oh why are they only focusing on Iran?! There are so many other places they could work on! This is clear bias!" or be concerned that innocent lives may be harmed with the publication of this data? Of course not, they'd probably be cheering them on for exposing certain regime's underbellies. Therefore, they really don't have a leg to stand on here.

What bugs the hell out of me, more than anything else, is that I've had long arguments with people convinced that we need to charge Julian Assange with espionage under US law...because American classification rules apply worldwide, apparently.

[Knife]

What bugs the hell out of me, more than anything else, is that I've had long arguments with people convinced that we need to charge Julian Assange with espionage under US law...because American classification rules apply worldwide, apparently.

To be fair, he is pretty much guilty of espionage, and if he's ever stupid enough to enter American jurisdiction he'll get snagged and probably charged with exactly that. Coupled with America will probably pressure it's allies to extradite the guy if possible too. So, that argument does hold water, even if you don't like it, the fact of the matter is he precipitated the release of a shit ton of classified US documents.

[Molyneux]

What bugs the hell out of me, more than anything else, is that I've had long arguments with people convinced that we need to charge Julian Assange with espionage under US law...because American classification rules apply worldwide, apparently.

To be fair, he is pretty much guilty of espionage, and if he's ever stupid enough to enter American jurisdiction he'll get snagged and probably charged with exactly that. Coupled with America will probably pressure it's allies to extradite the guy if possible too. So, that argument does hold water, even if you don't like it, the fact of the matter is he precipitated the release of a shit ton of classified US documents.

In that case, I think I just don't understand something. How can he have committed a crime under American law when he is neither a US citizen, nor stepped onto US soil?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

In that case, I think I just don't understand something. How can he have committed a crime under American law when he is neither a US citizen, nor stepped onto US soil?

There's precedent. A UK hacker was extradited after he hacked into computers in the Pentagon.

For Assange, he can be charged with as many charges as the Attorney General can think of really. Conspiracy etc. etc.

[LaCroix]

In that case, I think I just don't understand something. How can he have committed a crime under American law when he is neither a US citizen, nor stepped onto US soil?

Not needed for espionage. The only thing needed is that he has classified US documents and didn't destroy/return them immediately. Just like this text attachment under most official emails says...

Technically, using those information is a form of espionage.