Government bans workers from reading WikiLeaks

[Shroom Man 777]

You know, I have a cunning idea. Assange should ask the next President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff for political asylum.

The daughter of a Bulgarian immigrant and a schoolteacher, Rousseff was raised in an upper middle class household in Belo Horizonte.[3] She became a socialist during her youth, and following the 1964 coup d'état joined various left-wing and Marxist urban guerrilla groups that fought against the military dictatorship. Rousseff was captured and jailed between 1970 and 1972 and reportedly tortured.

I just hope he hasn't leaked anything re: Brazil.

[Thanas]

Citation needed, buddy.

Google King of Sweden and affair and singer.

[Knife]

I'm terribly sorry, I only saw this post this morning rereading the thread.

Doesn't espionage have to for the benefit of a foreign power or for the purpose of damaging the US government, but not only that, have to be specifically related to national defense as outlined in the Espionage Act?

I am far from a legal expert, so I don't know but I'm willing to take your word for it for now.

As far as I can tell from reading the Act, Assange didn't release the information specifically to harm the national defense of the US or was acting on behalf of a foriegn power.

Again, I have no idea, but I'm sure there are at the moment a couple hundred lawyers, if not a thousand, looking at exactly that right now.

In order to get him for Espionage, you have to demonstrate that he was deliberately attempting to harm the United States and/or was acting on behalf of a foriegn power.

Going purely off of what the talking heads and the politico's have been saying and interviewing Administration folks on the TV, the Government is saying exactly that, that Wikileaks has or is harming the ability of the USA in it's diplomatic relations with other nations. That can be interpreted as attempting to harm the US.

That's the thing, no one has tried anything over this. If they had a slam dunk espionage case, you'd think a warrant for his arrest would exist so that they CAN snag him if he steps foot in US jurisdiction, wouldn't you?

Contrary to Law and Order or NCIS, huge law cases usually take longer than a week or two to throw together. And even if they do have a warrant for Assange, I doubt they'd publicly announce it. More likely the State Department is getting it's duckies in line for extradition if they are doing anything over this.

[Coyote]

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?"

Actually, this is something that forces me to stop and reconsider. I have to admit you have a point with that.

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."

Again, it's not so much that "I don't like what they publish so I want them to stop" it's that things like torture and combat atrocities and stuff like that are actually worthy and deserve scrutiny. People may have noticed that I have been saying this a lot in these threads. I don't have a problem with them going after serious issues, it's when Assange pushes the tabloid level stuff that I think he reveals himself as just a guy with an anti-American axe to grind.

[Thanas]

But these are byproducts and not the stuff that gets the most resonance or attention.

[Stark]

How is the truth anti-American? Why do his motives mean shit? When nobody seems to even ATTEMPT to refute the validity of these documents, appealing to motive is meaningless.

I honestly don't care if everyone involved in Wikileaks is a practicing space nazi puppy rapist: they have facilitated the release of hilarious or terrifying documents. The idea that Wikileaks 'goes after' anything is - as has been repeatedly stated - ignorant.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Again, it's not so much that "I don't like what they publish so I want them to stop" it's that things like torture and combat atrocities and stuff like that are actually worthy and deserve scrutiny. People may have noticed that I have been saying this a lot in these threads. I don't have a problem with them going after serious issues, it's when Assange pushes the tabloid level stuff that I think he reveals himself as just a guy with an anti-American axe to grind.

So what you are saying, is that Wikileaks is getting leaks from other countries, but is refusing to put them online?

[Alyeska]

How is the truth anti-American? Why do his motives mean shit? When nobody seems to even ATTEMPT to refute the validity of these documents, appealing to motive is meaningless.

I honestly don't care if everyone involved in Wikileaks is a practicing space nazi puppy rapist: they have facilitated the release of hilarious or terrifying documents. The idea that Wikileaks 'goes after' anything is - as has been repeatedly stated - ignorant.

