×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WikiLeaks Begins Release of 2.5m Syrian Emails

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the so-no-stopping-at-the-syrian-embassy dept.

Government 322

judgecorp writes "WikiLeaks has started publishing 2.5 million emails from Syrian political figures and other bodies. The material will embarrass Syria, as well as other governments according to Julian Assange (still hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London). As well as revealing the behaviour of the Syrian regime, the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies, Assange has said."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

322 comments

And this is why (5, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | about 2 years ago | (#40550639)

We need Wikileaks. Information like this will likely prove to be very informative.

Re:And this is why (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550749)

I'm still waiting on the Bank of America one... did people forget about that already?

Re:And this is why (5, Informative)

gambino21 (809810) | about 2 years ago | (#40550793)

The Bank of America data (along with some other interesting stuff) was deleted by Daniel Domscheit-Berg [huffingtonpost.com] .

Re:And this is why (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#40551177)

I still don't know how that fucker sleeps at night.

Re:And this is why (1)

Evtim (1022085) | about 2 years ago | (#40551445)

He sleeps very well, I guess. On a pillow made of money...

Disclaimer: I have no idea what actually transpired but such "unfortunate events" exactly in the right time always make my skin crawl....I smell a rat

Re:And this is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551251)

This kind of people are exactly the reason why we can't have nice things. Such audacious acts of vandalism to gain short-lived media attention on oneself infuriate my inner core.

Re:And this is why (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551399)

Assange kept promising and promising this information and only held out for the highest bidder, which never bit. The fact it was never released is a testiment to Assange's greed. Word has it from the media outlets, Assange was even allowing BoA to bid on it along side the media outlets.

I have no idea why people forget that Assange's whole business model (yes, Wikileaks was/is a business) is to extort money for information to the highest bidder. This combined with the fact he's a sociopath means you've identified an idiot everytime someone defends him.

Re:And this is why (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551507)

Gee the last name of the guy who erased incriminating information about a powerful financial institution ended in "berg". What a surprise.

Re:And this is why (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550801)

god bless you for bringing that one up! Too many forgot already, while their tongue was busy licking assange ass. And how about that 1 gig passworded file, for which the password was never revealed? I hope assange gets deported or killed, wikipedia is so tied to him that it cannot possibly do anything good unless it is to defend the little rapist faggot

Re:And this is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550877)

Why do people even wonder anymore? The first thing any right thinking person should be doing is removing their business from BofA. Right after that they should be renoucing both the Democrat and Republican political parties.

Re:And this is why (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | about 2 years ago | (#40550753)

Information like this will likely prove to be very informative.

And bananas will likely prove to taste very much like bananas, and books will likely prove to contain words.

I think you were trying to make a point, but it really got lost in your posting.

Re:And this is why (5, Informative)

Phrogman (80473) | about 2 years ago | (#40551243)

Sure, I should have said more evidently. I thought I was being obvious, but obviously I was not :P

Despite the legions of posters on this site (and every other site I have been to so far) who seem to feel that because Wikileaks DARED to releas US Government secrets that were submitted to them, Assange should be hung, drawn and quartered in public for having the temerity to do so, I think that Wikileaks serves a very valuable service to the bulk of humanity who might be interested in the things their governments are doing in their name and often keeping them from knowing. Releasing the emails from the Syrian government might prove to be very important and have a useful bearing on what is and has been going on there. Without some organization like WL we wouldn't see this stuff at all as members of the public. Moreover, the legion of journalists that will descend on this stuff wouldn't have the ability to root through it and summarize the key information they come across, and then disseminate to us in a more readable format.

Assange may be an egotistical ass, but the legion of the same posters above who are willing to see him tried and convicted of rape, without charges, without a court deliberation after a trial etc is getting rather annoying to me at least. If he's guilty then let him be charged and tried etc. Until then, he's innocent, just as anyone else who hasn't been charged is innocent. Stating otherwise is just ad hominem attacks that serve no purpose other than to show the poster's personal bias/agenda. What he is doing is a remarkable job of staying in the news, and thus advertising Wikileaks though. He's a figurehead that garners a lot of attention - or an attention whore in other words, and he's doing that very effectively. I have a feeling his greatest crime in the eyes of most US posters though is that he dared to do something that might reflect badly on the US, and "my country tis of thee" etc, they don't want to see a foreigner criticize the US, I guess only US citizens can do that without rancor it seems.

I think the world needs to do something about the situation in Syria. This information might give us a chance to be better informed on what has happened there and what is happening there, how can that be a bad thing in the long run? Unless of course it turns out that US Government agencies and US Corporations are implicated in the massacre of civilians there - then those same people I mentioned above will only have more ammunition for their arguments as to why Assange should be tried, convicted of treason (against a country he is not a citizen of) and then executed.

