[ghporter]

The Facebook page for Wikileaks was an interesting bit of a read-for about ten seconds. Freshman college students tend to have deeper, more well thought out concepts of political processes than what's on that page...

[SpaceMonkey]

Nice op-ed about secrecy as a necessary component of good diplomatic outcomes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/op...ml?ref=opinion

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I've been using the term fairly abstractly. Any decision about publishing content, even "raw" content, is editorial in nature, because the reader can only see what the editor has selected.

Yes, it's what I thought that you meant by `editorial after thinking about it.'

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think we pretty much agree on this topic though.

Yup, I think so as well.

[lpkmckenna]

I forgot about this great story from a few months back: hacker Adrian Lamo was PFC Manning's confidant, then reported him to the feds.

Here's what I really think happened: Manning leaks the video that became "Collateral Murder." Lamo mets Manning online and encourages him to leak more. He does this because he's already a gov't informer, and the gov't wants to nail Manning for the video leak but lacks the evidence. Manning leaks the cables, effectively "outing" himself to Lamo and his gov't handlers. Manning is arrested.

There's no doubt in my mind that Lamo has been working as a gov't informer prior to this.

So Wikileaks now has all this classified stuff because the gov't wanted to nail someone for leaking a video. Next time, gov't idiots, don't encourage people to leak even more stuff just so you can catch them.

[lpkmckenna]

BTW, the story I linked from Salon basically suggests that the gov't really, really wanted to catch Manning, thus destroying Wikileaks' reputation as a safe place to leak documents to.

[lpkmckenna]

Two fascinating news stories:

Respected media outlets collaborate with WikiLeaks. So is this "aid to terrorists," Mitch McConnell? You fncking useless sh!thead.

Julian Assange's lawyers say they are being watched. Disgusting and illegal.

[lpkmckenna]

Assange Rape Accuser Worked with US-Funded, CIA-Tied Anti-Castro Group. Gee, small world.

EDiT: btw, I had no idea who Israel Shamir was when I posted this here. So perhaps this story is conspiracy-theory crap.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Like many other things, these leaks will likely have the most profound impact on those already bent on opposing US foreign policy.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The possible expulsion of diplomats clearly proves otherwise.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Yawn. Let me know when it actually happens.

Enjoy your crow, fellas.
US will have to reshuffle diplomats following revelations

[Eug]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

US will have to reshuffle diplomats following revelations

Fixed your link.

[lpkmckenna]

Thanks!

[mattyb]

U.S. agencies warn unauthorized employees not to look at WikiLeaks - CNN.com

What a pile of useless twats.

From here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

What a pile of useless twats.

This.

[OAW]

Looks like Mr. Assange may have overstepped his bounds just a little bit.

BBC News - Wikileaks: Swiss bank freezes Julian Assange's account

OAW

[Doofy]

^ Looks like Switzerland is now Amerika's bitch.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

^ Looks like Switzerland is now Amerika's bitch.

Well that was demonstrated when UBS forked over a list to the IRS of American account holders using secret Swiss bank accounts to dodge US taxes. Mr. Assange probably should have realized that Swiss bank accounts aren't as sacrosanct as they once were when he decided to keep upping the ante with the US government.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well that was demonstrated when UBS forked over a list to the IRS of American account holders using secret Swiss bank accounts to dodge US taxes. Mr. Assange probably should have realized that Swiss bank accounts aren't as sacrosanct as they once were when he decided to keep upping the ante with the US government.

True. He's a bit of a pleb for sticking with Swiss banks.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

U.S. agencies warn unauthorized employees not to look at WikiLeaks - CNN.com

What a pile of useless twats.

From here.

No, it makes sense. Just because that information got released doesn't change its classification, and people who have clearances at a certain level are not supposed to be exposed to things above their classification. Dealing properly with classified information is an essential part of their job.

It's a purely internal issue regarding US Government clearances, and all about the trust the government places in its cleared employees (and in potential employees).

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

U.S. agencies warn unauthorized employees not to look at WikiLeaks - CNN.com

What a pile of useless twats.

From here.