The Truth isn't biased. What you do with it can be. Deliberately airing only one countries dirty laundry to make them look bad while ignoring it for everyone else, thats not honest work.

On the other hand, thats not necessarily whats going on with Wikileaks. Wikileaks publishes what it receives. And the US is a popular target due to its political standing, influence, and size. Interestingly enough, the sources are actually Americans. So Wikileaks publishes what material is receives and Americans who are dissatisfied with the current reality deliberately leak said information to Wikileaks.

[Coyote]

So what you are saying, is that Wikileaks is getting leaks from other countries, but is refusing to put them online?

I don't know; there's no way to know unless I were a WL staffer. I had heard the NPR report, and saw the Der Spiegel excerpt that quoted one of WL's former staffers expressing that there was internal dissent because Assange wanted to go after the US primarily, although Thanas pointed out that that guy was fired from WL, so he himself may have an axe to grind.

[Coyote]

How is the truth anti-American? Why do his motives mean shit? When nobody seems to even ATTEMPT to refute the validity of these documents, appealing to motive is meaningless.

I honestly don't care if everyone involved in Wikileaks is a practicing space nazi puppy rapist: they have facilitated the release of hilarious or terrifying documents. The idea that Wikileaks 'goes after' anything is - as has been repeatedly stated - ignorant.

I happen to believe the claim that this might make diplomacy more difficult because world leaders will no longer believe that they may speak candidly and openly about situations in an "off the record" kind of setting. On camera they have to smile and say that they are working for diplomatic solutions with, say, Iran while "off they record" they express frustration and say they would not lose any sleep if the US were to whack Iran.

So saying something like that with a reasonable expectation of privacy can be important to US diplomatic efforts. The Arab leaders have to maintain a certain level of street cred with their people (they can't be seen taking the "same side" as the "Great Satan and the Zionist Entity" blah-blah-blah) and backing Iran into a corner and making them lose face rarely helps either.

And while I'm sure the Russians, French, etc say all kinds of choice things about America and Americans, diplomacy requires them to put on a game face for public consumption. How does it really help to say that "Medvedev is Putin's Robin", or that Sarkozy is the "Emperor With No Clothes"? Airing things that belittle other people and their leaders serves to make the US look bad and puts us in an embarrassing position for no real gain other that to make things difficult for us. Don't people want diplomacy to work? That's why I think Assange's motives are worth questioning. Does he want so much "transparency" that the US State Department can't get people to open up and talk and trust them to keep their secret frustrations secret? How does that help facilitate talk? How does that safeguard anything, by making th eline sof communication more difficult?

Actually, in today's Slate, Christopher Hitchens brought up some points better than I could about Assange; this was written before he turned himself in--

One of civilization's oldest and best ideas is that all countries establish tiny sovereign enclaves in each other's capitals and invest these precious enclaves of peaceful resolution with special sorts of immunity. That this necessarily includes a high degree of privacy goes without saying.

Hitchens, unlike myself, thinks that backing Iran into a corner may actually be a good thing; putting them on the spot and showing they have no friends may have an affect on Ahmedinijad's decision-making, but I have always been of the opinion that backing someone into a corner is not usually a good idea. But that's my take on it; I can see Hitchens's point even if I don't agree with it.

All you need to know about Assange is contained in the profile of him by the great John F. Burns and in his shockingly thuggish response to it. The man is plainly a micro-megalomaniac with few if any scruples and an undisguised agenda. As I wrote before, when he says that his aim is "to end two wars," one knows at once what he means by the "ending." In his fantasies he is probably some kind of guerrilla warrior, but in the real world he is a middle man and peddler who resents the civilization that nurtured him.

If a guy wants to "end wars" it my stand to reason he sees civilian deaths as a bad thing; yet he publishes the Afghan NATO accounts without altering or removing the names of informants; exposing them to danger. That is unscrupulous from a journalism perspective, since it exposes those people to physical danger and death.

Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.”

Some potential fallout from that:

But now, WikiLeaks has been met with new doubts. Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the organization for risking people’s lives by publishing war logs identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers.

A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan using the pseudonym Zabiullah Mujahid said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member “commission” after the Afghan documents were posted “to find about people who are spying.” He said the Taliban had a “wanted” list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.

“After the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about such people,” he said.

More of the internal dissent vis-a-vis the anti-US vendetta:

“About a dozen” disillusioned volunteers have left recently, said Smari McCarthy, an Icelandic volunteer who has distanced himself in the recent turmoil. In late summer, Mr. Assange suspended Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a German who had been the WikiLeaks spokesman under the pseudonym Daniel Schmitt, accusing him of unspecified “bad behavior.” Many more activists, Mr. McCarthy said, are likely to follow.

[...]

Mr. Assange’s detractors also accuse him of pursuing a vendetta against the United States. In London, Mr. Assange said America was an increasingly militarized society and a threat to democracy. Moreover, he said, “we have been attacked by the United States, so we are forced into a position where we must defend ourselves.”

The John F. Burns profile is here at the NY Times.

So sure, he is passing on "valid", ie, truthful information, factual and all, but doing so in an unscrupulous way that opens up even more people to danger, as well as needlessly embarrassing others and making clear and confident communication more difficult-- apparently all just so he can get at the evil ol' USA. How is making US diplomacy more difficult going to help any of this?

[General Zod]

I happen to believe the claim that this might make diplomacy more difficult because world leaders will no longer believe that they may speak candidly and openly about situations in an "off the record" kind of setting. On camera they have to smile and say that they are working for diplomatic solutions with, say, Iran while "off they record" they express frustration and say they would not lose any sleep if the US were to whack Iran.

I'm not really seeing how making politicians and/or diplomats think about what they say before opening their traps is necessarily a bad thing. How many instances of corruption have been caught because some idiot blabbed when he thought he was speaking "off the record" to a reporter?

[Coyote]

I'm not really seeing how making politicians and/or diplomats think about what they say before opening their traps is necessarily a bad thing. How many instances of corruption have been caught because some idiot blabbed when he thought he was speaking "off the record" to a reporter?

It's one thing --to me-- if someone is speaking off the record and casually discussing, say, disposing of evidence of a war crime. It is entirely different if someone is putting the smiles of diplomacy and patience on public TV while in private expressing their frustration at the intractability of a foreign leader.

There is a lot of nuance involved in diplomacy and there may be differences between public and private speaking. Not so much to "lie" but to put a situation in a position where an adversary can bow out gracefully without appearing to bow to foreign pressure. Would it really be productive for the Arab League states to get together and issue a joint press conference to announce "we'd be fine if America did some pre-emptive strikes on Iran". It may be how they privately feel, in frustration, but imagine the eruption if that really happened? The Arab citizens might riot, seeing their leaders as "puppets of the Great Satan, doing the bidding of the Crusaders and their Zionist masters"; the Iranians might decide, "well, fuck it," and go to hair-trigger alert and the only "Crusader states" they have in striking range are in Europe. A minor thing could trigger a violent reaction on their part at that stage.

They want to be able to show some solidarity with American frustration, but, they also want to play their cards carefully with their powerful neighbor... one that has shown a willingness to do belligerent things like try to close the Strait of Hormuz and get into a decade of war with their Arab neighbor Iraq to the point where even gas warfare was used.

[Shroom Man 777]

Nobody minded when Nixon's tapes had him cursing and going on about Jews and being a total potty-mouth.

[Thanas]

Yes, Coyote, at this point you really have no leg to stand on.

Your claims were:
a) they should have checked the stuff more and not put in things which to you had little value - except how are we to determine that? "Gossip" as you frame it may be crucial to explain why the US changed negotiators or why they behaved differently, it also allows us to identify how they gained (illegal) sources etc.
b) there was no relevant stuff - blatantly false, as has been proved several times
c) They only go after the USA - also blatantly false.