Re:And this is why (2)

butalearner (1235200) | about 2 years ago | (#40551473)

Despite the legions of posters on this site (and every other site I have been to so far) who seem to feel that because Wikileaks DARED to releas US Government secrets that were submitted to them, Assange should be hung, drawn and quartered in public for having the temerity to do so, I think that Wikileaks serves a very valuable service to the bulk of humanity who might be interested in the things their governments are doing in their name and often keeping them from knowing.

I may be misremembering, but I was under the impression that the people here generally support the actions of Wikileaks, even if they're not the biggest fans of Assange himself. On most other US news sites it's exactly how you say.

Re:And this is why (3, Interesting)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#40550911)

The only problem is that is Assange is throwing in with people like Putin and Chavez, who kill their journalist opponents or, if they're lucky, just get railroaded into jail. Chavez just completed the dictator trifecta -- hassled opponents and journalists, silencing them. Got the "emergency" power to pass law by decree (the "dictator" part of "dictatorship"), and, just recently, outlawed sales of guns and ammunition.

Re:And this is why (0)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | about 2 years ago | (#40551109)

Chavez, who kill their journalist opponents or, if they're lucky, just get railroaded into jail. Chavez just completed the dictator trifecta -- hassled opponents and journalists, silencing them.

I frequently hear people badmouthing Chavez on slashdot, but when I ask for citations they come up with nothing or with some op-ed from a fox news anchorperson. Please be the exception to the rule or I will have to spend the rest of my life in with the obviously wrongheaded belief that he is actually an ok guy as leaders go and is only demonized in the US media because he refused to toe the line and be ousted by the cia [wikipedia.org] for privatising big industry.

tl:dr
Citation needed

Re:And this is why (3, Informative)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#40551241)

Re:And this is why (-1, Flamebait)

lambent (234167) | about 2 years ago | (#40551463)

So, two of those articles have nothing remotely to do with the conversation at hand.

Are you insane, slanted so far you're horizontal, or just stupid?

Re:And this is why (2)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | about 2 years ago | (#40551495)

Maybe you should have spent a few more seconds reading my post, specifically the part quoted from its parent.

You articles show that he asked for emergency powers after a disaster, that he implemented gun control laws and that he closed some private media corporations (since when is CNN liberal?!). The first two are opinions about possible future dictatoryness. Note the words 'critics warn' and 'said[...]a U.S. government office'. This is not evidence, it is opinion. The last one is the only one that even relates to my question. It is also contextless and only the headline and an opinion by the journalist actually offer any 'evidence' that it is repression and not simply normal governance. Chavez accuses them of supporting the coup against him, if true this gives him 'some' justification for closing them, especially as the junta were some pretty dodgy people. But I don't want to get too bogged down in the details of that event, as it is still only peripheral to my question. The parent of my post claimed that he was killing journalists and/or sending them to prison. This is a VERY serious allegation and I don't think I am out of line to ask for substantiation. Do you have any links for that?

tl:dr Citation still needed for killing/imprisoning journalists

PS. Seriously? Gun control = dictatorship? I am sorry but I grew up in New Zealand where we have had very strong gun control laws for a long time, that shit is not going to fly with me.

Re:And this is why (5, Insightful)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#40551201)

Oh, you Americans! You have supported all kinds of terrible dictators in Latin America. It takes a lot of nerve to be calling Chavez a dictator!

The only reason you hate him is because he was one of the first Latin American leaders that showed you the finger and you couldn't eliminate! A few others have followed the example, which revolves your guts. Latin America is no longer your backyard, get used to it. If you want oil, pay for it big time, instead of bribing a few officers, like usual.

If Venezuelans don't want Chavez in power, it's not like they don't have options. Just vote for someone else. It's called democracy, you Americans hypocritically blabber about it ad nauseam. But guess what, he greatly reduced poverty, gave education and healthcare to those who never had anything, he's trying to reduce violence, etc. The majority of Venezuelans are very poor and are living a lot better since he's in power. Maybe they simply... well... like him!

Re:And this is why (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551335)

Anyone who rules by decree is a dictator. It doesn't matter where are they are from, or what they do.

Re:And this is why (2)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#40551407)

The fact that the US Government has supported dictators in the past doesn't change the fact that Chavez is one. In fact, you'd think we'd know a dictator when we see one, given our vast experience.

Also, the fact that the people like him doesn't mean he isn't a dictator. You don't usually get to be a founding dictator in a country by being unpopular. In fact, the real problem with him is not that he's popular or unpopular, but that he's squelching opposition and changing the laws to favor himself. That means that as time goes on, even if the people got sick of him, he's making it harder and harder to set up an effective, legal opposition to his policies or even simply his tenure in office. Eventually, that democratic change that you think is all that is needed will become no more than theoretical.

