UK Asks News Outlets Not To Publish WikiLeaks Bombshell, US Prepares For Fallout 606
Stoobalou writes "The UK government has issued Defense Advisory Notices to editors of UK news outlets in an attempt to hush up the latest bombshell from whistle-blowing web site WikiLeaks. DA Notices, the last of which was issued in April 2009 after sensitive defense documents were photographed using a telephoto lens in the hand of Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick as he arrived at No 10 Downing Street for a briefing, are requests not to publish, and therefore not legally enforceable."
This news comes alongside a raft of articles detailing the US government's preparations for the release. Officials are warning allies that the documents will be more damaging than previous releases, to the point of potentially damaging diplomatic relations with countries like Turkey. The Vancouver Sun wonders if this will lead to a change in the way diplomats communicate.
What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is Julian Assange trying to blackmail the US and UK governments into strong-arming the Swedes into letting him free?
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's kind of backwards. He's part of an organisation which doesn't think certain stuff should be covered up. This latest release is a case it point. It's going to embarass governments by showing them lying, trying to outdo each other etc. People are trying to shut him up by engaging him in pointless lawsuits. It'll make no difference; wikileaks is bigger than him.
I can't see the Guardian agreeing to this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's going to embarrass democratic governments. The oppressive nations of the world, meanwhile, are breaking out the popcorn and sitting back to enjoy the fun.
Perhaps if Mr Assange wants to further his goal of preventing things being covered up, he might like to start with those nations that are actively and openly censoring their citizens' right to free speech and free access to
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny...
I find it MORE offensive when a person claims to do good, but is instead a total dick with a dashing smile-- than the person that is a total dick, but is openly public about such dickery.
Examples: A television evangelist, VS somebody like George Carlin (not necessarily him personally, but somebody like him personality wise). The former swears seven ways to sunday that they are good, wholesome, and beholden to a higher purpose/power, The latter openly admits to doing his shtick solely for the money, and openly says that they don't give a flying fuck about any such hogwash.
As such, the shenanigans of the first are more distasteful, disgusting, and reprehensible than those of the latter. At least the later isn't trying to lie to you.
Same thing with world governments. If the US wants to claim to be a defender of democracy, freedom, personal liberty, and all that "wholesome goodness", then they SHOULDNT engage in secret deals, military actions that destroy freedom, erect puppet dictatorships, etc-- like the television evangelist shouldn't swindle money out of little old women, then spend it on hookers and blow. Not if they want to be taken seriously, and not be seen as the dirty swindlers that they are.
That is to say, I personally am of the opinion that this is needed EXACTLY because they claim to be democratic governments. We as citizens are indeed ultimately responsible for the actions of our governments, BECAUSE they are democracies, and we NEED to know when our leaders are engaging in secret super-dickery like this.
Basically, it's no secret that these non-democratic countries you are railing against violate personal liberties. They make no claims to the contrary. Some even proudly proclaim their stances on such issues. It is the ones that claim otherwise that are in need of being exposed. Their's is the more reprehensible crime.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know, there's oppressive nations and then there's oppressive nations.
If Assange decided he wouldn't leak any documents from countries that don't have oppressed populations, it would make for a very short list.
You let me know which country's hands are clean, and I'll personally send Assange a notes asking that he leave them alone.
It's interesting t
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's interesting that wikileaks is going after governments with impunity,
My understanding of the way wikileaks works is that OTHER people pass them the leaks. They just publish the leaks anonymously.
And so "going after" is not an accurate description of what they do.
As long as nobody passes wikileaks stuff about evil companies or oppressive nations to leak, nothing appears about them.
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Releasing the facts, unaltered and un-commentated, in their original context and form, without any interpretation - THAT is real journalism. Don't let Faux News and other television channels with their ORLY commentators trick you into think that they're doing anything close to resembling reporting.
Wikileaks is an interesting and important information outlet to pay attention to. So rarely does fact reach anyone anymore in our opaque modern governments, only carefully-filtered truthiness.
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:4, Insightful)
The rape charges are fake.
Just like the governments are fake democracies or republics.
We have a hybrid Kleptocratic Fascist Plutocracy...
or some other near variation.
We have a One World Government forming just like we were warned
about by Samuel Zane Battens in 1919, and HG Wells in 1940,
and others since then.
Let Julian take the brain finger printing test at a nuetral nation,
and I'd ask some country to grant him asylum until his
guilt or innocence can be proven.
http://www.brainwavescience.com/ [brainwavescience.com]
The governments of the world are corrupt beyond belief and
their are no exceptions.
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe people in those countries don't send Wikileaks stuff to publish? They're not an investigation organization, they just publish them protecting the identity of the source.
Security Implications (Score:3, Insightful)
> Or maybe people in those countries don't send Wikileaks stuff to publish? They're not an investigation organization, they just publish them protecting the identity of the source.