Is there anything more?



Also, let us not bring Hitchens into this - the man is disgusting and still an Iraq War cheerleader.

[Broomstick]

Nobody minded when Nixon's tapes had him cursing and going on about Jews and being a total potty-mouth.

Well, actually, a lot of Americans minded that, it was a time when public cursing was much, much less common.

[Shroom Man 777]

I mean, nobody minded that such content was revealed. Not that nobody really got offended over Tricky Dick swearing a lot.

[Zac Naloen]

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.

Not yet he hasn't, the UK aren't extraditing him and are in fact currently reviewing our extradition agreement with the US.

[Coyote]

Yes, Coyote, at this point you really have no leg to stand on.

Your claims were:
a) they should have checked the stuff more and not put in things which to you had little value - except how are we to determine that? "Gossip" as you frame it may be crucial to explain why the US changed negotiators or why they behaved differently, it also allows us to identify how they gained (illegal) sources etc.

Maybe, but a judgment call while reading the documents would have been enough to realize that some of this was "useless fluff"-- good for tittering but not much else.

b) there was no relevant stuff - blatantly false, as has been proved several times

I never claimed all of WL's documents were irrelevant. I think Assange is an anti-American attention whore, but I've also said he has, in the past, brought compelling and worthwhile stuff to light.

c) They only go after the USA - also blatantly false.

Not only; just that the US is their primary target. There is a difference. I never claimed that WL went "only" after the USA so please do not distort my stance on that.

Is there anything more?

I don't know. Here's what I see-- I find Assange and his motives personally questionable, and I see him primarily as an anti-American axe-grinder that exposes sources to mortal danger for the sake of being some romantic anti-American cyberwarrior.
However, that said, that doesn't mean that I find all of WikiLeaks and everything it does to be an invalid idea. It could actually be a very democratizing tool. I think that there is just as much evil in the world being perpetrated by other countries and organizations and I think they deserve equal time under the spotlight. Acting like the USA is the primary hub of all that is going wrong in the world gives a distorted view of all that is going wrong in the world. For some reason people seem to think that by stating this, I want WL to "leave America alone" and "pick on someone else", which is not what I am trying to say.

Also, let us not bring Hitchens into this - the man is disgusting and still an Iraq War cheerleader.

That does not invalidate the observations he makes. I am not the only one unimpressed by Assange and what he's doing (or more likely, how he's doing it and why), and not just because we have sand in our vaginas about "picking on America". [ ] I've leveled some criticisms of my own here before about how my home country is doing things or conducting itself, it's not like I'm some guy with a track record of "America, fuck yah!".

[Thanas]

Yes, Coyote, at this point you really have no leg to stand on.

Your claims were:
a) they should have checked the stuff more and not put in things which to you had little value - except how are we to determine that? "Gossip" as you frame it may be crucial to explain why the US changed negotiators or why they behaved differently, it also allows us to identify how they gained (illegal) sources etc.

Maybe, but a judgment call while reading the documents would have been enough to realize that some of this was "useless fluff"-- good for tittering but not much else.

What you call gossipy has led to changes in the ways a German political party is organized - so clearly only useless in your opinion.

I never claimed all of WL's documents were irrelevant. I think Assange is an anti-American attention whore, but I've also said he has, in the past, brought compelling and worthwhile stuff to light.

Yeah, but this "some is irrelevant"- and I thank you for changing this from your earlier stance - is still nitpicking considering the very high amount of stuff revealed. Have you read the cables? The gossipy stuff is very low on them. Heck, all their gossiping about the German government is only a very small part of an assesment of the German policies as a whole. This is pointless nitpicking and obfuscating the real issues these cables have brought to light.