Re:And this is why (3)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#40551479)

Bullshit. They can vote for someone else or even call for a mid-term referendum. Chavez has survived one of these before, I wonder why the opposition doesn't pull that one again? Maybe because they know they'll lose?

Re:And this is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551455)

If Venezuelans don't want Chavez in power, it's not like they don't have options. Just vote for someone else.

We don't have any options anymore except to wait for the motherfucker to die and God help us whoever we get that replaces him. Vote? You're joking, right?

Re:And this is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550917)

There's a good chance it's going to turn out to be too much, too soon. There's a reason that "truth and reconciliation" type things are handled gently, and only after the gunplay has died down. See South Africa, East Germany, etc. Now is not the time, and this is not the method. A rash of revenge killings isn't going to help Syria move forward as a country.

Re:And this is why (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40551145)

There's a good chance it's going to turn out to be too much, too soon. There's a reason that "truth and reconciliation" type things are handled gently, and only after the gunplay has died down. See South Africa, East Germany, etc. Now is not the time, and this is not the method. A rash of revenge killings isn't going to help Syria move forward as a country.

The reason that "truth and reconciliation" is 'handled gently' is that it tends to occur in places where the necessary political will isn't available to manage actual justice. It's a feel-good way of letting your criminals off the hook because you are too weak, or too compromised by them, or too sympathetic toward them, to do anything else.

An actual justice system is, of course, preferable; but revenge killings are sometimes the only sort of judgement to which one's malefactors can ever be expected to be exposed and if there is anything uglier than vengeance, it is impunity...

Re:And this is why (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | about 2 years ago | (#40551247)

if there is anything uglier than vengeance, it is impunity...
No, because eventually all persons die, whereas the cycle of vengeance can continue unabated, ergo impunity is not uglier than vengeance.

Re:And this is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551459)

An actual justice system is, of course, preferable; but revenge killings are sometimes the only sort of judgement to which one's malefactors can ever be expected to be exposed and if there is anything uglier than vengeance, it is impunity...

Wow. It's almost like a French politician from the interwar period somehow managed to find a computer and send posts to the future.

Re:And this is why (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551029)

We need Wikileaks. Information like this will likely prove to be very informative.

...unless it's information about the USA, in which case Julian Assange is a filthy traitor who should be hunted down and executed.

Droning on and on (-1, Troll)

seniorcoder (586717) | about 2 years ago | (#40550649)

Just send a predator and take out the Equadorian Embassy in London.
Sure, there will be some collateral damage.
Get the spin doctors to suggest it was Sweden that did it.

Re:Droning on and on (4, Insightful)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 2 years ago | (#40550675)

Why? Has your country something embarasing to hide?

Re:Droning on and on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550765)

Yes, people who tend to think like him but wish to present themselves pubicly as otherwise.

Re:Droning on and on (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40551435)

We try really hard to keep them locked up in basements and such, but occasionally the crazy gets out.

Above the law ? (0, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | about 2 years ago | (#40551127)

Why ? Are guys that "stick it to the man" above the law these days ?

Every country and everyone has embarassing things to hide. Furthermore there are many other reasons to hide information. If you disagree with this, please post your credit card number, social security number and internet passwords in a reply message.

While you can maybe make the point that Assange can't legally be arrested in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is true, but he is a fugitive under 3 law systems, all of which are western free democracies with fair justice systems, all of which provide all the protections for a fair trial. He refuses to face his accusers or the justice system for crimes including rape, fraud, spying, conspiracy to commit treason and others. He lies about wikileak's internal structure, as it pertains to money, and has refused payment on contracts he had signed. And of course, hiding from justice is an offence by itself, and a very serious one at that. As to whether he is guilty, frankly given his behaviour, my money's on "yes", including the rape and fraud charges. As to whether those Swedish rape laws are just, that's not a discussion we should be having just because one popular guy has managed to run afoul of it.

Why would any guy currently popular get protection from the law ? I wonder what the reaction would be if a wall street banker stole some money and tried this crap ...

Furthermore, I am not a fool, and as such I find it very hard to believe wikileaks is anything but a broker for industrial espionage data that has decided to try to do that publicly. I find it very, very hard to believe they are anything but a front for something else. If they succeed, the world will be a much worse place.

Re:Above the law ? (3, Interesting)

darjen (879890) | about 2 years ago | (#40551305)

Wow, talk about wild eyed assertions. Accusing Wikileaks of being a front for "something else" with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Sounds to me like you just don't like what they do, so you will say any damn ridiculous thing you can to try and discredit them.

Re:Above the law ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551365)

Yes. It is morally imperative to resist immoral laws.