Good point.
They may also have better information security than we do. The very *idea* of having so many diplomatic communiques accessible enough that [presumably] one person can copy so many speaks to a massive technical security failure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Or maybe people in those countries don't send Wikileaks stuff to publish?
Who says they haven't? There's no reason the leakers of the US info had to be American.
Is it possible that perhaps a state actor with an extremely high level of technical espionage capability and whose massive and on-going exercise of that capability (read: cyber-attacks) against the US, might lead to the bulk capture of such material? Is it possible that having gained access to such material, they might forward it to WL through a
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia has great many people ready to risk their safety to provide access to variety of information on government corruption and other practices. That information exists and is known even outside Wikileaks.
I have no doubt that Wikileaks has access to such information, in fact Assange claimed to have it just recently.
I also have little doubt that the reason Assange won't release such information is its risk/reward ratio. The rewards of talking about Russia are slim - it's just not fashionable to bash on Russian nowadays, and it won't get anywhere near the news time. The risks are huge - I am ready to make a bet with anyone that, should Wikileaks publish anything that makes Russian powers that be unhappy, mr. Assange will very shortly get a chance to drink some tea with polonium, dioxin or another similarly fun chemical agent added. Russian security services made it known quite publicly that should he do something like that - he *will* be eliminated.
Much easier to release information on US - lots of publicity and little danger to his life.
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or maybe people in those countries don't send Wikileaks stuff to publish? They're not an investigation organization, they just publish them protecting the identity of the source.
Uh... Question here:
Is Wikileaks able to properly process documents written in a language other than English?
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, if Russia were going to "plug" a leak, Assange wouldn't be the target, the person who leaked the information in the first place would. Meaning, if someone in the Russian government had, say, documents about Vladimir Putin doing something illegal/immoral/embarrassing a decade ago, they'd be disinclined to share them with wikileaks for fear of being given a 9mm retirement present.
I can well believe that Assange has nothing in his files that could embarrass Russia or any similarly scary governments, because nothing has been given to him. Especially since nobody in their right mind would submit information to wikileaks and assume that the information in question would be scrubbed of anything that could leak back to the informant before being published.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubtful with the amount of corruption present in Russia that they wouldn't have dirt on them. I think they're just on a high horse against the US, UK, and other countries because they'll avoid Po-210 poisoning better that way. Doesn't make Assange sound like the white knight he attempts to portray
This is a straw man and an ill conceived ad hominem attack (i.e - "Assange is a coward because he's afraid of assassination!"). You could just as well say "Amnesty International does nothing to stop famine" or "Oxfam does nothing to stop the genocide in Sudan" and blame them for trying to portray themselves as charitable organizations. You do not criticize a person or an organization for the good work they didn't do. There will always be the next worthwhile cause.
I personally don't mind if he does focus his efforts on the US/UK. They do enough highly questionable things to keep a small organization such as WL busy for decades to come. It is not his job nor prerogative to publish information in a manner which would be equally embarrassing to all countries . He runs a site on the internet, not a UN/governmental organization. If he so wishes he can focus exclusively on uncovering 4chan users identities.
Also, given your own stated opinion on the way that Russia/China/EvilCountryX deal with leaks, it is entirely conceivable that there are far less potential sources who are willing to risk their lives in order to expose such information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'It's concentrating solely on the U.S.'
Perhaps it's because the US is the only country with 2 wars going on right now, 1 of them illegal according to UN, together with the torturing, illegal renditions, concentration camps, illegal wiretaps etc, etc, it's a juicy field for whistle-blowers.
I don't know what the fuss is about this, years ago we heard that Canadian officials referring to Dubya as 'the moron', are they afraid they'll be snubbed if some diplomats called Sarkozy 'the midget' or something similar
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anything less than that
Leak about the US doing evil and you do have the protection of the legal system. In open court your defence team will have your leaks confirmed as true and can then call experts.
The press sit up and facts about methods, wars, funding, drugs, weapons, listening stations, taps, death squads, death lists, legal advice on going to war
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Informative)
That's bullshit. It's not because of the "freedom we enjoy in America", it's because of an accident called "the Internet", a technology that got away from the powers that be before they had a chance to lock it down and now the genie is out of the bottle.
Believe me, if it happened any other way, if it had been in the hands of "private enterprise" there would never be the kind of free exchange of information on the Internet that has created Wikileaks. If it had been in the hands of private enterprise, the Internet would be cable television. And if there aren't strict net neutrality laws, the Internet will become cable television.
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Respectfully, Wikileaks simply does the kind of job that used to be performed by guys like Woodward and Bernstein back in the days when the word "journalism" still meant something and newspapers did that job.
Leaks are not new. Government's dirty secrets were leaking with regularity long before the Internet existed. Guys like Julian Assange are just filling a gap that newspapers created when they collectively decided to stop doing journalism.