Not only; just that the US is their primary target. There is a difference. I never claimed that WL went "only" after the USA so please do not distort my stance on that.

You do however repeat it as if it is somehow a valid criticism or even factually correct. Neither is the case and a look through the leaks would reveal that they apparently go after the volume of leaks they get, not as if they were targeting some country. And even if they were, it would still be invalid to the discussion of the materials released, so again this is once more missing the point.

I especially find that stuff funny seeing as how it has been detailed several times over how and why Wikileaks released the cables. They only released stuff several media outlets confirmed and they only released stuff after making sure it could not cause any lives to be lost. Unless you want to make the case that The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel are all part of some anti-american agenda, then really, given the selection process of the materials released, you have no case in this. Especially as you have not established how much control Assange has over the organization to even give them a direction.

I don't know. Here's what I see-- I find Assange and his motives personally questionable, and I see him primarily as an anti-American axe-grinder that exposes sources to mortal danger for the sake of being some romantic anti-American cyberwarrior.[/quote9

I very much doubt that is the case, for he would not have released stuff that potentially helps the US or its industries otherwise. See the climate change stuff.

However, that said, that doesn't mean that I find all of WikiLeaks and everything it does to be an invalid idea. It could actually be a very democratizing tool. I think that there is just as much evil in the world being perpetrated by other countries and organizations and I think they deserve equal time under the spotlight. Acting like the USA is the primary hub of all that is going wrong in the world gives a distorted view of all that is going wrong in the world. For some reason people seem to think that by stating this, I want WL to "leave America alone" and "pick on someone else", which is not what I am trying to say.

So what is your point here? Is there anything in there which changes what the cables are saying? Because pointlessly repeating "but other countries do it as well" is nothing but an attempt at changing the subject. Or do you think anything is served by saying "remember that other countries are doing bad things as well" when the cables released discuss very specific things? If I were to say "remember the democrats have right-wingers too" in a thread about Palin saying something insane, do you think that would be even remotely on-topic?

Also, let us not bring Hitchens into this - the man is disgusting and still an Iraq War cheerleader.

That does not invalidate the observations he makes.

It is quite funny how you have no problem wailing on Wikileaks for having an anti-american viewpoint when you say Hitchens being a disgusting neocon and getting several cheap shots in at Wilson, repeating gossip and other stuff in his article should not invalidate his assumptions. Double standard much?

I am not the only one unimpressed by Assange and what he's doing (or more likely, how he's doing it and why), and not just because we have sand in our vaginas about "picking on America". [ ] I've leveled some criticisms of my own here before about how my home country is doing things or conducting itself, it's not like I'm some guy with a track record of "America, fuck yah!".

No, but you are certainly acting like someone who is unwilling to educate himself on the subject and who still sticks to viewpoints he is unable to support.

[Coyote]

I'm going to offer a blanket concession, here. Thanas is right; I can't defend my position and I am particularly hobbled by the fact that for stupid regulations put in place by people who are easily threatened, I can't go to WikiLeaks myself and see, and learn, firsthand what is being talked about. I picked a fight knowing full well I am not allowed to prepare properly, which is really stupid on my part. I knew a couple days ago how absurd it was to argue about something I cannot even see for myself, but stubborness and no small amount of pride kept me going. (and maybe a desire to bring some fucking unicorns back from the dead, but who wants zombie unicorns; they just stink up the place and leave pieces lying around).

I am interested to know that some of the gossipy stuff has forced the reorganization of a political party. Would that the same happen here, in the latest Obama cave-in. Maybe the Democrats could reorganize into something with a fucking backbone. Until then, I guess... I'll try to find a place for myself here, picking a spot that is losing and powerless but allows me some small measure of conscience, in the middle of what I am increasingly seeing as occupied territory.

[Shroom Man 777]

I'm gonna ask here.