Have you looked at what Wikileaks publishes? It's not some yellow press institution that posts some sad peeping tom bullshit. It's hardcore international politics and all kind of shady deal most of which should never have been classified in the first place.

You really think that the US is a "free democracy with fair justice system"? What rock do you live under?

The world is already a much worse place. http://community.mis.temple.edu/mis3538b2/files/2011/10/assage.jpg [temple.edu]

Re:Above the law ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551441)

"Furthermore there are many other reasons to hide information. If you disagree with this, please post your credit card number, social security number and internet passwords in a reply message."

False analogy, due to the fact that CCNs/SSNs/Passwords are active information keys.

That would equate to Wikileaks posting login details and passwords for government systems, or account numbers for government banking.

If you want to make a real analogy, suggest the person publicly post their call-log, e-mail transcripts, and text messages.

Then you're at least in the same ballpark.

Re:Droning on and on (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550981)

Spoken like a true American...

pics? (2)

netwarerip (2221204) | about 2 years ago | (#40550667)

I guess as long as there are no pics of the prophet then no one will mind.
Oh, who am I kidding? No one will care much outside Syria anyway, at least not for more than 5 minutes and a tweet or 2.

How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . (3, Insightful)

PerlPunk (548551) | about 2 years ago | (#40550673)

Wikileaks is a project waiting for just one of those less politically correct countries like Syria but that has enough time on their hands to send a hit squad to wipe them out permanently--as in personnel and extended family if necessary.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#40550817)

Yep, because a military strike into a first world country would do so much for Assad's position.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . or not. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550827)

So when BBC or New York Times publish articles that are not deemed Correct by these entities, then they need to worry that themselves and their families will be assassinated??

Assange did not leak *anything*. All he does it put leaks sent to him up on a website and acts all important about it. He's not the important part of the equation. There are 1,000,000 Assange-like people waiting in the wings hoping he fails so they can step in.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . or not. (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40550987)

I think you have failed to notice that the BBC and NYT don't publish those kinds of article anymore.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . or not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551161)

Assange did not leak *anything*. All he does it put leaks sent to him up on a website and acts all important about it. He's not the important part of the equation. There are 1,000,000 Assange-like people waiting in the wings hoping he fails so they can step in.

Are you willing to be the one who steps in?
Being the front figure for Wikipedia is pretty much like painting a target on the front of your head. You are going to be the one taking the blame for every leak and will be hated by every person in power who have something to hide. (Basically everyone who does anything shady/evil on a large scale.)
The best thing one can do in a situation like that is to do wahtever it takes to be a public enough person that you can't go missing without anyone noticing.

You're talking to the wrong crowd (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | about 2 years ago | (#40550853)

Most of the commenters here will twist this story into how the US is somehow evil, and drone on (pun intended) about how the US and West governments and/or corporations and/or political systems are what's wrong with the world, when in reality, people are suffering and dying under actual tyranny and oppression.

Like in Syria.

It's about time Wikileaks lived up to its initial stated mission [archive.org] of "exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East," instead of becoming an anti-US pulpit for a self-righteous egomaniac who has openly said if he was asked to choose between "advocate"/"activist" and "journalist", he would choose "advocate" [nytimes.com] , and who answered "I'm too busy ending two wars," [washingtonpost.com] in response to a reporter asking for clarity on an issue.

(And no, this doesn't mean the US and West are all-perfect or all-wise — what it means is that people need to get out of their bizarro world and get some perspective on things. A clue wouldn't hurt, either.)

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (2, Insightful)

darkstar019 (2320432) | about 2 years ago | (#40550919)

How come wikileaks is anti-US ? All it did was to leak the documents provided by its collaborators. If people in other countries also leak information, it would be available on a public use. The US dossier was very big and it came after the chilling video of civilians being killed, so it generated such a bang.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (0)

daveschroeder (516195) | about 2 years ago | (#40551101)

Assange made no bones about his interests and intents — there has been ample discussion and news coverage from a variety of viewpoints which recognized that Wikileaks under Asssange for a time became almost exclusively focused on targeting the US.

The video was not "chilling" unless you expect war to be a happy affair — unless you mean the version which Wikileaks carefully and intentionally edited for maximum impact, with the specific purpose of attention-whoring, and labeling things that no ordinary person viewing the video would otherwise have even been able to discern (e.g., freezing a frame and pointing out what was thought by everyone involved at the time to be a weapon as actually being a camera, after the fact, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight).

The video showed no malicious intent, though Assange took went to great lengths to remove as much context as possible to make it appears so, and even many State Department insiders viewed "Cablegate" as nothing more than proof that the United States has a thoughtful, experienced, and dedicated foreign service that actually does its job.