There is no failure of "private enterprise"; The Washington Post was a "private enterprise" when they exposed Nixon's administration, and the Internet is mostly run and built by "private enterprise", moreover, "private enterprise" isn't trying to cover up these leaks, GOVERNMENTS are, I don't see how you make the leap from that to "private enterprise". If anything the 'ordinary folk' that run private enterprises are just as interested in seeing government's dirty secrets exposed, not least of the reasons being that private enterprise requires accurate information on what's happening in the world to make sound business decisions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely right. But corporate money has so badly corrupted media journalism that it's all but dead.
Maybe. A lot of stories were also put on ice when the government visited an editor or publish
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe. A lot of stories were also put on ice when the government visited an editor or publisher and asked real nice.
Sure, yes. Still happens. Governments and private entities have always and will both continue to practice corruption and in probably most cases will continue to successfully get away with it and cover it up or prevent things from leaking. This hasn't changed. What we see exposed is the tip of the iceberg, always has been, probably always will, but that doesn't mean it isn't crucial to keep exposing that tip. But people have always worked to expose that tip. The question is whether or not the overall percent
Armchair critics are wimps. (Score:3, Insightful)
People who actually do something are anything but wimps.
Hop to man; wikileaks can't cover everything, they have their niche. Open up "BhCompyLeaks" and get started. Show wikileaks how it should be done.
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikileaks used to feature [archive.org] leaks from all over the world, big and small. Truth and transparency for their own sake motivated the organization. In this capacity, Wikileaks might have been a force for good.
But a few years ago, Julian Assange (who is as autocratic as the rumors indicate) and his ilk abandoned [wired.com] the original goals of the organization to wage a political war against the United States. Wikileaks launched a massive fundraising effort, then started to ignore documents from the general public. Most telling is that the operators let the submission system stay broken for months at a time: if your leak doesn't harm the United States, Wikileaks isn't interested.
Today's Wikileaks uses methods that the old Wikileaks would have found deplorable: these include a strict internal hierarchy, deceptive video editing, spin-heavy public statements, marketing-driven timing, purity tests, and blackmail [erictric.com]. Whereas idealism drove the old Wikileaks, every action taken by its present incarnation is informed by malice aforethought. It's no longer about the truth. Now, it's a vendetta.
Speaking as someone who was formerly involved with the organization, I cannot support today's Wikileaks or its leadership. They've been captured by their vanity and pride [activism.net][1] and as far as I'm concerned, they can hang, then burn.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
[1] That some prominent members [twitter.com] of the organization consider [bit.ly] this wretched document the "obvious truth" illuminates their mindset.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You do understand, sumdumass, that "confirmation bias" is an evolutionary adaptation, and a very important one.
Or maybe you dropped that community college philosophy class before the professor actually explained the value of "confirmation bias".
You've used this little bit of theater before when you don't have sufficient energy to actually disagree with someone. It's a punk move.
Please remember, I was replying to an Anonymous Coward who was spreading anonymous FUD and making specific charges against the wik
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really, parts of the truth can paint a picture entirely different then the whole truth.
That much is true, and therefore releasing part of the truth invites the potentially negatively affected party to release the rest of it (or at least as much as they need to repair their image), which means more truth released overall. Which is a good thing.
And timing the release to impact certain events can have a far more negative consequence then the documents on their own might at any other given time.
Also true, but not really relevant to the usefulness of leaked information.
IT might even have consequences that cost human lives.
It might, but this is a fallacious argument in general, since it's exactly the one used by totalitarian regimes historically to justify any oppressive measures and crackdowns - "The enemies are out there! The dissidents are conspiring to destroy our society and kill us all! They must be silenced before their treacherous lies subvert our cause!".
So, in any particular case, you have to actually look at the cost/benefit of releasing such documents. Of particular interest is what damage was made by making them secret in the first place (thereby affecting public opinion etc). You also have to look at the benefit of teaching a lesson to those who would perpetrate crimes, thinking that evidence is secured away, and then seeing it subjected to public scrutiny to their horror - which would hopefully mean less such crimes in the future.
Overall, I'm not aware of any leak coming from WL where the cost/benefit ratio (in my subjective opinion, of course) was not advantageous for release.
Or did you not think about it and just believe they are the good guys no matter what happens?
I don't believe that WikiLeaks are the "good guys". They can knowingly be on al-Qaeda and DPRK payroll simultaneously for all I care. What matters is whether they deliver factual information. Similarly, any other party is also invited to deliver such information. If CIA wants to set up a WL-like front org to "leak" interesting stuff on China, Iran or Russia, they're more than welcome to do so as well. As a Russian citizen, I would of course be particularly interested in any stuff on my country (though there has already been plenty of "bombs" from elsewhere - but, alas, they do not have effect of the same magnitude in an authoritarian, sham-democracy society).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or maybe it's because so many of the most repressive regimes and terrorist states that have arisen in the past fifty years came about specifically because of sleazy secret stuff the US government and its corporate masters did.
Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, much of sub-Saharan Africa come to mind. Take away the manipulations and assassinations and coups and other ways the US and cer
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the point that needs to be made:
Assange? He could be a pedophile rapist who is completely self centered and arrogant and a total douchebag about it all - or he could be a living saint ---
Point is, it has no bearing on whats going on. He is simply doing his job as a journalist - and it has nothing to do with him. Could he be doing it for personal gains? Yes. Could he just be inflating his ego by doing all this? Absolutely.
None of it matters. What matters is that the story is getting out. If the government is going to ensure that YOU can't keep secrets, by harmful body scanners, deep packet inspection, warrant-less searches - why on Earth should we listen to a "Defense Advisory Notice" to keep THEIR secrets? If we have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to hide, simple as that.
I am perfectly fine with the government controlling the media, as long as they respect my privacy and stay the eff out of my life.
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are smart enough to quote Jefferson you should be smart enough to know how the US defines treason and why it wouldn't apply in this particular case....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what is treason if it doesn't include releasing top secret military information in time of war? Aiding the enemy applies here. But never mind whether the charge is treason or not, it is a serious crime and I hope they don't get away with it lightly and I don't think they will.
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
a) "war" is strictly legally defined (or at least used to be) and the real definition did not involve phrases like "whenever we say it is" or "all the time" or "perpetual" or "always" or "endless" or "Eurasia" ...
b) "secret military information" is in the eye of the beholder. If the governments could be trusted to label as "secret" only the things that actually affect immediate operations: names of spies, access codes to nuclear silos, etc, then you would perhaps have a point. But today's governments label as "secret" anything even remotely likely to cause some kind of embarrassment or threat to the hold on power to one of the stooges of the aristocratic political dynasties that run these "republics", or possibly to one of their business associates.
c) "the enemy" is defined here as "the unwashed peon masses" who are apparently much better off not knowing what their "betters" do in their name. Another one of those shining towers of noble principles that the western "democracies" are supposedly perched on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You were talking about a charge of "high treason", which is a legal concept, so I responded with the legal concept of "war". You can't cherry pick wh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"And what is treason if it doesn't include releasing top secret military information in time of war?"
C'mon, man. We're not fucking stupid.
Every government involved here is not concerned about one side or the other gaining an advantage, but rather quite concerned that the PUBLIC will find out what they have really been up to--that is the threat these documents represent, disclosure of things that our governments would rather WE didn't hear.
The vast majority of the stuff released by Wikileaks, so far, should
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is absurd. I opposed the Iraq War too but it's not a "war crime". The previous regime was in violation of the ceasefire agreement that ended the Gulf War and numerous UN resolutions passed subsequent to that agreement. The Iraq War was perfectly legal under American and international law. It was a foolhardy adventure that distracted us from more pressing concerns but it was not illegal or a war crime.
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan disagreed [bbc.co.uk].
Furthermore, the UK Attorney General could only get the invasion to be legal in UK law through Resolution criteria dating back to the 1990 invasion [bbc.co.uk] of Kuwait. Allegations he was pressured into giving the OK lack sufficient evidence.
Re:What does Wikileaks get from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Particularly they do not want it known to their own voting citizenry, or more likely, their despotic royal subjects...
I say kudos to Wikileaks, if just for getting all of these phony US "freedom" and "democracy" "defenders" to show their true, heavily fascist-tinged, imperial colors!
But then again outfits like the TSA are already doing a splendid job of rubbing off all of the thin veneer of pretend "liberties" from the true, viciously authoritarian nature of the majority of the modern US populace. Sometimes I think that all those veterans of WWII must be better off already dead because this belated victory of the Axis ideology that the US (and many of its "allies") succumbed to would have been too much for them to bear.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I used the term "fascist-tinged" which, unless you have some comprehension issues, would indicate that something is polluted by fascism rather than being wholly fascist. That the US is adopting more and more fascist policies is patently obvious and beyond any doubt. The activities of the TSA are no different (and actually more intrusive) than those at the Gestapo checkpoints in the Nazi Germany (or for that matter their equivalents in the old b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There you go again. Assange isn't the one "getting" these documents. Somebody is submitting them to Wikileaks.
And a case can be made that whoever leaked those documents actually loves his country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In China this would be pointless because why would the government care what their people thought?
The Chinese government cares a lot about what their people think, that's why they have a lot of censorship. The Chinese government is well aware of history and of what happened to previous Chinese governments. Piss off too many (e.g. the peasants) and you die.
FWIW, a lot of the Chinese people support their own government (just look at the patriots out in full force during the Olympics).