This policy is completely retarded. The exact same information is being displayed at both WikiLeaks and in the press, including 24 hr news stations. Are gov't employees now forbidden from watching/reading the news?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This policy is completely retarded. The exact same information is being displayed at both WikiLeaks and in the press, including 24 hr news stations. Are gov't employees now forbidden from watching/reading the news?

The news reports aren't classified, even if the source material is, so that is OK for the employees to read. The person writing the article that relies on the classified material shouldn't put that on his resume when he applies for his next job at the State Department, though.

All it comes down to is that if your boss tells you not to do something and you do it anyway, don't be surprised if your boss gets mad.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Looks like Mr. Assange may have overstepped his bounds just a little bit.

BBC News - Wikileaks: Swiss bank freezes Julian Assange's account

Attacking Assange is pointless now. His 5 partner news organizations already have everything, for many months now, and they will report this stuff regardless what happens to Assange.

Seizing his money because of a wrong address, or having Interpol go after him for the bizarre Swedish law of sex without a condom, is destroying those institution's credibility for no reason.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The news reports aren't classified, even if the source material is, so that is OK for the employees to read.

What part of "exact same information" did you not understand? You can read the entire redacted cables, including headers and footers, all in that annoying ALLCAPS formatting, at the websites of major newspapers.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

What part of "exact same information" did you not understand? You can read the entire redacted cables, including headers and footers, all in that annoying ALLCAPS formatting, at the websites of major newspapers.

Yes, it's a little perverse and it's impossible to enforce, but what are you expecting them to say? "Oh well, it's out, go ahead and read it anyway?" Technically, they aren't supposed to see them, so they shouldn't be looking.

[lpkmckenna]

Tinfoil hat alert: Washington knows stopping cable publication is pointless and impossible. They are really attacking WikiLeaks and Assange to stop the coming Bank of America leak, maybe to protect the fragile state of the economy, but mostly because Washington is the banking industry's lapdog.

EDIT: economy, not nation

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Tinfoil hat alert: Washington knows stopping cable publication is pointless and impossible. They are really attacking WikiLeaks and Assange to stop the coming Bank of America leak, maybe to protect the fragile state of the nation, but mostly because Washington is the banking industry's lapdog.

Meh. The consequences of the cable leaks themselves are important, but I think this has (conveniently for some) turned into basically a giant, real-life training exercise for the newly minted U.S. Cyber Command.

[lpkmckenna]

List of facilities 'vital to US security' leaked. I've been listening to two jack-off "security experts" on CTV, who are claiming Assange is an irresponsible ideolgue who is endangering people and senstive sites. These clueless twits are forgeting: this info is being leaked at this time with this level of press because WikiLeaks' 5 media partners selected these stories for mass exposure. (Those stories not selected by these media partners will be mass-dumped to the WikiLeaks site after all the selected stories are published.)

Regardless, this "list of sensitive sites" is complete common sense. Much ado about absolutely nothing.

[dzp111]

The key; transparency.

Let's have ALL that is truth, lies, conspiracies, bullshit, awesome, ridiculous, scary, worrisome, naked, faithful; insane and inane, known to ALL! It's one way to eventually clean up house. (I think)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

Let's have ALL that is truth, lies, conspiracies, bullshit, awesome, ridiculous, scary, worrisome, naked, faithful; insane and inane, known to ALL! It's one way to eventually clean up house. (I think)

Nahh, you don't want that. Half the world would turn into Mogadishu inside a month.

[dzp111]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nahh, you don't want that. Half the world would turn into Mogadishu inside a month.

Never been there, what's wrong with it?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

Never been there, what's wrong with it?

You know the film "Black Hawk Down"? That's Mogadishu.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

The key; transparency.

Let's have ALL that is truth, lies, conspiracies, bullshit, awesome, ridiculous, scary, worrisome, naked, faithful; insane and inane, known to ALL! It's one way to eventually clean up house. (I think)

Would you want every single thing about your own life published? Would you want your salary made public? What you say about your neighbors when you're in a bad mood? That's what much of these things equate to: private communication that was never intended to include the background and explanation needed to make them make sense in their context.

The bad part about all this "forced" openness? It has a very good chance of costing people's lives.