Assange has not even tried to hide his disdain for the US, long before any "smear campaign" could even be alleged. Other Wikileaks collaborators even left the project because of Assange's single-minded anti-US agenda. Now that Assange is more or less sidelined, we're seeing Wikileaks return to its initially-stated mission and purpose.

The rich irony, of course, is that Assange is seeking asylum from one of the least free nations — in terms of speech, press, and liberty — in the hemisphere. Of course, all of Assange's supporters love people like Chavez, Castro, and Correa, and the Kremlin's Russia Today "news" outlet aired a conversation between Assange and Correa on the heels of Ecuador giving the lease on an air base long held by the United States to China.

See the problem, here?

There are interests in the world opposed to the ideals of freedom and liberal democracy that actually need to be countered. And that's what the US has endeavored to do since WWII, and from which Europe and the West has enjoyed the fruits for over a half-century.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551293)

The video showed no malicious intent

Quite right. Machine gun fire from a helicopter gunship is passive to the point of being pedestrian.

In fact, I trust the the recipients felt all warm and fuzzy inside.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (4, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | about 2 years ago | (#40551379)

*Sigh*

Now we're getting into semantics, but it's not necessarily malicious, nor murder, nor "illegal" to kill in war. It is possible for a killing, even in wartime, to be all of those things. This wasn't one of those times. It's also possible to kill civilians accidentally and still not have it be malicious or a crime. Yes, someone is still dead — but intent matters, even in war. This is not a new construct.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551103)

Wikileaks never bothers with info coming from Russia, China, Brazil, Venezuela, or other anti-Western countries. However, they are more than happy to make public the names of US servicepeople and their families in great detail.

Their focus is definitely not neutral. If one bothers to read what is on their site, it is definitely slanted against anything US or European with a vengeance.

Not just the US kills civilians. However that seems to get forgotten conveniently.

Wikileaks might as well be an arm of Pravda for all good they do now.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40551215)

As The Good Guys(tm), we have a right to an unsullied public image. Even holding the theory that our goodness state is some kind of empirical question, to be decided by looking at our actions, is downright anti-American.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#40551051)

Perhaps they are all evil, but differ in degree?

The problem with moral relativism (3, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | about 2 years ago | (#40551261)

They're all SOMETHING, and differ in degree, but the US and the principles for which it stands, however imperfectly throughout history, can definitely not be generalized as "evil". I can't say the same for totalitarian states — throughout history, or now.

Saying it's all "just different kinds of evil" shamefully ignores the countless tens millions of people who have died under the repression, tyranny, and selfishness of totalitarian regimes.

Yes, be vigilant. Yes, identify injustice. Yes, call out abuse. But as soon as you start believing the US is "just as bad" (or some similar sentiment) as any other government, but "just in a different way", you have lost all perspective on the realities of history and the world in which we live.

Re:The problem with moral relativism (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40551433)

The problem with moral relativism

What does that have to do with moral relativism?

can definitely not be generalized as "evil".

Apparently it can.

Saying it's all "just different kinds of evil" shamefully ignores the countless tens millions of people who have died under the repression, tyranny, and selfishness of totalitarian regimes.

The fact that it could be worse does not mean that it's not bad.

But as soon as you start believing the US is "just as bad" (or some similar sentiment) as any other government, but "just in a different way", you have lost all perspective on the realities of history and the world in which we live.

What? It looks to me like he was just saying that some can be more evil than others but the less evil ones can still be evil.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (5, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | about 2 years ago | (#40551275)

Most of the commenters here will twist this story into how the US is somehow evil, and drone on (pun intended) about how the US and West governments and/or corporations and/or political systems are what's wrong with the world, when in reality, people are suffering and dying under actual tyranny and oppression.

Like in Syria.

You are absolutely right, and absolutely wrong.

In December of 2001, U.S. agents arranged to have a German citizen flown to a Syrian jail called the Palestine Branch, renowned for its use of torture, and later offered to pass written questions to Syrian interrogators to pose to the prisoner, according to a secret German intelligence report shown to TIME on Wednesday. The report is described in the new book Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program by British investigative journalist Stephen Grey. The complex arrangement was part of the CIA's sprawling practice of extraordinary renditions, the secret transfer of terror suspects to hidden prisons across the world -- which has involved the aid of numerous foreign governments and the knowledge of key Western European allies, according to the book, which was shown to TIME by the author. After U.S. officials long refused to confirm the CIA's secret detention of terror suspects abroad, President Bush last month admitted that terror suspects had been transferred abroad to secret CIA facilities, but U.S. officials continue to deny that such prisoners have been tortured, saying that foreign governments assured them that they would be treated fairly.