Why?
1) The censorship and brainwashing. Control what people see and that affects what they think, and that's how you keep t
I Dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm of two minds on this one. Private communications from diplomats to their masters at home are often rather brutally honest, as they have to be. To leak, intentionally, such communications is a risky venture. Think Franco-Prussian War here for a good example of just that sort of thing.
Re:let me clear your mind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:let me clear your mind. (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm not saying the question isn't valid. But I think a great deal of care has to be taken. Let's take, for instance, a key ally, say the UK. Maybe the US Ambassador has some rather nasty, but truthful things to say about the Prime Minister, observations that suggest a man of lesser wits or perhaps of an unreliable nature. This informs the State Department, and ultimately the President, of how to proceed with certain topics of discussion.
To have such frank dispatches suddenly outed within the lifetime of the Prime Minister's ministry could create enormous rifts between two key allies. The kind of language used in these dispatches is extremely frank. What good would it do the citizens of either nation to have these observations broadcast for the world to see? Will it help American interests abroad? What exactly will American citizens be able to decide based on it? That the British Prime Minister is an ass? That the US Embassy is populated by people who say nasty things?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What good would it do the citizens of either nation to have these observations broadcast for the world to see? Will it help American interests abroad? What exactly will American citizens be able to decide based on it? That the British Prime Minister is an ass?
I hate to disappoint you, but that's no secret to the British people. In fact I think most of them would put it rather more strongly than that.
Re:let me clear your mind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Although this is possible, there are other bigger issues. For example, with regard to Turkey, there is fear that it will be revealed that both the U.S. and Turkey are secretly doing things that they publicly say they are not -- Turkey helping Al-Qaeda militants in Iraq, and the United States helping Iraq-based Kurdish rebels fighting Turkey. Which is exactly why these things need to be exposed.
Re:let me clear your mind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:let me clear your mind. (Score:4, Insightful)
Be that as it may, the brutal reality is that Wikileaks' actions are not going to make the government change the behaviors you don't like. They are merely going to make it tighten up more, and introduce more draconian punishments for anyone caught leaking information.
Oh, and this will be powerful ammunition for those who would like to see the government given the power to censor the Internet.
Is that really what you want? You are cheering on Wikileaks even when its actions are going to do no good at all, and might even lead to you personally being hurt?
Re:let me clear your mind. (Score:5, Informative)
Is that really what you want? You are cheering on Wikileaks even when its actions are going to do no good at all, and might even lead to you personally being hurt?
I don't see you doing anything better.
It just doesn't get any worse than a government that is no longer accountable to the citizenry.
Nothing trumps that because it circumvents the democratic process - we can't vote on what we don't know.
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of americans have died to prevent that from happening.
Wikileaks is doing their damndest to fix it. Your opinion may be that it doesn't work, their opinion differs and they are doing something about it.
So yeah, even if it does lead to me personally being hurt, that's the price of freedom.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of americans have died to prevent that from happening.
When did that happen?
Ostensibly every war we've fought has been to preserve the freedom of the republic.
If you include the reduction of lifespan due to causalities, that puts the number over a million.
Re:let me clear your mind. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that what you are describing here is a government that acts in ways contrary to the wishes of it's population and then punishing the population in increasingly severe ways when the population tries to put a stop to it.
That's basically a tyranny.
The day our governments become tyrannies, then I hope we'll fight them by force at any cost rather than stay quiet and let ourselves be dominated by a government we do not want and which acts contrary to our wishes.
Oh, and don't think that NOT having Wikileaks will stop governments from becoming tyrannies. Wikileaks tells us what is going on behind our backs. Without Wikileaks, we simply don't know what is going on, but it does not mean it's not happening. At least if we know we can do something about it.
So yes, Wikileaks is what I want. It's what we should all want until something better comes up. Better Wikileaks than nothing. And if a government does anything to stop Wikileaks, it will just make me even more angry and thus more likely to try and stop my own government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously?
I think there is a job opening in the ministry of truth for you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And that's the problem our government has brought upon itself. I completely understand the need to keep some things secret
I never thought I would one day quote this guy, but :
If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place
This is totally wrong when applied to individuals, but I think it perfectly applies to governments. Especially democratic ones.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The USA is like an abusive uncle, and extremely brutal one at times.... and anybody who minds her secrets being revealed is not a human being in my books. How's that for a balanced outlook? Why would I care about the "friends" of an utter non-entity? It's not like there hadn't been an easy way out of this: coming clean voluntarily.
This isn't about "revealing secrets", this is about a cocaine crazed rapist wearing huge hats with fruit on it taking a fucking look in the mirror. Only when that doesn't happen v
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:let me clear your mind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know what the word "pretext" means?