Would anyone have minded at all if Wikileaks, rather than leaking that the US State Department was collecting DNA and trying to steal IDs as per Hillery Clitnone's orders, instead found out that the Russian KGB was doing ...that to American diplomats? No, there would probably just be Spartafreedomerican chest-beating, screaming of madness and blasphemy, they'd hail Assange as a noble warrior or some other shit. I mean, imagine how those blubbering vaginas got hard on and ejaculated over Climategate and shit. If they leaked shit about Iranian Apache helicopter gunships shooting innocent Iraqi civilian children, fuck, they might've used it to justify another war or something - a War on Helicopters, an Operation Helicopter Freedom, or some fuck.

But oh noes, Dickileaks and Leakydicks leaked Americanimu shits and now everyone is menstruating because its their proud Spartafreedomerican warrior balls that are getting castrated, and now they're being turned into eunuchs. Sure, if it's leaks on climate scientists, these rightwing fuckers who wank to XBOX-70 Valkylie Minogues and computate megadeaths of brown people and want to nuke the middle east till the sanitary napkin-heads glow in the dark, shoot them in the dark and steal their oil, these fucks just laugh. They fucking laugh. If it's leaking shit about Nigerian shit, or if they're leaking bad crap from Russia or China, nobody minds - they praise Dickyleaks for its struggle for truth, and they'd probably worry about the leakers in Russia or China since they might be in trouble.

But do it to America and look at the hysteria. Did you know that hysteria was thought to be caused by a wandering uterus? Seriously, that's a medical fact, they thought that people became hysterical when their uterus started wandering around the body. Thanks to Dickyleaks and Leakydicks, America's uterus is now wandering - probably soul searching or sulking or writing emo poetry. Fuck them. America needs a hysterectomy, and Assange has brought the vacuum uterus-sucker.

[Coyote]

The stuff about Clinton asking for DNA evidence struck me downright bizarre; believe me I think that's... really dumb. I almost had to wonder if she was sitting with a Persian cat on her lap and adjusting a monocle as she issued that order.

[Shroom Man 777]

Nah, they did something similar to Nikita Khrushchev when he visited the USA. They had tubules or something connected to his toilet and so they examined his long feces. He had a very meaty diet, they discovered.

This is true.

[D.Turtle]

I'm going to offer a blanket concession, here. Thanas is right; I can't defend my position and I am particularly hobbled by the fact that for stupid regulations put in place by people who are easily threatened, I can't go to WikiLeaks myself and see, and learn, firsthand what is being talked about. I picked a fight knowing full well I am not allowed to prepare properly, which is really stupid on my part. I knew a couple days ago how absurd it was to argue about something I cannot even see for myself, but stubborness and no small amount of pride kept me going. (and maybe a desire to bring some fucking unicorns back from the dead, but who wants zombie unicorns; they just stink up the place and leave pieces lying around).

I am interested to know that some of the gossipy stuff has forced the reorganization of a political party. Would that the same happen here, in the latest Obama cave-in. Maybe the Democrats could reorganize into something with a fucking backbone. Until then, I guess... I'll try to find a place for myself here, picking a spot that is losing and powerless but allows me some small measure of conscience, in the middle of what I am increasingly seeing as occupied territory.

But you don't even have to read the cables themselves. There are daily articles about the releases in various news media (especially the Guardian, Spiegel, and the New York Times).

And there is lots of substantive stuff in there - thinks like China and the US deliberately working to getter to kill/weaken Copenhagen, the US actively supporting the SPLF in South Sudan under Bush (with some changes under Obama apparently), etc etc.

[Skgoa]

Actually, the cables regarding the ukrainian tanks that were delivered to Sudan showed that Obama at least tried to stop that instance of illegal arms traficking. It was pretty early in his presidency and Kenia was suprised to be told that it suddenly wasn't OK anymore.

What you call gossipy has led to changes in the ways a German political party is organized - so clearly only useless in your opinion.

Are you talking about the FDP? I had only heard that they had started a witch hunt.