Inside the CIA's Secret Prisons Program, Time Magazine, 2006 [time.com]

And before you backpedal on what happened to Maher Arar:

This week the Supreme Court denied, without comment, the appeal of Maher Arar, a dual citizen of Canada and Syria who was arrested in transit through JFK airport in 2002, then shipped off to Syria and tortured for 10 months. Arar's abuse allegedly included repeated beatings with electrical cables and confinement in a cell the size of a grave. When they realized they had the wrong guy -- the really, totally, and utterly innocent guy -- Arar was released without charges. He was then completely exonerated of any link to terror by the Canadian government, which impaneled a commission to investigate the incident, issued a 1,000-plus-page report on the matter, held its own intelligence forces responsible for their role in the screw-up, then apologized and paid Arar $9.8 million. Whereas the U.S. government -- as Glenn Greenwald observes -- has never apologized, never acknowledged any wrongdoing, never held anyone responsible, and, on President Barack Obama's watch, has only redoubled its efforts to prevent Arar from having even a single day in court.

So, we took an innocent man, illegally shipped him off to Syria (probably in exchange for easing off pressure on the Assad regime), tortured him, and now we're denying him his day in court to hold our government to account. Stop pretending that you, or the American government, has any principled position on matters of human rights. Syrian torture facilities are just dandy when we want to use them. The fact is that we have put more bodies in the ground this decade than the Assad regime has in it's entire family history.

That's why you focus on Assange, instead of dealing with what his organization has revealed. The truth isn't important to you. Protecting American state power is. Oddly enough, the American government keeps telling me that they're free to subpoena everything about me and my life, and that I should have nothing to fear if I have nothing to hide, and now we're saying the same thing. Why is the American government so afraid of the truth?

As a huge world power, they've got lots of little people like you, desperately clinging at the teat of the empire, ready to kill enough brown people to fill up football stadiums labeled "collateral damage" and "terrorism suspects" instead of what most of them probably are: "innocent civilians." They're not statistics, and they're not mistakes, they were human beings with families and hopes and a future, and they were all snuffed out because you and people like you would rather massacre a million people than let oil rich nations govern themselves. You'll send young Americans to die telling them it's for freedom, but really it's for the empire. It's for profit. It's for control over countries that don't want us there.

So fuck your lies, fuck your hypocrisy, fuck your deluded self righteousness, fuck your paranoid fascism, and fuck you. May you reap what you sow.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (3, Insightful)

BForrester (946915) | about 2 years ago | (#40551301)

Countries with the greatest capacity to do harm, and the likely propensity to exercise that power should be under the greatest scrutiny.

Deaths in Syrian uprising: nearly 18,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_uprising_(2011%E2%80%93present)#Deaths [wikipedia.org]

Deaths in US-Afghanistan War: nearly 18,000
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics [guardian.co.uk]

Deaths in US-Iraq war: approximately 110,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ [iraqbodycount.org]

So, while Syria certainly needs to be on the watch list, and it is very advantageous for the supporters of that regime to be unmasked and exposed, the Western governments do not get a free pass just because some people have concluded that they are not oppressive or dangerous to their own people.

Re:You're talking to the wrong crowd (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#40551307)

It's about time Wikileaks lived up to its initial stated mission [archive.org] of "exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East,"

What, like releasing 2.5 million emails from Syrian political figures? I just love how you brainless "patriots" will praise people as long as they only criticize the people your leaders have decided are "bad guys", but as soon as they reveal how close the "good guys" come to being bad, you decry them for being anti-American. You're not looking for information, you're looking for useful propaganda. A true patriot would be backing what America stands for, not what America does just because it's America doing it.

All it takes is to read your second reply to the OP to see how incapable you are of ever believing your country could do any wrong. Your attitude is blinkered, and foolish, and only leads to you being exploited by those gaming the political system to maintain power. I don't care so much about that - you deserve it. But unfortunately, people like you take the rest of the country down with you.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550881)

...one of those less politically correct countries...

...enough time on their hands to send a hit squad...

I was wondering what things would be like when Romney won.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551107)

For sure. I bet he would be the first president to authorize the killing of an american citizen by drone.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . (1)

hey_popey (1285712) | about 2 years ago | (#40550913)

You mean, like any of the biggest military powers which were concerned by the diplomatic cables?

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550941)

If wikileak's falls, by whatever mechanism, it is as a result of vanity. Their service of data dissemination, can be replicated without a figurehead. That's not to say that this Wikileaks 2.0 couldn't/shouldn't have outspoken proponents, nor should it be a wild-west style data-dumping ground without independent oversight; only that the whole process does not need centralization.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#40550959)

Like Syria had any capability to do anything like that!

And everybody knows he has nothing to fear from the civilised western countries, does he? When have they ever done anything like that?

Stop watching NCIS. It's fiction, you know? And bad one.