I'll type it slowly: if you go to war ostensibly over a memo, then you were already going to war. The memo just came along at a convenient time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"What good would it do the citizens of either nation to have these observations broadcast for the world to see? "
Absolutely. Using your example it is clear that the US has chosen an ambassador with no respect for the Prime Minister. Without this leak that would result in years of subtle damage to relations. With the leak there is a new Ambassador who may deal with the UK with appropriate respect. And... it might prompt the Brits to take a second critical look at their PM and if he is an idiot hopefully he w
let me bring you back to reality (Score:3, Insightful)
> The kind of language used in these dispatches is extremely frank.
Thanks for this appraisal of leaks you haven't seen.
So, we should let war crimes be hidden because we don't want to hurt Prime Minister Clown's feelings (within his lifetime) by letting him know that idiot Bush thought he was a moron?
Dude, get over the petty squabbling, there are massacres and other human rights violations going on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Governments have not suddenly become untrustworthy. Nor are they only untrustworthy in this respect. The basic problem is that too many people view governments and government officials as being trustworthy until proved (to a very high standard) otherwise. Whereas it would make considerably more sense to view all governments and government officials as untrustworthy until proven otherwise.
Many things are
Re:let me clear your mind. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one thing to complain about the rule of law being followed, but do you really give a damn about what some guys who were born 300 years ago thought?
Personally, I thought they were damn good ideas, but "sticking to founding ideals" for its own sake personally sounds like a horrible idea to me. The founding fathers were innovative politicans...not prophets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We station tens of thousands of GIs in the EU and South Korea. Both are quite capable of taking care of themselves these days.
While eventually making a massive commitment, the USA showed up very late for both previous world wars. These troops are there to make sure it does not happen again.
If all the US troops in Korea are killed in the first 10 minutes of fighting, they will still have done their job. The US will not be waiting for Kim Il to bomb Pearl Harbor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NO, this is the point where you remind people that the constitution failed to address those points until later when the constitutional process called an amendment was used.
IF the ideals need changed, an amendment is the tool to make that change. It's got a built in special tool that requires a most of the country to agree with the changes. If we simply ignore the constitution, then just a majority or even worse, a minority who managed to get into power is all it would take to change those ideals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Force diplomats to couch their language, and all you guarantee is poorly informed governments. How exactly this is supposed to help anyone is beyond me.
Hello Censorship (Score:5, Funny)
You used to be suppressed by Free Media. But now I think you're needed again. People shouldn't know everything - especially if the truth will hurt them. In fact, people knowing things is stopping us from doing whatever we want - without any bad reprecussions.
Lots of Love
Me.
Security is an embarassment (Score:5, Insightful)
If Wikileaks can get this stuff, imagine what foreign intelligence agencies can do. The U.S. government needs security proportional to the value of the data.
Re:Security is an embarassment (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not -quite- the same, I suspect that Wikileaks might have an edge precisely because they are not a foreign intelligence agency. They take the info and toss it to the world, whereas a foreign intelligence agency will definitely want to keep stuff secret. If you're trying to blow the whistle on wrongdoing and believe you're doing whats best for your country, you probably won't listen to another country's intelligence agents. After all, -that- would be treason.
That and they'd probably want less information of higher quality, not a massive deluge like this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
wow, a whole million dollars? rly? In 1997, the US spent more than that every 20 minutes on intellegence. Imagine what they are spending AFTER 9/11 (cite) [umsl.edu]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure that foreign intelligence agencies do have all this information. I would imagine it is much easier to find a whistleblower who will release classified information to the public than it is to find a person who will betray their country by giving information to the kgb. The whistleblower believes that he is serving his country, not betraying it. People are probably more willing to risk life in prison for a good cause than for $100,000 from the kgb. In addition, actually spending the money fro
Despicable isnt it. (Score:3, Insightful)
The appalling part is that, they are no longer doing this secretly. They have no issues going about in the open and being open about trying to keep people in the dark about what wrongdoings are committed. They slap 'national security' tag to it, and think that this is a magic word that totally stupefies the public and makes them impossible to understand wrong things are being committed....
Re:Despicable isnt it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you ever think of a time when diplomatic dispatches were released publicly. Diplomats have to be able to communicate with their foreign ministries, State Department, whatever in an honest, often brutally honest manner. How else is any government, democratic or otherwise, supposed to make any kind of foreign policy decisions? If diplomats have to start couching their language, governments will have a much more difficult time making sensible decisions.
As much as we would all love to live in a perfect world of absolute information, we in fact live in an imperfect world where our governments have to make very critical decisions based on as factual and open information as they can gather. Forcing diplomats to censor themselves for fear that somebody might find out what they said about foreign figures; ministers, presidents, leaders and so forth, will starve governments of that kind of useful information, making things more dangerous, not less.
Re:Despicable isnt it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an idea, radical as it may be:
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The alliance with Stalin allowed an end to the war in three years, and besides, it was the Brits who first got friendly with Stalin, seeing as the USSR was invaded by the Nazis while Congress fiddled while Rome burned.