[dzp111]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Would you want every single thing about your own life published? Would you want your salary made public? What you say about your neighbors when you're in a bad mood? That's what much of these things equate to: private communication that was never intended to include the background and explanation needed to make them make sense in their context.

The bad part about all this "forced" openness? It has a very good chance of costing people's lives.

I must admit that I wasn't thinking on a 'sole's' personal level(s) when it comes to transparent information. You're right in that private communications should be private. But what gets me is that, a) if these "private" conversations are private, then why are they no longer private? Somebody screwed up security policies somewhere down the line, and b) if the conversations in a) are factual and are leaked, then is it not wikileak's purpose to leak the leak?

?

I wonder what costs more lives, "forced" openness or "forced" closeness. I suspect that a safe place would be one offering both but without the "forcing" part.

[amazing]

Putting things in perspective: Zbigniew Brzezinski interview.

Ex-National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski: Spokespersons of�US Right 'In Most Cases Stunningly Ignorant' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

SPIEGEL: The US government sounds more alarmed.

Brzezinski: Most of the cables revealed consistency with what the United States said publicly. There may be some embarrassing things, but basically, business will go on as usual. Our cables aren't very different from the cables the German ambassadors send or Russian ambassadors or Chinese or French.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Enjoy your crow, fellas.
US will have to reshuffle diplomats following revelations

From your article:

• Officials said that planning was in the preliminary stages
• ... refused to discuss specific countries, but it is thought that observations that Col Muammar Gaddafi...
• ... may have to be made could include France, Turkey, China and Saudi Arabia.
• An official said "we think it's only a matter of time" before foreign governments start requiring the removal of some US diplomats by declaring them persona non-grata, which could lead to a series of tit-for-tat expulsions.
• Senator John Kerry, the Democratic chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, hinted at staffing changes as a result of the disclosures. "I can't tell you, but it's possible that at some places, people are going to say they can't work with them. And I'll say that quietly and behind the scenes," he told NBC.

My point, which you copy-pasted, was that it would likely have the most profound impact on those already hostile to US foreign policy. Your article cited Gaddafi, France, China, and Russia. railroad is waiting for you to show the expulsion of diplomats and suggested you wake him when this happened.

We should eat crow because those most hostile to US foreign policy may be cause for the US to be in the preliminary stages of planning a reaction to what John Kerry thinks may be a possible problem? Could, might, may, possible, and preliminary planning...

Yawn. Let me know when it actually happens.

[dzp111]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Could, might, may, possible, and preliminary planning...

Yawn. Let me know when it actually happens.

That's the beauty of 'leaks'.

; )

[Eug]

Assange has a white iMac. They showed a video of him packing up his stuff.

I wonder if he frequents MacNN?

[AKcrab]

I bet he's imitchellg5.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

I must admit that I wasn't thinking on a 'sole's' personal level(s) when it comes to transparent information. You're right in that private communications should be private. But what gets me is that, a) if these "private" conversations are private, then why are they no longer private? Somebody screwed up security policies somewhere down the line, and b) if the conversations in a) are factual and are leaked, then is it not wikileak's purpose to leak the leak?

Bingo! Someone who had access to a lot of classified information collected it and passed it to a third party. That someone, by definition, is in violation of the National Security Act and could be subject to some extremely serious punishments. The "Wikileaks question" is whether someone smart enough to set up a highly obfuscated hosting setup, who can manage to hide from international authorities for months at a time, could have possibly had anything but "damage to the United States" in mind by leaking these items. I really don't see how it could be anything else.

Originally Posted by dzp111 

I wonder what costs more lives, "forced" openness or "forced" closeness. I suspect that a safe place would be one offering both but without the "forcing" part.

I believe that the traditional confidentiality of diplomatic communications has the effect of saving lives. I am certain that Wikileaks' publishing of all the Iraq/Afghanistan data earlier was extremely dangerous for people who are there simply to help rebuild and establish order in those two countries. Whether the original invasion of Iraq was a good idea or not, once it was done, it was indeed our responsibility to do our best to rebuild there. Ousting the Taliban is a non-question; they were in power through intimidation and terrorizing the population of Afghanistan, and were indeed involved in supporting al Quaida's planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks here.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well that was demonstrated when UBS forked over a list to the IRS of American account holders using secret Swiss bank accounts to dodge US taxes. Mr. Assange probably should have realized that Swiss bank accounts aren't as sacrosanct as they once were when he decided to keep upping the ante with the US government.