Re:How Wikileaks will take itself out. . . (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#40551073)

well, they tried but they tried buying the service from columbian cartels.

but seriously, basically you're suggesting that journalists should be scared of offending some fucking douchebag dictators who have their hands full with their own very, very pissed off rebels, activists and dictator-to-be wanabes. hell, you're suggesting that we should just stop talking shit about every regime because otherwise they'll come and kill everyone of us! like in their shitty propaganda! What the fuck??

fuck that, of course they know that's something that might happen - that's why it's been tried to setup so that the information they have gets released regardless. so it would make only sense to take them out if you knew they were about to receive information about your regime.

wtf do they care about a proxy publisher anways? assad&gang is more interested in wiping the leakers, they could have leaked the information through a dozen other ways as well, for example in exchange for money to mossad.

besides, if syria had an uber hitsquad capable of wiping out extended families, you'd think they would us those on people dealing weapons to their rebels, no?

Finally... (4, Interesting)

olau (314197) | about 2 years ago | (#40550681)

...some real, possibly world-changing leaks stories instead of all the crap about Assange and his whereabouts.

There was a news report on Danish television about the Syrian regime and how it's treating dissidents. That was not pleasant to watch.

Re:Finally... (3)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#40550985)

I keep hearing about what is happening in Syria, and wonder exactly the UN is for if not stopping exactly that kind of shit.

Re:Finally... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551159)

Most of the UN wanted to, but sadly Russia and China [telegraph.co.uk] have interest in Syria and also a shitload of clout. Any proposed action would have been quashed.

I mean its blatantly obvious that the situation in Syria has been as bad or worse than the previous situation in Libya for quite some time. If you want to get angry, be angry with the fact that the rest of the UN, including the United States, the UK, Canada, etc, were all too much of a pack of wusses to call China and Russia out for being such dicks.

Re:Finally... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#40551217)

The UN has sent many strongly-worded letters to the Assad regime and has sent observers to take note of what's happening.

Re:Finally... (0)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#40551371)

Ideally, it would. But it's set up such that certain countries get to veto any action.

With regard to the UN vote on Syria it was China and Russia that vetoed action.

Russia has had long ties with Syria and perhaps more pertinently has a Mediterranean naval base from that association, so I can see why they would rather stay on-side with a regime murdering it's own people than run the risk of a replacement government not letting them have their base.

I'm not sure what the Chinese angle is.

Assange is not hiding. (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about 2 years ago | (#40550687)

Assange has requested asylum from Equador. We all know where he is. Last I heard, he was also on the ballot in Australia and has a TV show on hulu.com, so he's not exactly low-profile either.

Re:Assange is not hiding. (1)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | about 2 years ago | (#40550929)

Uh if hes not "hiding" he fucking should be. Basically he has leaked confidential U.S. documents, that makes him a high priority target, and if he is extradited, 1 of two things will happen, one: he will be executed (not likely) two: he will be prosecuted for some crime and put in a hole for the rest of eternity (most likely). is this instance hiding is not a cowardly thing, is a survival tactic.

The leaks with a twist... (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#40550713)

"the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies"

In other words he will filter out data that will United States and Western Europe in a good light.

My prediction it will show that Companies are dealing with Syria by working around any laws to stop them, and there are some politicians who were willing to look the other way for some concessions, and Oil...

If you don't know this stuff is actually happening then you are either an idiot, or you live in Mr. Happy land where your country can do no wrong.

Re:The leaks with a twist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550883)

In other words he will filter out data that will United States and Western Europe in a good light.

I think you accidentally a word.

Re:The leaks with a twist... (3, Insightful)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#40551053)

"the emails will also expose the hypocrisy of other governments and companies"

In other words he will filter out data that will United States and Western Europe in a good light.

So, when he filters you accuse him of cherry-picking. When he publishes everything you accuse him of publishing shitloads of irrelevant and mundane data. If you want to bash the man, at least get your hatred bullshit straight! It the US and Western Europe are so pure and clean they should have nothing to fear, should they?

My prediction it will show that Companies are dealing with Syria by working around any laws to stop them, and there are some politicians who were willing to look the other way for some concessions, and Oil...

If you don't know this stuff is actually happening then you are either an idiot, or you live in Mr. Happy land where your country can do no wrong.

One thing is people gossiping about that. It's only one more conspiracy theory to add to the lot. But this is evidence. It's quite different. You're just trying to spin it to your liking. If there weren't embarrassing details for the West you'd be screaming and shouting about how monstrous the Assad regime is, and how this is the definitive evidence to justify an invasion!

Assange (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550751)

Name says it all. Can't spell Assange without "ass". "Ange" turns out to mean "hole" in some language, I'm sure. This guy lost any respect I might have had for him, (and I'm sure I'm not the only one...) when he threatened to release a huge amount of embarrassing information about a year or so ago, to try to protect himself from his legal troubles. It's one thing to show the emperor is wearing no clothes, it is another thing entirely to do it to try to avoid criminal prosecution for something you did wrong.