As Churchill so famously said, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." The real world and the utopian fantasy so many of you guys live in are quite different. Yes, it sucked that Stalin seized Eastern Europe, but do you think
Re:Despicable isnt it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Churchill and Roosevelt had no illusions about Stalin. They knew he was ruthless, vicious and evil, in his own way every bit as bad, maybe worse than Hitler. They knew about the massacres in Poland, about Stalin's purges and forced migrations. They also knew that the USSR represented a large army that could keep Hitler busy in the East.
In a perfect world we would never have to business with guys like Stalin. In the real world, compromises are necessary. I doubt Churchill liked Stalin all that much, and a lot of the communications he released after he found himself out of a job with the defeat of his government, released in his History of WWII, indicate his lack of patience for Stalin. I remember one communication where Churchill reminds Stalin that the Soviets were, in some measure, being attacked by armaments manufactured from Russian steel.
Still, Churchill, even as Britain's survival was still in doubt, was redirecting precious armaments shipments from the US to the USSR via the North Atlantic convoys precisely because he knew that the only way to keep the Nazis off balance was to keep the Soviets in the game. When the Germans first invaded, there were real fears in Britain that Stalin might just pick up shop and flee across the Urals (certainly that was Hitler's hope as well).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WHO doesn't want to be embarrassed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then don't engage in pointless wars started over lies. It's that simple.
And I though slashdot articles were badly written (Score:3, Insightful)
after sensitive defense documents were photographed using a telephoto lens in the hand of Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick as he arrived at No 10 Downing Street for a briefing,
Well dammit, tell him to get the telephoto lens out of his hand...
Re:And I though slashdot articles were badly writt (Score:4, Interesting)
Well dammit, tell him to get the telephoto lens out of his hand...
You jest in grammar. But, as I recall a lot of people thinking that he had deliberately displayed that document.
The first odd thing was that he was walking into the building using the very public front entrance used almost exclusively for photo-ops.
The second odd thing was that the document's cover sheet was removed - anyone who has ever seen a classified document knows they have cover sheets to officially label them and prevent accidental disclosure.
The third odd thing was that the event was used to justify pulling in the timetable on a bunch of terrorism raids (the document was apparently part of the investigation) - it's pure speculation but perhaps there had been hesitation on making the raids and this event was a internal political move to force someone's hand. I haven't been able to find out what success, if any, there has been with respect to prosecuting the people raided (even then, the standard of evidence in the UK (and the USA) for such things has been lowered to such a point of ridiculousness that a successful prosecution isn't as meaningful as it once was)
WLeaks restore access to files on other countries (Score:5, Insightful)
An agency such as yours must treat all the information it has with equal priority -- it is the only way to be neutral and unbiased. Otherwise you risk undermining the confidence of people everywhere -- the same people you rely on to effect the tangible changes that we all desire. Herein now lies the current problem with wikileaks.org [wikileaks.org]. You have at some point taken your previous database entirely offline. Before you became well known you were a nexus of information on nations around the globe. Now, there is access only to Iraq Diaries and Afghan Logs. A google search on wikileaks for Asia, Africa, and Europe reveals thousands of documents previously linked to that are now inaccessible. These must be restored immediately.
A coming shitstorm. (Score:3)
The elected officials who are about to be embarrassed are in for one hell of a shitstorm from those who elected them. I bet they're going to be pissed to find out that the reason so much of the world hates US is because of the fucked up way they've been supposedly "representing the American people".
This may be a good thing for the people of the USA. Hopefully they'll remember what The Constitution and Bill of Rights is about, start letting the govt know who is boss and what they've done "in the name of the American people" is not acceptable and hopefully getting rid of the arseholes who are responsible for turning world opinion against what was once universally regarded as a great nation.
And hopefully our government in Britain will get to realise they've been fucked over for the last decade and start growing some fucking balls in regards to the so called "special relationship".
I dunno ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Streisand (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, a government telling the media to not report on something. That will squash all public interest in the topic!
Lord Moran's "Final Impressions of Canada" (Score:4, Interesting)
From the poison pen of xmas past.
Colby Cosh: Some apparently unwelcome candour on Canada [nationalpost.com]
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/radio4/transcripts/Lord-Moran.pdf [bbc.co.uk]
As a Canadian with a reasonably good recollection of 1984, all I can say is "ouch" and "damn straight". I've lived in five provinces (BC, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia). He has a point about the fetish in Toronto/Ottawa for loading the international penis ruler onto their iPhones. It's a bit of a culture shock for a Canadian to show up in Toronto and discover other Canadians taking themselves seriously.