The Swiss bent over for the frogs as well. I bet half the GDP of France is in Swiss bank accounts. Chirac probably has about 25% of that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

The Swiss bent over for the frogs as well.

I smell OECD.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Looks like Mr. Assange may have overstepped his bounds just a little bit.

BBC News - Wikileaks: Swiss bank freezes Julian Assange's account

Looks like the authorities are overstepping their boundaries a little.
- The bank has apparently justified freezing Assange's assets by saying he has given an invalid address when opening the account.
- The Swedish authorities had to fix their arrest warrant twice. From what I can gather, the allegations of sexual assault/sexual misconduct seem sort of fishy. He was very quickly put on the Red Notice list (= most wanted list).
- The British cops wouldn't even tell Assange what they arrested him for.

Meanwhile, he's not charged with anything in conjunction with his work at wikileaks (at least not officially).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Would you want every single thing about your own life published? Would you want your salary made public? What you say about your neighbors when you're in a bad mood? That's what much of these things equate to: private communication that was never intended to include the background and explanation needed to make them make sense in their context.

The bad part about all this "forced" openness? It has a very good chance of costing people's lives.

Even though I absolutely agree the leak has a negative impact on certain aspects of US and international policy, I think there is a difference between leaking records regarding private individuals and matters of state. I think government actions do not fall into the same category.

Furthermore, the US and many European countries have happily used stolen bank data to prosecute tax evaders. Now that this openness is inconvenient, the US* is trying to squash him -- some people are calling wikileaks a terrorist organization

* I think most states would react in the same way.

[Big Mac]

I have to say I think I agree with you, OreoCookie. I don't think Assange is that great of a guy, and I imagine he's out in left field politically, but I have to give him credit for being a non-violent thorn in the side of an increasingly tyrannical US government.

I hope Uncle Sam doesn't cause him to do a disappearing act, if you know what I mean.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

- The British cops wouldn't even tell Assange what they arrested him for.

According to media here, they didn't need to - he handed himself in.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

According to media here, they didn't need to - he handed himself in.

From what I've read, he wasn't told why he was wanted, only that there was a warrant for his arrest.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

From what I've read, he wasn't told why he was wanted, only that there was a warrant for his arrest.

It'd take a seriously out-to-lunch character to not know what the arrest warrant was for. I know why he's been arrested. You know why he's been arrested. I'm sure he knows why he's been arrested.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It'd take a seriously out-to-lunch character to not know what the arrest warrant was for. I know why he's been arrested. You know why he's been arrested. I'm sure he knows why he's been arrested.

We all know why he's arrested. But I'm not sure he knew what the arrest warrant was for.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

We all know why he's arrested. But I'm not sure he knew what the arrest warrant was for.

He was arrested because of an european arrest warrant from Sweden whose authorities suspect him in a case of having sex without protection with two women who only wanted to have protected sex with him.

But we all know that's only the official reason since there is nothing else they can put him behind bars for, all the whistleblowing things they would want to torture him to death for, fall under free speech.

[OreoCookie]

@Talesin
You've missed my earlier posts and the purpose of the smiley

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Taliesin
You've missed my earlier posts and the purpose of the smiley

Ah, now I get it...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have to say I think I agree with you, OreoCookie. I don't think Assange is that great of a guy, and I imagine he's out in left field politically, but I have to give him credit for being a non-violent thorn in the side of an increasingly tyrannical US government.

I think this statement is bizarre. It's not like there is anything controversial about the operation of the State Department from the perspective of your usual gripe about big government and unconstitutional powers. I don't see any tyranny in our foreign policy, at least, not any more tyranny than has been the norm for the past 200 or so years. Even if you think the USG, and the Presidency in particular, is exercising undue powers, it stands to reason that you would still want the powers they are due (e.g. foreign policy) to be exercised effectively. Otherwise you are just being vindictive.