One thing I don't understand though, is why the fuss? How can anyone know the allegedly leaked cables or e-mails or whatever are real? I mean, it's not like they come with little certificates of authenticity, do they? If I were some national government, I would release millions of my own supposed e-mails, then prove they were fake and discredit the whole thing... however, most of the e-mails contain stuff that made me wonder, what the fuss was about? So the ambassador to such and so land thinks the local president is a nutjob. Who the fuck cares?!?

Anyway, Assange proved that day that no matter what (admittedly highly dubious) good he and his organization may have done, he himself is a douche-bag with a capital Douche and a capital Bag, and I have very little sympathy for whatever happens to him, even if all the rape charges, etc., turn out to be trumped-up.

Re:Assange (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550899)

Name says it all. Can't spell Assange without "ass". "Ange" turns out to mean "hole" in some language, I'm sure.

That's a serious argument you got there.

2.5m? (3, Funny)

hobarrera (2008506) | about 2 years ago | (#40550819)

They're releasing 2.5metres of emails? Or maybe it's miles!

Re:2.5m? (2)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about 2 years ago | (#40551021)

They're using standard-issue A4 office printer paper, which is quite thin. Besides, I don't think the governments communicated enough.

Re:2.5m? (1)

Kinthelt (96845) | about 2 years ago | (#40551043)

The length of a standard DDR3 DIMM is 82mm. So assuming each DIMM is 1GB that comes out to approximately 30.5 GB of emails.

Re:2.5m? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551047)

no, no... you read it wrong. They are releasing 2.5 Me (mega-emails)

Wanna bet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550889)

... that there will be no mention of Ecuador in any of those postings?

Govt. By The People, FOR The People .... (2)

King_TJ (85913) | about 2 years ago | (#40550925)

This concept may be foreign to some people living on this planet, but certainly as a U.S. citizen, I was raised believing in the idea. As an adult, I've learned what a fantasy it really is today ... but that's doesn't mean it's not a worthy goal to keep striving for.

So thanks again, wikileaks -- because a govt. keeping secrets isn't a very accountable one.

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40550977)

Govt. By The People, FOR Their People

Clarified that for you.

Next question please ...

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551011)

You also believe that Gasland is a factual documentary and that Micheal Moore is anything other than a dirty capitalist.

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551089)

Why don't you publish all of your work emails, since you have nothing to hide. Assuming you aren't an unemployed basement-dweller, that is.

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People .... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40551509)

Why don't you publish all of your work emails, since you have nothing to hide. Assuming you aren't an unemployed basement-dweller, that is.

In the case of a great many civil servants, all their work emails are subject to public records laws. Unless their employer feels like stonewalling for them, or they work largely on classified stuff, the main thing keeping their email unpublished is lack of interest...

Re:Govt. By The People, FOR The People .... (1)

KermodeBear (738243) | about 2 years ago | (#40551341)

I do think that governments keep too many secrets. That said, a government should have the capability to keep some secrets.

While it would be interesting, I don't want to know (for example) the list of spies we have planted in the Iranian government. I don't want to know the location of our nuclear warheads. I also don't want to know every detail of the president's schedule for the next six months.

A fully transparent government is a wonderful ideal, but like many ideals it just doesn't work well in practice. In order to protect its people, a government needs to have some expectation of privacy in certain areas.

I think our government works in the opposite way that it should here. By default, all documents / calls / emails / etc. produced by a government office - any government office - should be filed away, made public so that anyone can go get them. It should be the exception to the rule that a document / process / etc. is kept secret - and the necessity to keep such things a secret should be validated by a third party.

Tell it to someone... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551035)

Who gives a damn!

Waiting for e-mails from Assange to harassed women (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40551125)

Hey babe,

Here is a red dress if you keep your purty mouth shut.

STAND UP FOR DEMOCRACY (1)

zugedneb (601299) | about 2 years ago | (#40551375)

IF U LIVE IN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY, THEN U KNOW GOVERNMENT IS NOT COWARDS THEY DO NEVER WRONG!!11!1!! EVEN A COMMUNIST FIGHTS MORE JUSTLY!!11!1 I ASK U: HAVE RUSSIANS AFTER DECADES OF ESPIONAGE EVER PUBLISHED A SHIT? ASSANGE IS TERRORIST AND WANT TO OVERTHROW DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM!1!!!1!1

Nice line. But Assange isn't "hiding". (0)

Catbeller (118204) | about 2 years ago | (#40551427)

Assange isn't "hiding". He's seeking asylum from an obvious US plot to drag him in chains to a sham trial on US soil for the crime of embarrassing them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...