Back when I was in eastern Canada, there was a lot of talk about changing the rules to allow mergers among our five large banks, so that bankers in Toronto could have bigger international wieners, and then after the party, collect state welfare like the big American banks they so bitterly envied.
On the flip side, Toronto does have a kick ass film festival, so I didn't totally feel like I was living in a foreign country.
Nothing new (Score:3)
Governments have been making secret diplomatic deals as long as there have been governments. I've very amused by the fact that everyone thinks this is somehow a novel concept.
Suddenly govt cares about privacy? Ha ha! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US government didn't seem to have a problem with AT&T providing mass surveillance for the NSA either.
Phillip.
Re:What do they have to hide? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be daft. The USA is a strong ally to those countries that are strategically important to it.
Sorry if that breaks your worldview where everyone ought to get along in peace.
Re:What do they have to hide? (Score:5, Funny)
The US always acts in its own best interests. It never acts in the best interests of others.
So explain the invasion of Iraq.
um 98% wastage was Re:What do they have to hide? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Dude get over it, the cities were ligitimate military-industrial targets, the cities recieved proper warnings before the attacks which they ignored and the intensity of the attacks were similar to what other cities like Dresden and Stalingrad had endured. Calling the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima a warcrime trivializes the term when compared to the Nazi's Final Solution [wikipedia.org] or Japan's Bataan Death March [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
> When was it that the US got involved in the war? Oh yeah. After pearl harbor.
That was when the US began to get directly involved, yes. The response of most people I know who were alive at the time and not US Citizens was "Thank God. We have a chance at winning."
Our production capacity was a large portion of what won the war. Soviet lives was another large portion of what won the war. We had a lot of people die too, but where we could, of course we armed other countries and let them fight Hitler. P
Re:What do they have to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's insane... What is there to hide people?
This made me think about how funny it is that they tell us only criminals have something to hide when they screw our privacy. Now when we screw their privacy, they turn it all the way around and we are the criminals again.
Re:The last release (Score:5, Informative)
The last release was marketed as definitive proof that the US military actively practiced murder.
No. The last release was definitive proof that the US military condoned torture. You're thinking of the Collateral Murder video, which was about four releases ago (you know... BEFORE the two largest military leaks in history).
Re:The last release (Score:4, Informative)
"The last release was marketed as definitive proof that the US military actively practiced murder. The big "bombshell" was a video in which people on the ground have clearly visible rifles. Then it appears one peeks around the corner with an RPG and points it at a US helicopter."
You haven't actually watched the video have you? A couple have rifles or so - that's maybe two out of 13 armed which, in a place like Iraq during this period wasn't unusual and is absolutely not evidence of them being a threat- many armed civilians in Iraq were actually on side with coalition troops. There is absolutely no RPG, just a camera, and even if there was the idea that it was being aimed at the US helicopter makes no sense- I don't think you quite grasp the kind of range Apaches sit at in this kind of confrontation and the fact that an RPG against an Apache would be entirely ineffective at this range- the people being watched were probably not even aware the Apache was there and watching them. In fact, it's even visible in the video itself- you can see quite clearly on the Apache's FLIR display that it's sat at a range of ~1.3 kilometres, an RPG-7 has an effective range of no more than 920m, and according to Wikipedia has a hit probability of a mere 4% at even 500m.
Certainly the shooting of the van can be labelled as nothing less than random murder, there's no other description for firing upon unarmed civilians without good cause, there was simply no reason to engage whatsoever, at absolute minimum the pilots should have observed to ensure there was a clear threat for much longer- they fired without any confirmation there was a actually a real viable threat.
Re:The last release (Score:5, Insightful)
I change my mind as I learn more and my general outlook evolves. I've watched the video and it clearly shows acts that break international law.
As for the rifles, you think it's uncommon for journalists to have an armed escort in many parts of the world? You think it's illegal to own a rifle in Iraq? You shoot anybody carrying a gun as a matter of principle?
Your attempts to justify a deliberate, callous and at times juvenile act of violence discredit you, albeit not as much as your apparent defense of torture.
Torture is wrong[tm] and counter-productive (in a number of dimensions) which is why even the CIA handbook said not to use it.
If you're a former marine then you've been trained badly and should be assumed to have no fucking clue how to operate in a hostile civilian population. That specific issue was identified prior to the Iraq invasion and was a clear cause of much of the subsequent civil unrest.
Try putting your own life on the line and stop shooting fucking civilians you cowardly piece of shit. Or get the fuck out of a country you have no legitimate purpose in and stop trying to justify your illegal acts there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at the snippet on the video on this site [mypetjawa.mu.nu]. (Please ignore the offensive domain name, I haven't found this video snippet posted elsewhere.) The guy there is clearly carrying an RPG, which is exactly what the trained soldier in the video said he saw before escalating the situation. It's a shame that the photographers got shot up, but they took that risk walking around in the open with people carrying RPGs.
I've had people com